Memo to Marc Boldt and Steve "Unmarked Bills" Stuart.

.
Dear Marc and Steve,

It has come to my attention that you, Mr. Stuart, seem to be rather unhappy about my blog posts concerning you.

And it has come to my attention that you, Mr. Boldt, feel compelled to threaten others in an effort to control me.

Well, this is my response to that.

I don't give a damn that what I write makes you unhappy, Mr. Stuart. And I don't fricking threaten, Mr. Boldt.

Either one of you have a problem with me? Then do what you have to do. Either one of you think that I am controlled? Then you've got a f&*king screw loose. Either of you have a problem with me?

Then grow enough testicles to contact me directly. But don't you dare threaten anyone I know in an effort to silence me.

When it comes to what I write, there is really, at base, only one question: am I telling the truth when I write?

Take Mr. Boldt, who is my brother in law.

The Marc Boldt of today bears only a passing resemblance to the courageous conservative legislator who would cheerfully tilt at windmills every hour on the hour when he felt the cause was just or the principle was right.

Now, Marc just does what Stuart tells him to do. And that's why Marc lied to me about holding an advisory vote on this horrific loot rail/bridge replacement project this November.

Marc portrays himself as a Republican. Yet, he endorses Steve "Plain Envelope" Stuart for election... again.

Did I mention that Stuart is a democrat?

By endorsing Stuart, Boldt is endorsing everything Stuart stands for, including bridge tolls for 65,000 people. He's endorsing the corruption that Boldt himself told me about the August before Stuart's first election.

Stuart, on the other hand, apparently hates it that I point out that he was the beneficiary of $100,000 in cold, hard cash from tribal casino developer David Barnett when it was laundered through Progressive Majority. Stuart isn't thrilled that I remind the world that he scammed a deal with Craig Pridemore during session a few years back that allowed Stuart to keep some $60,000 in campaign contributions by pushing the application of legislative donation limits, in place now for Clark County, to another year... and another election.

Stuart isn't particularly fond of my frequent reminders that he was a major part of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's campaign... which explains both the bogus, lying strategy that fooled people into believing that Leavitt opposed tolls and the fact that having used it to get elected, he could then flip, counting on a short attention span by the voters.

So what does Marc do? Marc calls another candidate, and warns them that Steve "Check, please!" Stuart might "get involved" in that candidate's campaign, both as if it would make any difference and as if that person actually controlled what I write or when or how I wrote it.

Please remember as you read this that while Marc Boldt has TOLD people he's "talked to" me about my blog, he has NEVER discussed it with me, EVER. So, when he's told Jamie Herrera, who would have been no where without Boldt's "help", that he's "talked to him" about the blog, that is a flat out lie.

In fact, when he talks to ANYONE about "talking" to me about this or any other blog, he is lying about that.

Well, here's the deal.

I spent 6 years overseas in defense of my country in part so I could do this very thing.

I wore the uniform for 14 years total, in all components, so I could, in part, do this very thing.

The question is this:

Do I cede to Marc Boldt or Steve Stuart any ability to censor me or silence me? Do I run away because these people, or anyone else, is mad at me?

Do I?

"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill

Hell no, I don't. And there is much more to come.

If any of you don't like what I have to say, then the simple solution is to avoid reading it.

But don't even think about threatening those around me, ESPECIALLY when you lack the balls to confront me directly.

And an additional memo to Ann Rivers: don't even think about trying to control what, when or who I write about. And to those who think you can control me by attacking her?

Well, we saw how well that worked with Herrera's winged monkeys like Keath Huff, didn't we?
.

Role reversal? Where have the Republicans gone on the county commission?

.
When Tom Mielke ran for commissioner, it was on a simple, populist-based platform of no I-5 Bridge replacement, no light rail and no tax or fee increases.

So, imagine my dismay when I discovered that Mielke wants to jack up our fees for vehicle ownership in the midst of a recession?

Mielke urges higher vehicle fees to fund road projects
Boldt says he’d back effort if property taxes are reduced

By Stephanie Rice
Columbian staff writer

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Here’s how badly the county needs money for future road projects: Clark County Commissioner Tom Mielke, a conservative Republican who owns nine cars, supports increasing vehicle licensing fees.

Mielke said Tuesday that increasing licensing fees would take the burden off developers from having to pay as much in traffic-impact fees.

