Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Reminder to Sen Lynda Wilson (D-17) You want lower property taxes after you helped make them explode?

Most every day, in most every way, those we were stupid enough to elect to office frequently return the favor by concluding that we're clueless idiots and then proceed to vote that way... all while telling us something completely different.

This blog has been warning anyone who's read it for the past several months that ALL of us in Clark County, including ALL of us in the 18th and 17th Legislative Districts, are facing MASSIVE property tax increases.

The prime driver of that is, of course, Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers (D-Strategies 360) who was in charge of negotiating this massive rip off... and her sidekick, one Sen. Lynda Wilson (D-Tracy) who voted for this insanity to allow the Supreme Court and their leftist sidekicks, the WEA to bend us over and nail our wallets from behind as a result of the McCleary decision that the Legislature SHOULD have ignored.

Just last summer, Wilson and Rivers were up in front of the Clark County GOP PCOs, lying their political asses OFF, including Wilson who GUARANTEED us a "lower property tax statement."

The moment she babbled that, I knew she was lying.  I have addressed that here repeatedly and backed up my claims with the chart from the Office of Program Research the Legislature uses to both write legislation AND to get finance notes on the costs of their bad-idea-fairy fantasies.


Every one.

Without exception.

I warned people.  Peter VanNortwick, the county assessor, warned people.  And when the increases hit?

They hit like a sledgehammer.

So, what do we see now?

Wilson, having been run over by a constituent truck for being a liar, NOW tells us this:


Let me get this straight.

One of the liars BEHIND our property tax explosion is NOW "advocating for lower property taxes?"

How the hell does THAT work?

Perhaps she SHOULD have been advocating for them when it MATTERED.

And let's remember, like every other legislator in SW Washington except for Rep. Vicki Kraft, Wilson ALSO voted to end any transparency for legislators under the Public Records Act that We, The People, voted into place!

The Legislature's failure to stand up to state Supreme Court tyranny and then their decision to screw us sideways because of their lack of guts, should be a HUGE election issue.

Those who voted for this insanity, shouldn't even be allowed to VISIT the state capitol, let alone be elected to work there.

You CANNOT, on one hand, have voted for the budget that screwed us and hurt us by causing our property taxes to explode... and then go around claiming that you're "advocating for lower property taxes" when you, in large part, ARE WHY THEY ARE SO HIGH TO BEGIN WITH!

My guess is that every RINO who voted to hurt us this way has some version of Wilson's "The Voters Are Stupid Act" going on right now.

They need to be held accountable.  They need to understand that there is no excuse for this idiocy.

And they all need to be voted out of office... and the lapdogs they want to bring in (Hoff) need to be kicked to the curb.

Open border types get busted in the face by the Supreme Court: illegal aliens are NOT entitled to bail.

Some things are blatantly obvious: Allowing those who are here illegally to be let OUT here on bail?

That's idiocy wrapped in stupidity.

Absent immediate deportation, which should be the standard, of course; keeping these people locked up until they wave any effort to stay seems like an obvious action to take.

I loathe illegal aliens.  I loathe governments at all levels who support them and front for them.  I loathe the ideas that those here illegally appear to get benefits and rights that our own homeless do not get.

The US Supreme Court, in a 5 to 3 vote, ruled that Courts cannot make an extra-Constitutional judgment (aka "constitutional avoidance") as a basis for skirting the Constitution to legislate from the bench... which, far more often then not, is what the 9th Circus is known for.

Of course the dissent in this case is dead wrong.  They rail on about what the founding documents and principles say... but I guarantee you this: there is nothing in those documents that first, supersedes the Constitution of the United States and second, that allows those here in violation of the laws of this land to remain here as if they were citizens.

Illegals are just that: illegal. Leftists have called me everything but green for that position, not the least of which involves being racist (I suppose my half-Filipino son might disagree) and that such an accusation is borne of cowardice in the face of factual law.

I want EVERY illegal, regardless of color, religion, gender, sexual preference or any OTHER classification, OUT of here.

I believe that to be a relatively easy goal to achieve.  But rest assured, I could care less if you're brown, white, or a one-eyed Turk from Stuttgart... if you're here illegally??

You need to leave.  Whether you do it voluntarily... or do it with our boot up your ass.



Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., left, joined all of the majority opinion, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented from the bench. CreditBrendan Smialowski/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that people held in immigration detention, sometimes for years, are not entitled to periodic hearings to decide whether they may be released on bail.
The vote was 5 to 3, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority. Justice Stephen G. Breyer summarized his dissent from the bench, a rare move signaling intense disagreement.
The majority ruled on narrow grounds, saying that the immigration laws do not by their terms authorize the hearings. It sent the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, instructing it to consider whether the Constitution requires the hearings.
The Ninth Circuit had ruled that bond hearings are required after six months to determine whether detainees who do not pose flight risks or a danger to public safety may be released while their cases proceed. The court based its ruling on an interpretation of the federal immigration laws, not the Constitution, though it said its reading was required to avoid constitutional difficulties.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority on Tuesday, said that this interpretive approach, called “constitutional avoidance,” was unavailable here, as the words of the immigration laws were plain. “The meaning of the relevant statutory provisions is clear — and clearly contrary to the decision of the court of appeals,” Justice Alito wrote.

