Friday, February 21, 2020

Bill Josh and when the fringe right uses leftist censorship.

I've been in a spirited debate in a Facebook Group, Citizens for Kalama, discussing reasons to oppose their most recent failed school levy.

Earlier today, I was explaining a post I had made in another Cowlitz County group, Cowlitz County News. (CCN)

There's a state representative by the name of Jim Walsh, R-19, who uses social media as a campaign platform.  Nothing wrong with that.  Facebook can be a useful tools for politicians, even those using it to take credit for things that, well, they really don't deserve credit for.

Like many claiming GOP membership, Walsh has shown a critical lack of vision and that, it would appear, his label of "Republican" is frequently more a matter of convenience than reality.

 Whenever Walsh does anything, he takes to social media to brag about whatever it is.

Well, one of the people who runs CCN has completely bought into the Walsh cult, and he simply will not tolerate statements of opposition to Walsh, particularly those that are specific and accurate.

Now, I find it impossible to support anyone who voted for the horrific McCleary budget scam that has helped to both cause our property taxes to explode AND using billions of our tax dollars, heavily enrich the WEA generally and teacher's unions specifically.  With his vote FOR McCleary, Walsh betrayed us as much as Rivers, Wilson or Paul Harris.  The result has been major property tax increases as McCleary is implemented, and, the issue that was used to try and sell McCleary, that it would put an end to school levies, is, as expected, completely ignored.

Further, in response to the recent State Supreme Court ruling that fully applied I-276 (1972) (which had the short title of the Public Disclosure Act) to the Legislature (who had literally taken it upon themselves to decide they were exempt from that initiative) Mr. Walsh dropped (actually, in this case, "dropped" means "wrote") a bill that he felt "clarified" the Supreme Court's decision.

Which brings me to the LONG title of I-276:

The official long title of the Public Disclosure Act was
An ACT relating to campaign financing, activities of lobbyists, access to public records, and financial affairs of elective officers and candidates; requiring disclosure of sources of campaign contributions, objects of campaign expenditures, and amounts thereof; limiting campaign expenditures; regulating the activities of lobbyists and requiring reports of their expenditures; restricting use of public funds to influence legislative decisions; governing access to public records; specifying the manner in which public agencies will maintain such records; requiring disclosure of elective officials' and candidates' financial interests and activities; establishing a public disclosure commission to administer the act; and providing civil penalties.
Now, I boldfaced parts of that title on purpose.

Mr. Walsh's bill would have gutted I-276, using the following language:
2) This section shall not be construed to modify the scope or

25 applicability of any other exemption to disclosure provided by law.

26(3) For the purposes of this section, "constituent" means any

27 member of the public, except:

28(a) Lobbyists required to register under chapter 42.17A RCW,

29 public employees who lobby under RCW 42.17A.635, and lobbyist's

30 employers as defined in chapter 42.17A RCW, when acting on behalf of

31 another person or entity; and

32(b) Public officials acting in their official capacity.
The language Walsh used would have specifically exempted  communications of any type from lobbyists, public employees, any company acting on behalf of another person and, of course, any public officials "acting in their official capacity."

The big question?

That's where the boldfaced parts came in:
An ACT relating to campaign financing, activities of lobbyists, access to public records, regulating the activities of lobbyists; governing access to public records; specifying the manner in which public agencies will maintain such records; requiring disclosure of elective officials' activities;
Why?  What is Walsh trying to hide?  Why is he doing this?

Now, when you look at this, there can only be so many reasons.... so many motives.

Sadly, none that I can think of that rise to the level of honorable.  It looks like I'm going to have to look into this and find out.

Now, I've made several attempts to discuss this horrific bill that simply ignores the will of the people while protecting legislators (of which, Mr. Walsh is one) from the transparency required by the initiative with Mr. Walsh.

He refuses.  That does not stop him from publicly castigating me because somehow, the WAY I write about this legislative abortion OFFENDS Mr. Walsh.

Earlier, I mentioned that I had responded to a post I can no longer access, wherein the poster assured me that Walsh had done no such thing of what I claimed he had done..

I spelled out, by excerpting the bill and providing links to the bill itself, in excruciating detail, how, in fact, Walsh had done the exact thing this woman had claimed he had NOT done.

Fast forward a few hours.

This is where I tie it all together.

Those in rabid support of the Kalama levy, which lost 56% no to 44% yes, are, in some part, a brutal lot.  Some have demanded that I be removed from the page because of my opposition to their effort.  Some demand that I move out of the area. Others attack me individually.  There was a thread late yesterday that must have had a 100 or more posts of some of the most obtuse, misleading and inaccurate crap I've read about the motives for those opposed.

After all, it "for the kids" (tm).

Suddenly, out of nowhere, this was posted in the Kalama group:






 


"Someone."  Right.  Because Josh is an expert on all things.... me.

"So I sent them a link."

Interesting.  One wonders why he would have such a link, and chances are, Josh lied when he wrote that. which is ironic, considering.  And if HE sent "them" a link?

How did HE wind up posting it?

Is there any doubt posting this was retaliatory, childish, playground crap?

The link goes to a story, written about me, that is 19 years old.  It was a huge, above the fold expose' by the local daily democrat newspaper.... a page they've maintained for 19 years, just for occasions like this.

But the fascist aspect of it.... the communist aspect.... is in the above pictures of the little chat I had with Josh as a result.

And, of course, because of this 19 year old story, Josh is using it to ban me from his Facebook group. The irony is his claim that he doesn't "like or appreciate liars."

It would seem, then, that perhaps he should... also ban himself?

And, it's NOT because I wrote the goods on his hero, Mr. Walsh, you understand, but it is, instead, as a result of a 19 year old, partially accurate hit piece by the local daily rag in Clark County.

Josh, of course, has taken it upon himself, no doubt at some state rep's urging, to attempt to silence me... or, at a minimum, discredit me.

How.... democrat of him.

Nothing that I've written about his hero, Walsh, is inaccurate.  But I suppose Walsh is hearing about it and he believes that cacophony can be brought down to a dull roar by engaging in this sort of thing.

And having Josh carry his water while he keeps his skirts clean.

This ain't my first rodeo, you see. One knows about the use of surrogates when one is attempting a verbal political assassination.

Their problem?

I have been attacked by experts.  Physical threats, death threats, elected officials who made a serious effort to have me fired (Right, Senator Rivers?) and except for my volunteer efforts to help veterans, I am completely retired, so that option isn't really available any more.

I loathe politicians like Walsh.  And Rivers.  And Wilson.  And all of the others who betray Republicanism with all of their cutely worded double talk excuses.

What happens next?

I have no idea.  But I expect Mr. Walsh will be seeing the issues of his McCleary betrayal and his efforts to destroy the Initiative we voted into place a great deal more than he might otherwise have seen it.

And he can give Josh all of the credit for it.

No comments: