Sunday, January 31, 2016

Washington State GOP "Roanoke Conference" a symptom of the "Establishment" disease.

The left is giddy that the predictable outcome of the Washington State GOP "Roanoke Conference" was all RINO, all the time.

No less a light than Seattle PI fringe-leftist-in-chief Joel Connelly reports:

State GOP straw  poll chooses Rubio


Updated 9:15 pm, Saturday, January 30, 2016
This looks like press release schlock for the most part, but it is what it is.

Those concerned that even the Washington State GOP is out of touch, besides the obvious (How many state wide offices are GOP?) need not look beyond this gathering of the quintessential establishment of the GOP state wide.

Rubio may, perhaps, be the GOP nominee. So might any of the others. That's not the point.

The point is that, once again, these clowns got together and engaged in their Boger-like hatred of conservatives generally and, effectively, ignored the leading GOP candidate in the country.

In fact, if the article is to be believed, he wasn't even in the top five, and their number one guy is a clown who's already pandering to the left by caving on the illegal alien issue with rewards for those who piss on our laws instead of sanctions for those who enable them.

This is part and parcel as to why the schism is so deep and wide within the GOP... and why there's a very good chance our next president will be a felon who uses national security emails as her own personal brand of toilet paper.

If any of the candidates for president are not named Trump, Cruz or Carson... I'll vote for the democrat just to make my point... since in this state, the democrat will win anyway.

Thoughts on "the Establishment."

Little Jebbie's response to the "Establishment" dig at the last debate seems to have impressed a wide number of people.

For some reason.

But your last name has nothing to do with Establishment credentials.

That your dad and brother were president?

Nope.

That your mom is Barbara Bush?

Nope.

What automatically makes you "Establishment" is much the same thing that makes you a RINO: you think your view is superior to all others who disagree and you have no problem doing what the left wants because you're incapable of thinking for yourself and you hate all things conservative.

I despise RINOs and I despise the Establishment, although typically, they're one in the same.  They all believe they're the smartest guy in the room and to them, NOTHING is more important than getting someone elected who has, or had, an "R" after their names.

Such is why the moron RINO/local Establishment types coalesced around my psychotic brother-in-law instead of actually, well, supporting a Republican for county chair... while 61% of the voters of this county wanted someone else.  Those pulling Jeanne Stewart's strings (Tracy Wilson) did a masterful job.

As if it would matter, given that there was no difference of any kind between Boldt and Dalesandro and the agenda since the fringe-left nutjob scammed his way back into the job would have been exactly the same as how the Three Stooges have damaged us now, even if Dalesandro had won.

No... you see, Little Jebbie could have the blood lines he has and actually been anything BUT "Establishment."

But he was The Chosen.  He was The Guy.  And he lost me, as Rubio and Christie and others have lost me, by caving on illegal aliens... which is a sign of the weak character that RINOs/Establishment types possess.

I would rather vote and lose while doing the right thing, then act as if principles were of no importance and that keeping your word when you run is not SUPPOSED to be the cornerstone of honorable politics... situational ethics be damned.

You know, like claiming you'll get rid of Obamacare.

Or claiming that you'll oppose a gas tax and/or tab fee increase to get elected.

RINOs/Establisment types are just the opposite.

They'd sell their own children to get elected and then not give a DAMN what they promised to get the job OR what the people you allegedly represent want for you to keep the job.

Just ask Ridgefield Barbie, our own proto-Establishment worthless Congresswoman.

No, Jebbie isn't "Establishment" because of who birthed him or who those who've gone on before happen to be.

He's Establishment because like most leftists, he views laws as suggestions and is deaf to the cries of the people of this country who want our borders secure, our illegal aliens removed, our budget fixed and our deficits ended.

The base is seething.  And we get clowns like Carolyn Crain and fakirs like Marc Boldt and liars like Ann Rivers, not ashamed to have lied to us, but instead, ashamed to have made the promises in the first place, according to her.

I will never again "hold my nose" and vote for a RINO because, as the local RINO Guru told us, "things will be 'different' once the GOP controls ___________" (fill in the blank.)

If you're a RINO, I will not only not vote for you, I will vote against you.  Because time after time, Republican control of anything from the county council to the state senate to the US Senate has proven to be a joke.

I would rather have a true leftist who makes no apologies for what they are and tells the truth, than the most lying RINO who happens to see advantage in putting an "R" after their name to manipulate the people into voting for them... (Greg Kimsey) particularly when they act like their promises and positions are as worthless as they are... and what The People want is equally worthless.

Because, these RINO/Establishment types tell me, "that's how business is done."

Right, Sen. Gas Tax?

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Seriously:


Tennessee House bill to allow CWP holders to sue if shot in a gun free zone:

I'm rarely "gun free," unless it's required by law.  I do my best to obey the law.  And here's a take that may begin the process of causing the entire idiotic concept of "gun free zones" to be reexamined and ultimately abolished.
 



Bill allows suits over gun-free zone incidents


If a Tennessee grocery store bans guns on its property and a black bear or wild hog kills or injures a person who otherwise would be carrying his or her gun, the gun owner would be allowed to sue the property owner if a newly introduced bill became law.

Sponsored by Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, Senate Bill 1736 has a very specific purpose.
“It is the intent of this section to balance the right of a handgun carry permit holder to carry a firearm in order to exercise the right of self-defense and the ability of a property owner or entity in charge of the property to exercise control over governmental or private property,” the bill states.
 
To accomplish that goal, the legislation allows any Tennessean with a valid gun permit to sue a property owner in the event of injury or death provided the incident occurred while in a gun-free zone.
 
The legislation places responsibility on the business or property owner of the gun-free area to protect the gun owner from any incidents that occur with any “invitees,” trespassers and employees found on the property, as well as vicious and wild animals and “defensible man-made and natural hazards.”
The bill does not define defensible man-made and natural hazards.
 
A handgun carry permit holder who is injured by any of the aforementioned would be able to file a lawsuit within two years of when the event occurred, provided they meet the following requirements:
  • the plaintiff had to be authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident
  • the plaintiff was prohibited from carrying a firearm because of the gun-free sign
  • the property owner was not required to be posted by state or federal law but was posted by choice of the defendant
According to the language of the bill, the right to sue the property owner does not extend to individuals without gun permits.

Update on the Rivers PDC Case.

Well, after again waiting 2 days for the PDC investigator to get back to me, I decided I'd had enough, and I sent the following letter, via email, to the Attorney General, Legislative Ethics Board and the Executive Director of the PDC.

Here's the letter:
Dear Mr. Attorney General,

I am writing to you in the hopes that your good offices can take a look at a current issue involving the state’s Public Disclosure Commission.

Approximately a year ago, I was reviewing my state senator’s PDC filings (Sen. Ann Rivers - R 18) when I noticed a huge jump in claimed funds raised.

Overnight, the amount exploded from around $7000 to around $175,000.

The date was February 10, 2015.

I looked at the number of donors/donations at that time being reported by Rivers for the 2016 campaign cycle (74) and I knew that such a figure was impossible…. if each donor had maxed out to Rivers, she wouldn’t have even $74,000.  Further, there was no indication of a transfer from surplus funds that would have accounted for the remainder of the money, particularly since, to the best of my ability to look up her surplus fund account, she had never accrued more than $30,000.

I didn’t say or do anything about it, but I noted that with the increase, this first term senator had somehow managed to become THE best-funded legislator or candidate for the 2016 cycle in the entire state.  By far.  More than, for example, the Senate Majority Leader.

I found that a bit odd, but I believed that the system would correct itself, so I took no action.

Months went by.  Nothing happened.

Now, the importance of the PDC filings is obvious: I won’t review them here.  But the visual of having a huge fund-raising edge over any other serving legislator or candidate speaks to using this vastly inflated number as part of a shield to deter any other prospective candidate from filing against her in the upcoming election cycle.

While I and a few others know the number she is currently showing (Around $255,000 or so… still the most in the state) is vastly inflated, those pondering a political run against Rivers would certainly entertain second thoughts upon seeing her war chest.

To that end, I called the PDC office late last summer and discussed this situation with an investigator, requesting that she look into this issue informally to get the number corrected.  While talking to me, she looked up Rivers’ file and determined that on February 10 of last year, something had happened to inflate the number.  I asked her to look into it, contact Rivers and ask her to correct the number informally.

Months went by and nothing happened.  Rivers number kept growing.

Finally, on October 5, I filed a formal complaint with the PDC, via fax, complaining that the number, which has been certified to me by an accountant as being totally inaccurate, needed to be corrected.

I received no acknowledgement of any kind.

Weeks went by.  On November 23, I again filed the same complaint with the PDC, a copy of the first complaint to get the number corrected.

Again, I received no acknowledgement of any kind.  More weeks went by.

On New Years Eve, I contacted the PDC via email to find out what was going on.  They replied to me on January 4th of this year that the investigator who had been assigned the case, Bill Lemp, would be out of the office until the 6th of January and that he should provide me with an update at that time.

He did so.

Hi Kelly,
I am working with Senator Ann Rivers new treasurer, once I received the information I have requested I will be able to move forward with this case.  I have had a face-to-face meeting with Senator River's treasurer and our filing specialists are also working with the treasurer.

Once I make a definite decision on how to proceed with this case, I will let you know.

Respectfully


William A. Lemp III
Lead Political Financial Investigator
360-753-XXXX

OK.  Reading between the lines, he’s acknowledged there certainly IS an issue here, otherwise, no face to face meeting with Rivers’ treasurer would have been required, nor would their “filing specialists” need to “work with” the treasurer.

I thanked Mr. Lemp for the update, on January 6th and on January 11, he responded by telling me that as ”new information comes available and I am able to move forward on this case I will let you know.”

I have heard nothing since: I emailed Mr. Lemp on Wednesday asking for an update and I have heard nothing as of this writing.

Time is running out to get this fixed. 

As I see it, the PDC knows the number is inaccurate, but they are unable to determine exactly how it became that way.

Rivers has obviously known the number is wildly inaccurate, but because it benefits her in her effort to keep her seat, she has done nothing to address the issue, allowing this obvious lie to stand.

The issues are clear:

1. Can PDC computers be manipulated in any way?

2.  Why didn't Rivers act to address this issue?  There's no way she doesn't know; there's no way she hasn't known for almost a year that this number is flat wrong.

3.  Why has it taken, literally, almost 4 months of formal requests and months before that after an informal request to even begin to address this issue?

4.  Why is this taking so long?  Is Rivers exerting some sort of influence, directly or indirectly, on the PDC staff?  What's going on here?

The reality is that I have tried to use the system in place to get this issue resolved.  No formal investigation is taking place, or if it is taking place, it’s not listed on the PDC web site.  I have called, emailed, explained and cajoled… but nothing is being done that I can see and Rivers’ fundraising number as I write this remains unchanged… at a quarter of a million dollars, that she simply does not appear to have.

I ask your office to look into this and take the necessary action to address this matter.

At a minimum, the people of this state MUST be able to maintain confidence in the system we voted into place and look at the PDC web site assured that what they find there is absolutely accurate numbers as to how much and who is providing it and where is it going.

As of this writing, I’m already wondering how many other reporting candidate's numbers are inaccurate and who else may be showing the incorrect information that we count on in our state’s electoral process.

Thank you for your time.

K.J. Hinton
Constituent – 18th Legislative District.

cc:

Katrina Asay, Chair of the PDC
Anne Levinson
Grant Degginger
John Bridges

Legislative Ethics Board
Well, it's fairly clear that the mail gets read in Olympia.

The case has been assigned a number (Case Number 2495) and alleges violation of RCW 42.17A.235 and .240, for "late or inaccurate reports."  That took place roughly within 2 hours of my sending the emails.  The PDC themselves derived chapter and verse: I had no idea which RCWs were involved or how they would verbalize the allegation(s)

That this fake number developed during session (and during the fundraising freeze) is also of note.

Now, for supporters, there seems to be among them a certain kamikaze element who will say anything, true or not, in response to this... except what they SHOULD be saying:  "Rivers, you screwed up.  Why didn't you fix this?  And what, exactly, are you going to do about it?"

I fully expect some Jim Mains' style retaliation.  But the reality is, as time-honored a defense as deflection may be, that doesn't change the fact of the matter:  Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers' PDC fundraising number is no where near accurate and that she has known that for a year... and because it benefits her, she's allowed it to go on.

Anything else babbled by Rivers' surrogates notwithstanding.

Something else to think about:

It's amazing how Nazi-like those in government can become when those they would govern disagree with their personal agendas and remind those in office that they are supposed to work for us... and not those special interests with big check books who pay their bills.

Watch the upcoming campaign become vicious and brutal when the wrong toes are stepped on.

Those in elected office will engage in keeping themselves and their "friends" in office by any means necessary.  Whether they're right or accurate will make no difference to those of the Nazi mindset.

Right, Mr. Mayor?


Thursday, January 28, 2016

Thought for today.

Why is the PDC stalling on the Rivers case?

Several months ago, I contacted the PDC via phone and asked them to informally look at the amount of money she was reporting as "raised."  I was told that whatever happened took place on February 10, 2015 (during session) when approximately 30 forms were filed and the amount of money she was reporting went from about $7000 to $175,000.

What's problematic here is not what you might think: that she found a way to game the system to inflate her amount of money to scare off possible challengers.  After all, even now, she has, if that number is to be believed, raised more money than any other legislator or legislative challenger in the entire state.

No, the problem is that in the first phone call to the PDC, the investigator I talked to indicated there was an obvious problem.  And they then proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it.

The problem is that Rivers knows and HAS known that the figure is false and has, apparently, made no effort to correct it.

There are only one of two possibilities: Rivers lied to the PDC so much that the computer couldn't handle it... or there is some sort of a computer glitch.

Either way, Rivers' number, which leads EVERY legislator and legislative candidate IN THE STATE is no where near accurate.

The problem is that due to the PDC's inability to get the number fixed, I filed a written complaint in early October and heard nothing.

I refiled the complaint on 23 November 2015 and again, heard nothing.

I contacted the PDC office via email on 31 Dec 15 pointing out that I had filed this complaint against Sen. Rivers and I received my first reply, that indicated the investigator handling the case would be back on January 6.  He contacted me on January 6, telling me that once he made a definite decision on how to proceed on this case, he'd let me know.

Weeks have gone by, and save for an acknowledgement of receiving my thanks for looking into this, I've heard nothing.

The issues are clear:

1.  Can PDC computers be manipulated in any way?

2.  Why didn't Rivers act to address this issue?  There's no way she doesn't know; there's no way she hasn't known for almost a year that this number is flat wrong.

3.  Why has it taken, literally, almost 4 months of formal requests and months before that after an informal request to address this issue?

4.  What's going on here?

My conclusions have been verified by an accountant; there is simply no way that figure showing ($255,000 or so) is legitimate.

The figure showing is no where near the true amount she's raised, possibly as much as $170,000 in overstated amounts.

This whole thing stinks.  And if it doesn't get resolved soon, I will raise it with the Ethics Board AND the AG's office.

We MUST be able to believe in the accuracy of the PDC in properly reporting who is getting money from who and how much.  Otherwise, what good are they?

Yes, the Obama military IS this screwed up:


Checkpoint

The admiral in charge of Navy intelligence has not been allowed to see military secrets for years








In this 2012 photo, Rear Adm. Ted “Twig” Branch, commander of Naval Air Force Atlantic, speaks to the crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Spec. 3rd Class Heath Zeigler)
Vice Adm. Ted “Twig” Branch has been barred from reading, seeing or hearing classified information since November 2013, when the Navy learned from the Justice Department that his name had surfaced in a giant corruption investigation involving a foreign defense contractor and scores of Navy personnel.

Worried that Branch was on the verge of being indicted, Navy leaders suspended his access to classified materials. They did the same to one of his deputies, Rear Adm. Bruce F. Loveless, the Navy’s director of intelligence operations.

More than 800 days later, neither Branch nor Loveless has been charged. But neither has been cleared, either. Their access to classified information remains blocked.