Monday, February 26, 2018

Confusing motion, with action. Why getting rid of so-called "bumpstocks" makes zero difference.

Those demanding the banning of so-called "bumpstocks" because they fire a lot of bullets quickly need to get a grip and a clue.

There are techniques that would work with almost ANY magazine-fed weapon.  Getting rid of bumpstocks is going to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to resolve this issue.

Don't believe me?  Check this out:  (LANGUAGE WARNING!!!!!)

But oh my GOD, we HAVE to do SOMETHING.

And, in fact, we DO have to do "something."

But getting rid of bumpstocks?

That is ABSOLUTELY the best example of bright, shiny object politics... since it will accomplish nothing except to make certain clueless anti-gunners feel better.

More failure on the part of the local GOP?

Well, March is just around the corner and the political incompetents continue to show their inability to do their jobs.

Here, from the GOP's own candidate list, is the current situation involving the number of races where GOP candidates are needed... but have not surfaced.  (Please ignore Davey Delete's obvious screw-ups on this list.  When you shouldn't be allowed to run an elevator, it's not surprising that you can't handle a simple web page that a 4th grader could keep accurate.)
We have 277 Precincts in Clark County; If your precinct does not currently have a PCO, the County Chairman may appoint you to fill the seat. If you are interested in being a precinct committee officer, please email: DavidGellatly@ClarkRepublicans.com
If you're not a rabid Davey Delete supporter, don't even bother asking. 
* Vancouver City Council, Position No.1: Vacant
Yes, this seat was filled weeks ago.  No, Delete doesn't care enough to update the information.
* US Senator: Maria Cantwell - Democrat Incumbent 
  • (Pending Republican Announcement)
* LD49 WA State Representative Pos 2: M. Stonier - Democrat Incumbent 
  • (R Candidate Needed)
* LD49 WA State Representative Pos 1: S. Wiley Democrat Incumbent
  • (Pending Republican Announcement)
* Clark County Treasurer: Doug Lasher - Democrat Incumbent 
  • (Pending Republican Announcement)
Davey finally figured out that Lasher, who's been the Treasurer since the dawn of time, was a democrat.
Clark County Council Chair: Marc Boldt (Incumbent I)
Odd that Davey doesn't seem to want a Republican to run against Boldt.  Why is that, exactly?  And no, county chair is NOT a "non-partisan" race.  Folks should be hammering Insane Clown over this one.
Clark County Utility District, Comissioner, District No. 1: Jim Malinowski, Nonpartisan 
Meh.  Non-partisan races are just that. Commissioner is spelled with TWO m's.
Several Nonpartisan District Court and Sumpreme[sic] Court Positions as well. Will list if endorsements are made.
Only ONE "m" in Supreme, dillwad.

But, there you have it.  The 49th is getting a pass... Not that this GOP could ever win there... the leftist county chair is getting a pass because that moron Crain would vapor-lock if the GOP ran against Boldt and she's carrying Davey's water like Gunga Din.

The party mechanism is as shattered as Davey's spelling... and the RINOs wouldn't want it any other way.

His idiotic lawsuit apparently continues... and he's spent much more time... geometrically more time... attacking those smart enough to oppose him in his own party than he has working to get candidates to run against democrats.

But then, we all knew that was going to happen.... didn't we?

The lie of the "Big Tent."

As their own worst enemy, the democrats are hard to beat.

We have a similar attitude among the local clowns running the GOP, who so far have yet to make their leftist bent result in a single election victory... of anyone.

The "Big Tent" label is an obvious lie, of course... and it's a dandy explanation as to why the left has such a difficulty in making inroads into GOP bastions. 

They're a group of political piranha, cheerfully willing to politically slaughter anyone that doesn't toe their line, even those that have been elected.

Here, the leftists are known for their obviously fake claim that THEY are the party of the so-called "Big Tent," a label which falsely infers that multiple perspectives are welcome.  Pro life?  Forget it.  Not so sure about the self-mutilation resulting in fake women or men?  Don't support open borders?  Don't support keeping criminal illegal aliens in this country?  Pro tax cut, anti-union, pro-accountability?  Oppose the cancer of Obamacare or so-called "sanctuary cities?  Locally, oppose the CRC/Loot Rail scam, a state income tax, Inslee's gas tax scam?
What are chances that such a democrat would get party support?

Roughly the same as a that of a conservative getting local GOP support: none at all.

For example, his own party has abandoned Congressman Dan Lipinski, a conservative democrat from Chicago of all places and endorsed his fringe-left opponent.

Anti-abortion Democrat snubbed by party for reelection

The party's campaign arm has declined to endorse Rep. Dan Lipinski, one of the most conservative Democrats, who faces a challenge from the left.

This article is merely an acknowledgement of what we've all known for years... the disease that has taken over the democrat's party... and infests the GOP... is obvious by the outcomes we see.

And anyone politically involved around here for more than 10 minutes is well aware of the saga of Sen. Tim Sheldon (D-Shelton) He's a guy the state Dems have spent tens of thousands of dollars to not only keep from getting elected, but to get him unelected as well. 

There are others punished by the Dems... some here locally... for failing to support the entirety of every element of what the modern, fringe-left democrat party has turned into, but you get the drift.

As the left lurches further in that direction, they abandon centrists and if you're a conservative you can surely expect the Tim Sheldon treatment as they attempt to ram downtown Seattle-variety leftists down the throats of even the most rural areas.

Not unlike, come to think of it, the RINOs who vote like liberal democrats are attempting to do the same in the 18th with sock-puppet Larry Hoff.

At this point, any Establishment type fake Republican that bothered to read this is scratching their heads and exclaiming.... "but you're no different! You're being a hypocrite!"

Am I?

Are Republicans supposed to vote like they're democrats?  The GOP is SUPPOSED to be known as the part of smaller, more efficient government.  LOWER taxes.  LESS regulation. 

Are they supposed to lie to get elected like, most famously, Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers lied about her opposition to gas tax and tab fee increases?

Are they supposed to be conducting negotiations with democrats for $5.5 billion increases in state budgets with zero accountability or performance standards, while being hired by a democrat campaign firm?

Tim Sheldon is a Wharton School of Business graduate with a UDub MBA and, therefore, likely the smartest guy in the room.  He has proven that as a both a state senator and county commissioner (and he is both) he can handle himself.  And he's far more conservative than the 4 fake Republicans running this county, party label notwithstanding.

The fake Republicans infesting us at every level are... and have been... all about bigger, much more expensive government, billions of dollars in increased taxes with zero accountability... and all without asking us.

Is the party endorsement all that important? 

We're going to have a golden opportunity to find out this election.

Not only in Lipinski's race, but Diane Feinstein has run into a problem, since the uber-fringe-left democrats in California have dumped her as well.

Here locally, the leftists are in a fist fight to lose to Rep. Vicki Kraft, between Army/Marine veteran James Tolson, who has been running against Kraft for several months, and latecomer Tanisha Harris, who nearly beat John Blom (D-Realtors) who was saved by a quarter million from the state Realtors who own him like the 13th Amendment was really the 13th Suggestion.

Tolson has shown himself to be politically a bit to the left of Lenin and sadly, his campaign seems to have become a series of fringe-left memes.  Harris has been endorsed by most establishment leftists much like Rivers' sockpuppet (Hoff) has been endorsed by most area RINOs.

For example, the local dems don't even mention Tolson as a candidate on their "candidate links" page, because, well, I guess that Tolson running for several months hasn't given them time to list him... or something.  Harris, as you might expect, IS listed.

Isn't it odd that the left is fielding so few candidates here locally?  But then, when so many in office are fake Republicans voting likes democrats, why bother?

It's much like Davey Delete failing to mention that a Republican candidate is needed to run against my moron brother-in-law for county chair.  But then, Republican candidates are needed to run against every RINO in office, so I suppose none of this is terribly surprising.

A lack of a message can be just as much a message as a sign... a 4X8 sign.

Right, Davey?

Saturday, February 24, 2018

SB6617 and the Art of the Legislative Lie: Sen. Jaime Pedersen, Chair of Senate Judiciary

By now, the blowback from the insidious SB 6617, which exempted everything the legislature does from public inspection, has been ferocious and obvious.

As a result, the sheep that have voted for this in many instances are merely cutting and pasting the suggested response to the bipartisan anger (bipartisan for the most part, many local leftist sheep would be OK with the democrats if they re-instituted slavery) that has resulted from this scam produced by one Sen. Jaime Pedersen (D-Seattle) who is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here is that response in its entirety, jam-packed with lies and half-truths all the way up to its brown eyeballs.  It's full of it, actually.

The author of this crap thinks us stupid.  The pity here is that while many of us were born on a Saturday, we weren't born LAST Saturday, and this clown thinks we were.

This is what's known as a Legislative SNR, or a "Sincere Non-Response."  God Knows while I was up there working for Boldt, *I* wrote enough of them to know one when I see one. 

My comments to each paragraph are boldfaced and italicized.

Thanks for your message and for sharing your concerns regarding ESB 6617, the Legislative Public Records Act. I support ESB 6617 and voted for it this afternoon when it passed the Senate by a vote of 41-7. The House also voted to approve the bill this afternoon by a vote of 83-14. My understanding is that Governor Inslee intends to let the bill go into effect without his signature, so it will become law next week. I apologize in advance for a long response but wanted you to understand my position, since I think that the bill has been widely misunderstood.

(Inslee's actions here show him to be the same kind of coward as the Legislators who passed this shithole.  He should veto it and send them back to the drawing board or he should have the guts to sign it.  His cowardice has been noted before.)

Since the Public Records Act passed in 1972, the legislature has consistently maintained that the legislature is an independent branch of government, not an “agency”. We have therefore made our own rules about what documents are public. The judicial branch also takes the position that it is not subject to the Public Records Act and has adopted its own rules. About a year ago, various media organizations sued, claiming that the Public Records Act should be interpreted to cover the legislature. Just over four weeks ago, a Thurston County superior court judge ruled that although the legislature is not an agency, individual legislators’ offices are agencies and are subject to the Public Records Act.

(What the Legislature has "maintained" is meaningless.  The Legislature has been and frequently is flat out wrong.  And isn't it amazing that as an "independent branch of government," they had zero problem bending us over and raping our wallets for multiple billions of dollars because some OTHER branch of government TOLD them to do so?

Many other Legislatures in our country have maintained a great many things in error.  For example, many democrat-controlled Legislatures maintained slavery was legal. We had to show them the error of their ways.)

This ruling overturns settled law from the last 45 years in this area and produces absurd and unworkable results. For example: I have one full-time staff person. If Judge Lanese’s opinion stood, I would have to appoint my own public records officer; adopt rules for public disclosure in my office through the Washington Administrative Code; and be available at least 30 hours a week year-round for public inspection of records.

(Utter nonsense.  Total lies.

When I was a legislative assistant, we were constantly warned: Anything we wrote, anything we received?  Subject to public disclosure. I went to work up in that Den of Inequity in 95.  Was that 45 years ago?

Here's the thing: had this issue merely involved "constituent privacy," then this bill would have only addressed that.  But it went far beyond that issue and Peterson's lies don't change that.

Even during the interim, when the Legislature isn't in session, he has a full time staffer.  Had this insidious garbage merely addressed the matter of constituent privacy, then issues concerning constituents could easily have been declared non-public record.

Further, like the way these same clowns kowtowed to the Supreme Court on McCleary, they easily could have put together a clearing house for all such requests, precisely like they did (and Petersen acknowledges this since that, in effect, is what they did do ANYWAY) in this legislation anyway for the slop they ARE allowing us to see
. (see below))

So the legislature has done exactly what Attorney General Ferguson said we should do: change the law to clarify how legislative records should be treated. The bill does not merely codify the legislature’s current interpretation of the Public Records Act. It also adds substantial new categories of records (including legislators’ calendars and letters and e-mails from lobbyists) that will be subject to public disclosure. These documents have never been public before. The legislature will also create a new public records office and has funded several positions in the supplemental budget to staff it. I view these changes as a significant step toward transparency.

(Oh.  So we just did what we were told?  SO much for that "independent branch of government garbage; they gave that up when they became an adjunct to the judiciary branch on McCleary.  That a leftist like Sideshow Bob told them it's OK to provide themselves with cover from transparency and they went ahead and did it does nothing.

Providing blanket exemptions for everything before 1 July of this year is no triumph of transparency like this liar would suggest: this is the ABSOLUTE example of peeing on our legs and telling us it's raining.  This is a proof that this scumbag thinks were idiots.

He's feeding us a crap sandwich that doesn't even have any bread, and then he's telling us it's delicious.

As I mentioned above, he's also confirming that they've set up a new office to handle this, PRECISELY like they could have WITHOUT restricting our right to see what the hell these people are doing.)

The bill does continue to protect certain categories of documents, such as constituent correspondence and the location of meetings on our calendars. I think that these exceptions are balanced and appropriate. I receive 10,000-12,000 e-mails each session from constituents. Many are form e-mails from advocacy groups. Should a marketing firm be allowed to do a records request to my office for everyone who has e-mailed me about gun safety? Others share very personal information and seek my help in resolving their problems. These range from government benefit issues to sensitive health information to challenging family situations. If constituents knew that their correspondence could wind up on the front page of the Seattle Times, I believe that it would have a significantly chilling effect on the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. With respect to the location of meetings, women legislators have shared concerning stories of being stalked. That would obviously be much earlier if anyone could find our locations at particular times well in advance.

(Again, pure garbage.  If the concern was merely constituent correspondence? 

Then pass a specific bill LIMITED to "constituent correspondence."  Include in the bill a requirement that no commercial enterprise be granted such a request.  The "personal information" nonsense is addressed by limiting this wall TO "constituent correspondence."  In regards to "calendars," I'm not interested in protecting female legislators any more than I am in protecting male legislators.

After all, they demand gender equity, don't they?  If they get stalked, they can do what any other victim of stalking does.  This, then excuses nothing.

Or, in the alternative, redact the locations if Peterson is so damned concerned over this non-problem.)

I am very skeptical of the claim that lobbyists will “de-register” to avoid disclosure of their correspondence. Our laws regarding lobbying disclosure are thorough and would pick up people who are making regular contacts with us on behalf of employers. We can monitor this and see whether any significant numbers of lobbyist employers stop paying lobbyists. I am not a betting person, but I would be willing to bet that a year from now there are no fewer lobbyists or lobbyist employers than there are now. Remember also that NONE of these records have been previously disclosable, so although this change may not go as far as some open government advocates want, it is a substantial move toward transparency.

(So, throwing us the lobbyist bone is supposed to be some sort of improvement?  That's supposed to be better than the Judge's Ruling that provided for total transparency?  And how is it that Peterson didn't bother to mention that it doesn't apply to correspondence BEFORE 1 July.  What are they hiding from these same people that came in BEFORE July 1? 

Professional courtesy?  Sharks taking care of sharks?  It's a "substantial move," alright.  A "substantial move" towards covering their asses.)

Another concern I have heard is that ESB 6617 does not permit judicial review. The legislature is a separate branch of government with its own unique issues related to records. The judicial branch made its own rules for what would be disclosable under GR 31 and GR 31.1 and that branch supervises itself. No fees or penalties of any sort are available. The House Executive Rules Committee and the Senate Facilities & Operations Committee are well-positioned to administer this process and handle appeals quickly and efficiently.

(More self-delusion.  If I'm a judge and I want to look at any of this, I'm going to look at it.

But knock off this "separate branch of government" garbage.  After screwing us sideways on McCleary, as if you couldn't have told the Supreme Court to go pound sand, you're no longer a separate branch of anything.  You are, in fact, the Court's bitch.  And my guess is this garbage heap is going to get tossed; or at a minimum, only apply from 1 July forward.)

Some people have suggested that internal complaints should be public as soon as they have been filed. I have been a member of the Legislative Ethics Board for more than 10 years and have seen how people try to abuse that process to gain points in political campaigns. The basic protection that the Ethics Board has created is that complaints do not become public until the Board has made a determination that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Ethics in Public Service Act has occurred or has dismissed or otherwise resolved the case. Similarly under ESB 6617, every allegation will result in a final report, once all of the facts have been uncovered. But while the complaint is in process, I believe that it is appropriate to keep the records confidential. I should also note that although the Senate has made these records available previously, the House has not. This is a significant change.

(Fine.  But this is no justification for failing to enable the public to gain access to ALL non-constituent communications.

This is a judgment call, to be sure.  Criminal cases keep information under wraps, though most all of this comes out during the trial.  So tailor the bill to address "constituent communication" AND this issue.

This isn't hard.  It's not Legislative Rocket Science.)

I have also heard concern that the changes to the law will apply only prospectively. ESB 6617 effects a substantial change in the law about what records may become public. It is appropriate to have its effect be prospective only so that people who are communicating with the legislature know what to expect about how their records will be handled. Legislators can also adjust their calendar practices if necessary.

(Of COURSE it's only "going apply only prospectively."  How else can we cover our asses?

The problem?  On the surface, this appears to be a Constitutional violation. Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Since this bill is "prospective" from July 1 of this year, the argument is that anything up UNTIL that date is still under the Judge's decision and can still be considered a "Public Record" for purposes of the Act.
"It is appropriate to have its effect be prospective only so that people who are communicating with the legislature know what to expect about how their records will be handled."
Let me decode this: "We need the people who own us to know that what they write us in the future will be subject to public examination, but they also have to know that the REST of the corruption they've engaged in is still safe.  We wrote it that way on purpose.")

Finally, I must say that I regret that the bill did not have time to go through the regular committee process. That is driven mostly by the fact that Judge Lanese ruled in the middle of the legislative session and refused to stay his decision. By the time our counsel had drafted the bill and had it ready to introduce, we were already past the time when the bill could have been heard in the regular process. If the ruling had come in October, we could have done this differently. But of course this law – like any other – can be amended at any time and I think it is likely that future legislatures will make revisions to it as we gain more experience with how the new process works.

(That's just another outright lie.

The Legislature has the ability to suspend just about ANY rule.

If the scum behind this had WANTED it to go through the committee process... you know... so they could get public input on this criminality?

They damned sure COULD have done it that way.

The decision to skip committee hearings was driven by one factor and one factor only.  These scum did NOT want public input.  They are covering the asses and by going this route, they didn't need to hear witness after witness testify that they were and are full of crap.

I've seen counsel draft bills in hours.  The Lanese decision took place WEEKS ago.  This doesn't even meet the standard of a LAME excuse.
"...past the time when the bill could have been heard in the regular process...
There are lies, damned lies and THIS lie.

As I pointed out, these people can suspend ANY rule.  They can change ANY agenda.  They can do damned near anything they want.

And that INCLUDES holding hearings on this crap fest.

If the ruling had come last WEDNESDAY, they STILL could have held hearings on this tripe...

... rest assured, there were no hearings because they didn't WANT hearings.)

I strongly encourage you to read the bill’s intent section, which is I think a very crisp and thoughtful statement about why it is appropriate to have a statute crafted specifically for the legislative branch. http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/…/B…/Senate%20Bills/6617.E.pdf

(By all means, read it.  It's as senseless and self-serving as the bill itself.  It justifies nothing and explains nothing that reflects the reality behind this bill.)

Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or comments.

(No, Senator, I'm not going to bother.  My guess is your server is already melting down and you are so terribly corrupt and you think us so terribly stupid... what would be the point?  You'd just ignore us anyway.)

Best wishes, Jamie

Senator Jamie Pedersen
43rd Legislative District
Olympia Office
JAC 235
P.O. Box 40643
Olympia, WA 98504-0643
(360) 786-7628
Legislative assistant
Penka Jane Culevski


So, there you have it.

A bunch of self-serving pap from a Legislator who wants to cover his own ass along with that of his colleagues.

This is NOT an exercise in increasing transparency... in fact, it's just the opposite.

It's an effort to build the walls between those arrogant enough to govern us and those they would govern.  It's a dramatic increase in the already horrific lack of accountability these scum are screwing us with.

It's disgusting.  It's despicable.  And it's legislators being legislators.

Leftist apologists will be out in force, to be sure.  No one who voted for this will suffer for it.

Although God Knows, they make US suffer for it.