Although the Navy transferred Loveless to a slightly less sensitive post, it kept Branch in charge of its intelligence division. That has resulted in an awkward arrangement, akin to sending a warship into battle with its skipper stuck onshore.

Branch can’t meet with other senior U.S. intelligence leaders to discuss sensitive operations, or hear updates from his staff about secret missions or projects. It can be a chore just to set foot in colleagues’ offices; in keeping with regulations, they must conduct a sweep beforehand to make sure any classified documents are locked up.

Some critics have questioned how smart it is for the Navy to retain an intelligence chief with such limitations, for so long, especially at a time when the Pentagon is confronted by crises in the Middle East, the South China Sea, the Korean Peninsula and other hotspots.

“I have never heard of anything as asinine, bizarre or stupid in all my years,” Norman Polmar, a naval analyst and historian, said in an interview.

In an op-ed in Navy Times last fall, Polmar urged Navy leaders to replace Branch and Loveless for the sake of national security. He cited complaints from several unnamed Navy officers that “intelligence management is being hampered at a moment of great turmoil.”

Rear Adm. Bruce F. Loveless, left, and Vice Adm. Ted “Twig” Branch. (U.S. Navy via Associated Press)
It’s a touchy subject for Navy brass, who have struggled to replace Branch. Twice in the past 14 months, they have taken steps to nominate a new intelligence chief — who must be confirmed by the Senate — but haven’t followed through. There’s no indication that a successor will be in place anytime soon.

In a statement, Rear Adm. Dawn Cutler, the Navy’s chief spokeswoman, said the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation of Branch and Loveless “has not impacted the Navy’s ability to manage operations.” She said the two still perform managerial duties while their civilian and military deputies handle the classified aspects of their jobs.

Branch and Loveless declined interview requests placed through the Navy.

In addition to serving as chief of Navy intelligence, Branch holds the title of the Navy’s chief information officer, oversees the Navy’s 55,000-member Information Dominance Corps and is in charge of many cybersecurity programs.

More:

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

I'll be voting "no" on the Hockinson levy

Between having an almost $3200 gas tax bill hung on me, my brother-in-law jacking up our property taxes 2% and my disappointment in the outcomes my children had from graduating from Hockinson High School, I just am not motivated to fork over additional hundreds of dollars beyond the thousands I've already dropped into the district since I moved here almost 11 years ago.

Our taxes are going to be going up even more.  Currently, we're paying, according to the article, $3.51 per thousand of assessed value... values I expect to sky-rocket over the coming years.

In 2019, we are supposed to pay $3.94 per thousand, or 43 cents more per thousand with many additional thousands over our current value as housing/property price continue to increase.  As a percentage, how much of an increase is that?   Around 11%, more or less.  Is inflation running that high?

Don't think so.

Further, Hockinson teachers made the unfortunate choice to abandon their children for bigger pay checks last year. 

I've had enough.  And when those factors are combined, there's no reason to reward any of those who would do any of this to us.

Why Trump bailed: the mindset.

Look, I get it.  At the local level, it's certainly no different than a local GOP candidate blowing off the Columbian editorial board: can you imagine a true conservative wasting their time in front of Lefty Lou Brancaccio and his gang?

You go in there knowing that no matter what you say, they're going to try and twist it, exaggerate it and then find yourself in a situation like Sen. Don Benton back in 2000:
“...although sincere and well-intentioned, lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the important policy questions for Southwest Washington and the state. About the only attribute in his favor is the fact that he’s not Don Benton. And on that admittedly flimsy basis, we endorse Peterson.”
Who would ever want to go back to that kind of jihadist court?  What good does it do to discuss the issues with a set of closed minds who would, from all outward appearances, sell their own children to damage those who oppose their political agenda?

When they hate you, they hate you.

So, Trump believes the last time he did a FOX News debate, their purpose generally and Megyn Kelly's purpose particularly was to damage the Donald personally... individually... because he's not on their list of acceptable candidates.

It doesn't matter if it's true: the perception is the reality and that's the reality of Trump's perception.

After all, look who Kelly brought on to her show to help her beat the hell out of Trump:





                                                                                                                                                                   Of course, the simple solution would be to dump Kelly from the reporters holding the interrogation. 

Millions of viewers are going to blow this off (as I have blown every one of the debates off, given how worthless I believe them all to be) because Trump isn't going to be there; after all, save for whining about Trump and ganging up on him, what are you going to hear during this debate that hasn't been said before... repeatedly... ad infinitum?

Stubborn people are involved here.  The question is, however, who needs who the most?

Does Trump need FOXNews?  Or does FOXNews need Trump?

Opponents of Trump are all lathered up over his decision to bail on what he likely believes to be a replay of the first FOXNews debacle... where Kelly became the news instead of facilitating it in ways that mattered.

They use terms like Trump is "afraid," and they demand "one on one " debates.

Viewing it in strictly political and media terms, if Trump and Cruz, for example, were to have a tête-à-tête in front of a few million people... who would benefit from that the most?

Cruz, of course.  The entire point of all of this is for Cruz, et al, to try and tear Trump down.  Time's a wasting, and they ain't got much of it left.

Of course, much the same things Trump's opponents are saying about him were said about Reagan when he blew off the last debate before the Iowa Caucuses in 1980.

How'd that work out for them?


So, who wins in this scenario?

What are the talking heads babbling about this morning?  Who is their main subject, every 5 minutes or so?  On likely all networks and all TV News shows?

Trump.  Trump, once again, has become the center of the news universe.