Friday, February 23, 2018

The depth of the betrayal of SB6617: the Legislature's speed of sound bill to remove itself from public scrutiny.

If you were driving in the vicinity of Vancouver around mid afternoon, you may have noticed a mushroom cloud in the vicinity of Brush Prairie.

If were privy to such a sight, that was the aftermath of my head exploding in anger at the passage of SB6617, the "Nunya" bill passed without debate, without discussion and without committee hearings or any other kind of public input that enables those in the Legislature and their staffs to hide their malfeasance and misfeasance in office by removing themselves from the Public Records Act where THEY belong more than any other person, group of persons or agency in this entire state.

I am told be someone up there that they voted for this bill to keep "constituent communication private."

During MY 6 years on staff, I never once received ANY constituent communication that NEEDED to be "private."

But let's first look at the bill in question so you can see how badly we've been screwed.

Here is the bill's history.  This turd was dropped YESTERDAY and passed TODAY.
Feb 22
Read first time, rules suspended, and placed on second reading calendar. (View Original Bill)
Feb 23
Floor amendment(s) adopted.
Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading.
Third reading, passed; yeas, 41; nays, 7; absent, 1; excused, 0. (View 1st Engrossed) 
Feb 23
Read first time, rules suspended, and placed on second reading calendar.
Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading.
Third reading, passed; yeas, 83; nays, 14; absent, 0; excused, 1. 
Feb 23
President signed.
Feb 23
Speaker signed.
Feb 23
Delivered to Governor. (View Bill as Passed Legislature)

As I stated, I was on legislative staff for 6 sessions (around 6 years or so) and in all that time, I NEVER have seen a bill move that fast.


You don't see anything there about committee hearings in either House.

And why do you suppose that might be?

Could it be that the scum jamming this down our throats didn't WANT to hear from us?

Nah.  Not everyone is like Ann "Gas Tax/Property Tax" Rivers.... are they?

Could it be they didn't WANT video coverage of witness after witness sitting in front of their cowardly mugs and punching them silly for this insidious slap to the face to the citizens of this state?

Gee.... you think?

Here's the summary from the Bill Report of what this legislative abortion actually does:
This is a result of a judge's decision in a lawsuit brought by the Seattle Times and Associated Press where the decision handed down stated that, in fact, the Legislature was NOT exempt from the PRA.

Of course, the PRA was the result of an initiative (I-276) passed some 45 years ago by the voters of this state, but these slime don't care any more about that than they do another initiative we passed, the $30 car tab initiative, I-695.

Seen a $30 car tab lately? 

Here's the list of what us mere mortals CAN get.
Legislative Public Records Subject to Disclosure. The following items are defined as legislative public records: Ÿ
committee meeting documents, such as correspondence, amendments, and minutes; transcripts, records of hearings, written testimony, and other documents filed with committees;

internal accounting and financial records;

leave, travel, and payroll records;

bills and bill reports;

reports submitted to the Legislature;

final dispositions of disciplinary proceedings;

information from legislators' calendars of meetings or events related to official legislative duties, if created after July 1, 2018;

correspondence on legislative business to and from non-legislative employees who are not constituents, if created after July 1, 2018; and any other record officially designated as such.
So, we're told that this was a vote to "protect constituent privacy."


Then why is it we can get information about Calendars if they were made after July 1 of this year?

What's so magic about 1 July?  What about BEFORE July 1?  What are they hiding?

How does withholding calendars from BEFORE July 1 "protect constituent privacy?"

Why does ANY of this apply to ANYONE who is NOT a "constituent" at all?

What's so magic about July 1 when it comes to correspondence with non-constituents?  What about BEFORE July 1?  What are they hiding?

Here's the reality:

Our legislature is corrupt.

The communications they want to protect?

They want to protect them to protect themselves from public scrutiny.

Because, as I've frequently pointed out, the LAST thing these people want is accountability.

That's why their campaign websites and literature are utterly worthless, a mass of words that say nothing, explain nothing and pledge nothing.

At a minimum?  It's politically embarrassing.  At a maximum, it's proof of misfeasance in office.

How do I know that?

Here's the test: IF the concern was ONLY constituent privacy?

Then that's all this would address.  The ONLY thing that would be exempted would be just that: constituent communication.

There wouldn't be any need for dates, such as July 1, 2018.

CLEARLY, then, this legislation which stinks like rotten meat, goes FAR beyond "constituent privacy."

Legislators aren't priests.  There's no doctor/patient relationship, no lawyer/client relationship, no priest/penitent relationship.

I want to know and review ALL of the communication between MY Senator and the pot interests who own her like the 13th Amendment was the 13th Suggestion.  Practically NONE of them are "constituents."

I want to know each and every communication Rivers has received from ANY source concerning her effort to ram the horrific gas tax and tab fee increases down our throats.  Practically NONE of them are from "constituents."

I want to know each and every communication Rivers has received from ANY source concerning her effort to cause our property taxes to explode, her sellout to Strategies 360, and the details of the $5.5 BILLION she stuffed in the WEA's pockets.  Practically NONE of them are from "constituents."

I want to know each and every communication Rivers has received from ANY source concerning her effort to resurrect the CRC/Loot Rail scam that she had worked so hard to kill a few short years ago.  Practically NONE of them are from "constituents."
And guess what?  If this law survives?