For months now, THE political story has been Trump... followed closely by the inevitable flame out of HillBilly.

The man is a master manipulator of those who typically like to manipulate the most.  He has scored tens of millions of dollars worth of free publicity.  He's giving a clinic on how to get the media to do your bidding... for free... the euphemistic "earned media" that candidates live to get at least a puddle sized amount... in this case, in comparison to Trump's ocean.

How many times have many of these same people blasting Trump for his decision on this debate pronounced his candidacy dead?  How many times have they been right?

I could care less if any of these guys (and Carly Fiorina, of course) show up at or do any of these dog and pony shows.  I've haven't watched any of them this cycle.  I keep going back to Washington State being a political backwater and how, with our May vote, there is little likelihood that our primary will make any difference at all in determining the outcome for either major party.

The idea that Trump "fears" Kelly is as ludicrous as claiming Reagan feared anyone when he skipped the debate; or Benton, Madore or Mielke or any other conservative who views their efforts to get fairness from the Columbian "fears" Brancaccio when, instead, they simply won't go along with his program where he sets them up to beat them down when they, no matter what they so or do, already know that Brancaccio will do his best to destroy them regardless.

That is the local history of our "unbiased" daily democrat swindle sheet.  And like it or not, that seems to be the perception of Trump concerning the FOXNews debate.

I reiterate: I am not supporting anyone at this point because it's a fool's errand to do so.  I do, however, support many of the ideas and approaches of a Trump or a Cruz or a Carson.

The incessant yammering of those opposed to Trump being "afraid of Megyn Kelly" is a crock.  And I believe it's going to cost FOX a hell of a lot more than it's going to cost Trump.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

New Hampshire requires ID to vote... why don't we?

For years now, I've been advocating a voter ID law.

But the entire point of the Washington Secretary of State's office under GOP control appears to have been to reduce their workload.

The concept of a motor-voter ID law that RINO auditors and Secretary of State types love is to reduce their workload.

Particularly by failing to require proof of citizenship to register, or a valid ID TO actually vote.

Voter participation continues to plummet as more and more, we realize that our votes are meaningless.  Typically, we're lied to and abused by candidates to get elected, our voices are ignored at every level, we're scammed, swindled and gamed... all while a select few wander around scratching their heads, going, "gee, I wonder why voter turnout sucks?"

Well, was that supposed to be the justification for motor-voter?  Allegedly, to increase turn out/participation?

Well... how's that working out for us?

What does Nobel Prize-winning former President of South Africa, the late Nelson Mandela have to say about voter ID?  Looks like he pretty much supported the idea of election integrity through, well, a requirement for the voter to prove who they say they are.

Meanwhile, leftists whine that voter ID laws "repress the vote."

Our vote seems fairly "repressed" without the help of any such laws.

But I believe what's driving the left is their innate sense that illegal votes will typically... USUALLY... break their way.  (But not always, of course.)  And that's the motive behind their complaining about efforts over election security.

Many on the left, knowing that their position is indefensible if common sense is applied, do what they always do when their rice bowl is at risk of getting dumped: whine, complain and name call.  But then, for certain element in politics, mud-slinging is the name of the game when their indiscretions are at risk of being exposed.

And we all know how much the establishment hates to be called names. 

Meanwhile, this is the first election in New Hampshire that requires voter ID.

Strange, isn't it?  You have to have an ID to do damned near anything in this country, from driving to buying a house to, well, you name it.

That makes this issue entirely bizarre:  Requiring ID to write a check and in some cases (such as our local garbage transfer station) even have an ID to dump garbage (In conjunction with a credit or debit card)...

.... But not to vote.

Of course, we are apparently one of 5 states where our ID is currently, essentially worthless to get on a military base and soon, to get on a commercial aircraft... which makes me wonder:

Will requiring secure ID at Washington State airports, when that requirement is finally implemented, result in "suppressing" the numbers of airline passengers engaging in air travel?

Nah.

And requiring an ID to vote won't result in a reduced turnout for anyone but those who benefit from voter fraud.

Right, Barry?

Monday, January 25, 2016

Trump lead expands in Iowa. Who's responsible for this guy, anyway?

It was neck and neck between Trump and Cruz.  Iowa GOP Senator Chuck Grassley just attended a Trump rally.  The Iowa state GOP Chair has been positive about him.  GOP Gov. Terry Branstad, governor of Iowa for 21 of the last 23 years, told people not to vote for Cruz.  Over the past few days, it looks like the shift towards Trump shows some inevitability... since what was neck and neck is now Trump +11.

It looks like it's starting to happen.

I have been indicating all along that if the GOP didn't stop running away from Trump's issues... instead, co-opting many of them... that a Trump victory is inevitable on the GOP side.

I haven't picked anyone, yet.  After all, what good would it do to pick someone out of the pack when the decision as to who the nominee will be is made weeks before our own primary? 

But like the man or loath him, his finger is much more firmly on the pulse of GOP base discord than about anyone else.

This man is a product of an Establishment within the GOP who believes that trying to be all things to all people is the path to victory.  They campaign out of fear.  Their problem is summed up by looking at the GOP-controlled Congress's inactivity in the face of multiple promises to act against Obama policies... and the horrific Ryan budget that funded everything Obama wanted, including illegal aliens, refugees, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood and a variety of other disliked to hated programs.

Establishment perfidy is the thing.  So when those who govern as if the democrats were still in the majority look around and make the attempt to define what is and what isn't a conservative, all they do is inflame the situation even further.  You see, the best way they COULD have done that would have been to govern as if they weren't named, say, Ryan... or Herrera.... or Rivers.  THEN, what they had to say on the subject would be much more palatable among the base... the worker bees like me who put in thousands of hours in getting people elected... frequently to see them act as if they forget any promise they make to get the job when it conflicts with their agenda.

It's at all levels... even the state level.  Did we, for example, give the GOP control of the senate so they could ram a gas ax down our throats to the tune of roughly $1600 for each man, woman and child in the county?  Without asking?

I would vote for just about any GOP candidate running against an incumbent who would condemn such action... as long as they kept their word when crunch time arrived.

Trump is a symptom of the Establishment disease.  And the GOP has no one to blame but themselves.

Stop whining and deal with it.

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Sometimes the stupidity of Obama frightens me. Defense Secretary Carter: We need American boots on the ground.

Captain Obvious speaks?

Back in September of 2014, I wrote the following:
Barry, we CANNOT WIN BY AIR ALONE.

Let me repeat that:  we CANNOT WIN BY AIR ALONE.

We MUST put troops on the ground because YOU let ISIS get out of hand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

And now, 15 months or so later, after ISIS has expanded by thousands of square miles, tens of thousands of fighters and hundreds of millions of our captured dollars with billions in our captured equipment, what does the Secretary of Defense say?


 

DEFENSE

Ash Carter says boots on the ground needed to defeat ISIS

Defense Secretary Ash Carter watches during a change of command ceremony, Thursday, Jan. 14, 2016, at U.S. Southern Command in Miami. Ten prisoners from Yemen who were held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have been released and sent to the Middle Eastern nation of Oman for resettlement, Carter said Thursday. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee)
Defense Secretary Ash Carter watches during a change of command ceremony, Thursday, Jan. 14, 2016, at U.S. Southern Command in Miami. Ten prisoners from Yemen who were held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have been released and sent to the Middle Eastern nation of Oman for resettlement, Carter said Thursday. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee)
Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Friday that the U.S.-led coalition will put boots on the ground in its fight against Islamic State terrorists in Syria and Iraq.
“We’re looking for opportunities to do more and there will be boots on the ground and I want to be clear about that,” Carter told CNBC from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “But it’s a strategic question whether you are enabling local forces to take and hold rather than trying to substitute for them. That is a strategic intention that we have.”

Just Sayin' #3 - By the way, I'm boycotting the Academy Awards as well.

But then, I've been boycotting them most of my adult life.

Because believe me: I care about who gets a little statue as much as they care about whether my Bronco is running right.

I no more give a damn if a black was nominated for an Academy Award than these hypocrites care if a caucasian was nominated for a B.E.T. award... an essentially white-owned (Viacom) cable network where reverse racism is the order of the day.

Just sayin'.

13 Hours (Spoilers)

So, the wife and I go see 13 Hours.

I was already aware of most of it; I've been watching most aspects of it since it happened; from HillBilly's various lies along with the rest of the Administrations effort to cover up their involvement in the slaughter of 4 Americans to watching the GOP-controlled Congress accomplish absolutely nothing to hold Obama/HillBilly accountable for their, at best, malfeasance/misfeasance in office; to at worst, viewing this episode as a road block to the blithering idiot's re-election.

Unanswered questions remain, of course: how could the State Department be so utterly clueless on the issue of Ambassadorial security on the 10 year anniversary of 9/11; why was no instant military response launched, why did the CIA station chief delay the operators from responding on the ground... etc.

Mention was made of AfriCom Commanding General Carter Ham, but no mention was made of Ham's relief and arrest at his command post when he, allegedly, gave the "go" order to mount a rescue operation for the compound in Benghazi.

Opinions vary as to the veracity of those claims.  But it fits a variety of scenarios. Further, that the Administration lied about the cause of this soiree' namely, the YouTube video that Obama, HillBilly and Susan Rice knowingly lied about for days after the deaths of the Americans who expected what any one of us in that position would have expected; namely, American military response efforts to secure the area... efforts that were not made in any appreciable way when it counted.

No mention was made of Obama at all.  The question of "no one answering the phone at State" was repeatedly mentioned, but no one in the Administration was mentioned by name.

Leftists blast the movie and the entire situation as a political ploy. one out to get Clinton.

I have no real idea what the motive(s) behind the movie are here... but if it were based on a hatchet job aimed at Clinton/Obama, I can't see it as being so subtle that their names aren't even mentioned.

It is a solid cinematic effort.  The acting is very good.  The depiction of operators fits the stereotype well, and is likely quite accurate.  The bureaucratic mindset as it interferes with military realities at the local level are well-displayed.

The lack of security and preparation for trouble is well established.  Could this have been avoided?

Of course.  We are, unfortunately, never likely to know the true reasons behind an Ambassador traveling to an essentially insecure location during an obvious time for attacks on weak assets.

But in the parlance, Obama has managed to find ways to systematically screw up boiling water.  And that Clinton carried the party line like Gunga Din is both obvious and troubling: I want my political leaders who lie to at least suffer a pang of conscience while they do it... and she doesn't even have that.

Even if you are generally aware of what happened, go see the movie.  Particularly if, like me, you were foolish enough to believe that part of the Code of Conduct that says

VI
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
Yeah.

Right.

Memo to elected officials concerning this blog.

I was contacted by an elected official yesterday, who, this time, shall remain nameless.

Like many in positions of public trust, this individual did not like what I had to say.