I can't get ANY of it.

And THAT is the kind of thing this smoke-filled room, midnight behind closed doors crap is designed to do.

The LAST thing they were concerned about was "constituent privacy."

The last thing they considered was what was "right."

The LEAST important thing to them was SUPPOSED to be the MOST important thing to them.


And the thing they've done here?  And the way they've done it?

Proves they don't give a DAMN what we think, want or desire, as long as they can wave a wand and cover their asses.

"Constituent privacy?"

Don't pee on our legs and tell us it's raining.

And, by the way?  BOTH parties shafted us on this (Senate vote: 41-7, House vote: 83-14) PRECISELY like they screwed us on the gas tax/tab fee jam, the resurrection of the CRC scam and our current, ongoing, property tax explosion.
I have been disappointed and angered by what these people have done to us before... but nothing comes close to this.


Need another reason to despise our local legislative scum? Legislators exempted themselves from state open records law.

Regular readers know that I made a request based on a court decision that the legislature is subject to open records law like anyone else so I could investigate Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers' corruption.

So, is anyone surprised that without debate... without any committee hearing... these scum shielded themselves from public examination?


Senate Bill 6617 was brought to the floor without any opportunity to take testimony or public input... no committee action of any kind (except, apparently, a "work session" where no public input was allowed). After all, we can't have  few hundred people show up to lynch us for screwing them, can we?

And the following local scum in the senate voted for it:

Rivers (of course) Wilson, Braun, King and, of course Cleveland.

About 10 minutes later, the House did the exact same thing: EVERY local House member (EXCEPT Kraft) voted for it.

Pike, Vick, Harris, Orcutt, Deboldt, Stonier, Wylie, Johnson and McCabe,

This bill, on the surface at least, appears to be unconstitutional in that it applies to records before the bill was passed and certainly before it was enacted.
Retroactivity. The bill is retroactive, applying to all records requests and lawsuits under the PRA as of the effective date of the act.

Appropriation: None.

Fiscal Note: Not requested.

Creates Committee/Commission/Task Force that includes Legislative members: No.

Effective Date: The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.
Yeah, because, you know... it was an EMERGENCY for these scum to do this to us.

There is no excuse.  No reason.  Nothing that makes this bill...or the process used to get to it... acceptable.


Think about this the next time you object to the observation that there's zero difference between Republicans and democrats.

Today's ratcheting gun question:

"Why would anyone need a high capacity assault ratchet that tightens 30 nuts per minute?

Only the government should have that power."

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Be wary of candidates/incumbents who won't tell you what they're going to do.

As this election season spools up, here's a quick tip.

Candidates with integrity?  Candidates with courage?  Candidates who want to be held accountable?

They are happy to tell you EXACTLY what they will do if elected.

I noticed a couple of years ago that campaign web sites were becoming more and more generalized, and less and less specific.

For example, what is the value of a candidate who says, "transportation is my top priority" if they fail to tell you how they intend, specifically, to address that issue?

Take Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers' campaign web page.

In 2012, when it came to transportation, she was pretty clear:

Seems rather specific to me:

Oppose gas tax and tab fee increases and trash the CRC/Loot Rail project.  Provide evidence as to why the CRC Scam is a bad idea.  Of course, that doesn't really explain how or why it's such a great idea NOW, you understand, but I'm sure Rivers will explain it all to us.

Rivers, of course, was lying about that whole thing, but we didn't know... and now, she can be held accountable for that.

So, what was different 4 years later, in 2016?


Our transportation system is the backbone of our economy and plays a critical role in our quality of life.  Anyone who must travel our freeways to get to work knows that we have significant concerns that must be addressed.
Projects must be prioritized so that those that reduce congestion, increase freight mobility, increase safety, and support economic development are[sic] moved forward first.
Voters want assurances that major projects will not become “Christmas Tree Projects”, that pontoons will not sink; that Bertha can drill, and that we can hold government accountable for their actions.  This knowledge guides my actions when it comes to transportation in Olympia.
That was all Rivers had to say about THE biggest economic issue confronting us in SW Washington.

No specifics.  No detail.  The CRC Scam that she now rabidly supports will do absolutely NONE of those things she claims are her priorities, of course.

What happened to the specifics?  What happened to the "I will oppose" X and "I will support" Y?

They disappeared.  Rivers didn't tell you she was going to resurrect the CRC Scam.  It's not like she wasn't planning it back then... she just didn't want you to know.

The entirety of what she wrote in 2016 was a lie, of course: because, as the meme says:

And that's why you should never vote for anyone who does not tell you EXACTLY what they will or will not do if they are elected instead of a Rivers' type exercise in making you THINK she listens, making you THINK she cares, making you THINK what YOU want matters.

Her actions make it clear that the LAST thing that concerns her is what YOU think or what YOU say, or what YOU want.

That's nowhere on her radar screen.

The reason I'm bringing this up now is because of Rivers' cowardly sock-puppet, likely being positioned to take her Senate seat when the time comes (Sorry Brandon).

You can see the Rivers' Glittering Generalities all over her sock puppet's website.