That, of course, is their privilege as it is any reader's privilege... although for many of the haters, I've got to wonder why you bother since you disagree with me so much.

This post isn't about the substance of the post or their disagreement with it.

As I explained to that person, any elected official or candidate may, at their discretion, provide a rejoinder to anything I write on this blog... which, after all (I'm assured) "no one reads anyway," and I will post it as received without editing... although I reserve the right to comment on what I receive.

I rarely get rejoinders, which likely means that a great deal of time, I'm typically right more than I'm wrong.

No, this is about the last message I received from this elected official, which said this in response to the long-standing rule of this blog:
XXXXXXXX, like any other elected official, who disagrees with me, you may feel free to submit a rejoinder, and I will post it on the blog unedited. But over your name.
The response?
I have put it out there but I am not interested is publicly going after YYYYYYYY anymore. (They) understand what happened and I thought you might also like to get some insight so in the future (so) we can get it right.
I have this platform and have had for a decade plus.  I have a perspective.  I believe that the jobs of the county elected begin and end with their departments and they have no greater political impact with the council than I or anyone else.

That at least one of the councilors stupidly tried to use them as an excuse for abrogating her duty to the voters of her DISTRICT instead of acting like a puppet where county electeds are pulling the strings is not a lie.

That's what happened.  And I have yet to see a denial from anyone that it didn't happen as I wrote it.

Assessors access.  Auditors audit.  Sheriffs enforce the law.  Treasurers keep track of where the money goes.  Any other opinion they have is no more relevant than that of a doorman at the Pollard Hilton.

But the decision to unnecessarily increase our property taxes that had been cut to make up, in part, for the 5% of property tax increases my fringe-left democrat brother-in-law implemented has nothing to do with any of you who, if Olson/Green were to be believed, were the proximate cause for Olson/Green to ignore her constituents and vote like a staffer, a RINO and a C3G2 hater simultaneously had their hands up her back like she was a ventriloquist dummy.

You don't like what I write?  Fine.  But don't expect me to assume your political position on an issue that is, frankly, none of your damned business to begin with.

Make all the allegations you like.  But I am not going to be manipulated by anyone.  I am, unfortunately, my texting-while-driving brother-in-law's keeper, because I am unfortunate enough to have this clown governing me.

Somebody, somewhere, has to stand up to the abuse of The Three Stooges.  But even if no one else does... Then I will.

Do not text me again.  If you've got something to say, utilize clarkcountypolitics@gmail.com .  But remember: anything you tell me from now on is subject to being published.

And do not believe for a minute I don't mean it.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

So, whar's the difference between the RINOs and conservatives? Hint: it's not their political positions. (Long)

I've been giving this a great deal of thought since the RINO element of the local GOP committed what amounts to political treason by endorsing and campaigning for my brother-in-law, democrat Marc Boldt.

I hated the very idea.  I couldn't even begin to understand why the RINO element of the GOP would align themselves with the fringe-left Young Democrats and help elect a clown that 61% of the voters of this county rejected.

Why?

Why?

Why?

But as I was watching yet another discussion of establishment/RINO/National Review idiocy on television today... it all came together for me.

A RINO, or Republican In Name Only, has a problem caring about anything that interferes with their agenda.

And "anything," in this instance, includes the will... or the voice... of the people.

They simply don't care what the people want.  What they care about is getting their way.

I have yet to read or listen to a RINO who did not believe to the core of their being that they are superior to people like me in every way.  They know more.  They're smarter.  Those like me who disagree with their positions and philosophies are morons.

Battle Ground's current mayor has come after me publicly for taking Rivers to task.  Of course, within the 18th District, Rivers' betrayal of the voters has, in his eyes, made her a "friend to Battle Ground" which is yet ANOTHER indicator that he, along with Rivers, are simply more interested in getting what THEY want or what THEY believe to be important than they are about what WE want.


And Brent Boger has drank the RINO Kool Aid so much that he has become Rivers' bitch, even going so far as to video me at a town hall meeting, including videoing Rivers' lie that had she NOT broken her word to us, instead of this county getting popped for $700 million... we'd have been screwed out of $7 BILLION.


That's another thing most RINOs have in common: there's no lie they won't tell to justify their political treachery.

Hell, why even bother to have elections when those running are, like Rivers, just going to lie to get what they want while they bend the rest of us over?  What's the point?

But the realization struck me that so very many decisions made by the GOP are made without care or concern over the will of the people they would govern.

Locally, Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers betrayal of her district and this county fits the bill.  But in addition to that, RINOs are coalescing around her.  She has gone out and recruited a RINO to take on a conservative... something even democrats won't typically do... and you know this clown's a RINO because like Rivers, he has rammed tax increases down the throats of those he has governed... and all without asking them.

Why?

Because he doesn't CARE what the people of Battle Ground though, believed or wanted.

Additional examples are easy to find:  The RINO support of Boldt is directly traceable to this one, critical element.

Boldt does not care what we want.  He does not care what we've voted for.  It doesn't matter to him in the least.

And the RINO element aligned with Boldt, including Jeanne Stewart and obvious, easily identified RINO Julie Olson... who has NEVER cared about what the people want or wanted... just look at her support of the CRC Scam and her bizarre, inexplicable "reasoning" in joining with Boldt and Stewart to add additional millions to our property tax burden.
"She responded that the Assessor, Treasurer, Sheriff, Auditor, as well as the "finance team" all testified against the 2% levy reduction."
Which would be swell... if she was elected to represent the "Assessor, Treasurer, Sheriff, Auditor as well as the finance team."