For example, here's what Hoff's website has to say on transportation:


Essential elements to a vibrant region are effective and efficient transportation routes and systems. Washington’s commerce, employment and the safety of our citizens depends on it. We absolutely must address the ever-expanding issue of congestion and freight mobility on the I-5 corridor in a methodic[sic] and common sense manner. I will be committed to expeditiously promoting positive transportation decisions.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF ANY VALUE in his babble...except, of course, it isn't HIS. Clearly, this garbage is another Rivers product.

If anything, Hoff, being brand new to elective politics, should be showing EXCRUCIATING detail in his plans.

Instead?  We get no detail at all.


It's so he can do any damned thing he pleases and do it without any accountability.

Even now, as a candidate, he's too much of a coward to answer questions requesting specifics.

But that character flaw aside, his complete and utter lack of detail on ANYTHING he wants to do is designed to allow him to do whatever he wants: increases taxes like his masters want; increase fees, represent the downtown mafia like Rivers... ALL of that is being done for HIS benefit... and not ours.

Be warned.

Clark County GOP website idiocy continues...

When last I checked into the local RINO site (a little over 3 weeks ago), I smacked Davey around because he was so ignorant that he didn't know Doug Lasher, Clark County Treasurer, was a democrat... and has been one in office... for a paltry 34 years or so, stupidly listing him as a Republican on the County GOP website.

I also pointed out that Insane Clown has failed to list a need for a Republican to run against my blithering idiot brother-in-law, Chair Marc Boldt... who is ALSO not a "Republican."

How is HE listed?

What's so strange about that?

When Davey Delete WANTS a GOP candidate to run, the position says this:

(R Candidate Needed)

Doesn't seem to say that after Boldt, does it?

Odd, isn't it that Clown doesn't believe a Republican should run against Boldt.

Why do you suppose THAT is?  I've asked him... and he won't tell me.
Maybe all of you reading this should ask him... you know, to get an explanation of this back-stabbing crap Delete is so known for?  Try this link:  DavidGellatly@ClarkRepublicans.com

When you've got a party chair that doesn't know any more about this county than he does performing an abdominal resection, that kind of incompetence is par for Davey Delete's course.

But that's not all... the boy apparently hasn't yet mastered the art of the SPELLCHECKER.

As a product of Seattle Public Schools, I freely admit I'm not the world's greatest speller...

But even I can tell that something's wrong with this:

Where did this boy go to school, again?

Then there's this bit of incompetence:
Two weeks ago, the city council of the Vancouver Soviet appointed someone to the gig... just another member of the leftist Amen Choir to be sure...

But Davey's micro management being what it is and his failure to keep abreast of what's going on around here politically shows that this appointment seems to have gotten past him.

What's it all mean?

First, like his political incompetence, his proof-reading skills ain't much better.

Second, no one seems to be reading this web page, or someone would have pointed his incompetence out to him.

Third, he's coming across like an 8th grader.

Davey, do yourself a favor: get somebody else to take over the web site.  I get that a lack of morality combined with a certain narcissism makes you want to run everything, but like the Party you've conned, there's no need to run EVERYTHING into the ground, is there?

And as this idiotic lawsuit starts winding down... maybe it's time for you to drop it?

Because when you lose... how is THAT going to look... that you tried to bully your opposition into silence? 

It's the kind of thing that will dog you wherever you go.  Run for some other office... try and move up the party ladder... and between that and the mug shot collection, things ain't going to look all that great for you.  KWIM?

Monday, February 19, 2018

Three democrats speak out on DACA and Trump

It's a pity that we have this utterly, completely worthless do-nothing woman we have "representing" us in Congress.

There are so many, many others out there who actually could DO something, instead of mailing it in all these years and wasting our time, effort, energy and money.

We could have had a hard-charging crusader who would be more concerned about making something happen... then trying to convince people she's actually accomplishing something.

What are her politics?  The democratian shows us:

Washington lawmakers vow to resolve stalemate on immigration issue
That's an utter and complete joke, BTW.

Neither of the two crones on the left have any say, and the worthless do-nothing on the right killed any gravitas she MAY have had by trashing President Trump during his campaign.

But NO ONE has ever claimed Herrera has been the brightest bulb on the tree.

What she HAS been is a reliable democrat vote when they needed/wanted one.

Where was Herrera when it came to voting to get rid of Obamacare?

She voted with the democrats.

So the headline of this idiocy is Washington lawmakers vow to resolve stalemate on immigration issue.

They have no say.  They have no impact.  They my as well "vowed" to learn the art of levitation.

But that's not the point.  The point is that once again, our worthless waste of skin congresswoman joined with the democrats to ignore the will of the people...  because like most people in office, she could care less what WE want.

We are cursed with three utterly vacuous hacks who have done far more damage than good.  If they are to join in ANYTHING, it SHOULD be to join in a demand that the list of those scum who wasted millions of our dollars to pay off their sexual assault/harassment cases because they couldn't keep their mouths shut, their hands to themselves and their pants zipped.

They ALL knew, and they all knew for YEARS.  They ALL kept silent.  And NONE of them have demanded the release of that list.

Meanwhile, one can only hope that the DACA roundups begin on March 6th.

I know *I* do.