Of course, the reality is that if none of those people existed, she STILL would have voted against us because she doesn't give a damn what we want, and jacking our property taxes back up 2% was on the agenda.

It doesn't matter who they hurt.  It doesn't matter what we say.  It doesn't matter how we vote on the issues to the RINO class.

And look where the RINOs draw their defenders?

Brent Boger.  Many C3G2 haters.  Democrats.  Others like them that have one very telling characteristic in common:

NONE of them care what we think.  Our support or opposition to an issue, a tax, a plan, a project.... meaningless to them and their ilk.

The vitriol even today from the haters like Boldt, who irrationally supported the CRC/Loot Rail scam and still does, even though he KNOWS the majority of this county hates it, still seethes. That none of the RINOs or leftists infesting us have come up with any alternative?

That's merely a symptom of the disease.  Because the RINOs like Greg Kimsey, who was also a strong supporter of the CRC Scam and an outright hater of conservatives have come up with precisely ZERO alternatives to the CRC rip off.

And that's because it's on their agenda... much like the charter we're cursed with and the $700 MILLION Rivers' bill she hung around our neck (easily $1500 per every man, woman and child in Clark County) while doing nothing to give us a voice on this horrific hit to finance King County's transportation boondoggles... it's simply because they don't give a damn about what we want when... or if... it conflicts with their agenda.

That's why Herrera never accomplished a thing on the CRC Scam: she wanted it built.

She wanted the sheep here to BELIEVE she opposed it... but she never did a damned thing to stop it from happening.

That's why area RINO's are coalescing around the RINOs in office who have and are for the indefinite future, in the midst of betraying us ... exactly like Rivers.

That is why, with specificity,  The RINOs in Congress have screwed us, including our own moron from the 3rd Congressional District.

Because they simply don't care.

They believe they can engage in slight of hand and tell us all how much they've done FOR us... as they do their very best to hide all of the damage they've done TO us.

Herrera with her multiple RINO votes in Congress.  Rivers with her complete betrayal and subsequent lies to justify it on the gas tax/tab fee scam.  That RINO Rivers rounded up to run against Pike in the primary, who is of a kind with a HISTORY of screwing his constituents on tax issues PRECISELY like Rivers has done, Shane Bowman.

When you look at the well known RINOs at all levels... the LAST thing they concern themselves with is keeping their promises or pledges... or giving a damn about the will of the people they would govern.


The agony of this aspect is that the longer one is involved in the political realm, the more likely this sort of thing is to happen.

It's the lure of power.  It's the result of manipulation.  It's the weakness of those like my brother-in-law who fall victim to the fawning manipulation of people who don't give a damn about him... except to the extent of how much they can use him to further their aims to achieve their goals at our expense.

But then, as Linda Smith's congressional staffer said:
All of this probably happened because Rep. Boldt is not exactly "quick" and probably had trouble keeping up with Linda when she was explaining it all (the politics) to him.  Nice guy... not quick.  At any rate, the damage control is under way and it is doubtful that she will try to explain anything to Marc again with out a drawing board to draw pictures.
 "Explaining it all (he politics) to him."

You would think that after 18 years in elective office, he might have figured it out.

Any elected official, candidate or supporter who claims to be a Republican, but who places their judgement ahead of those they would govern?

RINO.

It's what enables them to ignore the people.

It's what enables them to ram taxes down our throats without asking us.

It's what enables them to lie to get elected, then lie ABOUT lying... and then lie to remain elected.

Democrats do that sort of thing as a matter of course.  Republicans who believe in that philosophy or governance would be best served by simply switching parties.

But that would require a level of honesty your average RINO is incapable of attaining.

Friday, January 22, 2016

Here's what Seahawk's starting blind side Offensive Tackle Russell Okung has to say about the American Dream

I'm not going to comment.  This is for you to ponder.

Seahawks Lineman Says American Dream Greatest Lie Ever Told

Seattle Seahawks lineman Russell Okung, whose Christian family fled Nigeria, seethes with contempt for the American Dream.

Responding to an essay on economic inequality offered by Y Combinator co-founder Paul Graham, Okung, who founded a Seattle non-profit called GREATER, pontificated:
Some think working hard solves the problems of poverty and institutional oppression and the lack of social mobility. Some think that by sheer determination, one can overcome such issues. But economic inequality isn’t the symptom; it’s the virus that attacks. You, Graham, like the rest of America, have been deceived. You are a victim of the American Dream, the belief that anyone who works hard can move up economically regardless of his or her social circumstances. American cultural optimism is one of the greatest lies ever told.
Okung plays in the midst of a six-year, $48,500,000 contract with the Seattle Seahawks. The deal included a $1,680,000 signing bonus, $29,300,000 in guaranteed money, and an average annual salary of $8,083,333. Despite his salary, and activism highlighting the vile acts of Boko Haram that he discussed with Breitbart Sports a year ago, the offensive lineman rails against the American Dream.
“So many people will never experience their dreams because there are far too many barriers of entry they can’t do anything about,” Okung opines. “And that all goes back to that elitism — the elitism that’s manufacturing economic inequality.”
Of course, while he’s spouting an attack on the American Dream, Okung cites his heroes: “People like Steve Case and Barack Obama, who are actively working to expand capital and invest in untapped talent across America.”

Okung concludes, “I urge you, Graham, along with the rest of the community, to return to your first love. Build people up.”