He quickly added that he would like to balance a fee hike with reducing property
tax rates so homeowners would not pay as much for roads, either.

He said he’s encouraging county staffers to figure out a specific proposal.

“I don’t know how to do it,” Mielke said.

His fellow Republican, Commissioner Marc Boldt, said he supports increasing licensing fees on the condition property taxes were lowered.

They both feel all drivers, and not just property owners and developers, should shoulder more of the burden of paying for roads.

By state law, commissioners could raise the $43 annual vehicle licensing fee by $20 without putting it to a public vote.

If voters so approved, the fee could be raised by as much as $100.

Commissioner Steve Stuart, a Democrat, would be the board’s lone “no” vote. He said the county needs to work with existing funds, ranking projects on a need-based scale that favors safety and attracting business development.

More:

I've got to tell you: I'm not interested in the least in taking "the burden off developers from having to pay as much in traffic impact fees."

Boldt has long since lost many of the Republican tenets of his political upbringing, having voted to allow the county to confiscate our weapons in the event of a declared emergency, having voted for a sales tax increase for meth treatment without referring said tax to the voters; and his lie to me, personally, that he would make sure there was an advisory vote on the bridge project/loot rail when he never intended such a vote to take place; helping to insure that we're burdened with an additional $1300 a year for each of the 65,000 that will come directly out of our local economy.

He rarely supports Mielke's heretofore conservative ideas and has repeatedly failed to even second Mielke's multiple motions for an advisory vote, either with the county or at the CRC.

That he would go along with this under the facade of reducing our property taxes is as much a shell game as the idiot democrats screwing us with an income tax. Any such reduction would be temporary, and therefore worthless.

That brings us to Stuart, who suddenly finds himself in a re-election race, although how much of a race it turns out to be remains to be seen.

Stuart is well aware of his vulnerabilities; his corruption with David Barnett and his slavish desire to throw us under a bus while jamming us with a toll for a bridge with loot rail that we neither need nor want does expose him to some vulnerability... since corruption and massive tax or fee increases during a horrific recession aren't particularly politically attractive to the 65,000 commuters, Stuart's aura of invulnerability is as much a facade as Boldt's Republicanism.

So, here we have the role-reversal. Mielke and Boldt want to jack up our fees. Stuart, in genuine political fear for his future, takes the hero position of "no" on this issue... almost as if it were set up as an election ploy to strengthen Stuart's effort at re-election.

Because whether that was the plan or not, this is the practical outcome.

In the article, Stuart's assumption of a what would otherwise be a Republican political position seems so reasoned and well thought out, since he is, of course, correct.

Why Mielke is throwing this political lifeline to Stuart is beyond me. Why Mielke is carrying this water for the development community who so cavalierly ignored him in 08, giving him essentially no money to run on, is simply beyond me.

Causing the people of this county to pay increased fees so developers get a break will do nothing to increase housing construction; the issue isn't development fees which are all passed on to the buyer anyway. Instead, the issue is the difficulty in getting financing and the uncertain financial future of those who might be interested in buying homes.

In short, screwing the people of Clark County to increase developer profit margins will not have the desired effect unless the economy of this county where unemployment continues to hover in the stratosphere improves, along with the financing available to buy these houses once built.
.

Can someone explain to me why an alleged Republican would endorse a democrat for Clark County Commissioner?

.
I've never understood this kind of thing.

What is the point of having a political party or affiliation if you blow it off to endorse someone so corrupt... someone from the party who is supposed to oppose everything you stand for?



That explains a lot, of course.

It explains why Boldt blew off his promise to me to hold an advisory vote on this horrific, unneeded and unwanted bridge/loot rail project, for example.

Marc Boldt is my brother in law. He is also supposed to be a Republican. And I am ashamed of that fact.

Stuart and Boldt deserve each other, but we don't deserve to have either of them wrecking our community.
.

An open letter to my Brother In Law, Commissioner Marc Boldt.

.
You told me that you would make sure there was an advisory vote on the bridge and light rail this November. You looked me in the eye and told me that during the GOP Convention at Prairie High School on the 20th of February.

Well? Where is it?

I get why Steve Stuart doesn't want a vote. He's a leftist democrat, owned by the unions. HE doesn't want anything to stand in the way of the billions of dollars of our taxes to go to his union buds. He doesn't care about blowing a $100,000,000 hole in our local economy every year to pay for tolls.

But you should. And you promised me.

To my face.

So, instead of finding all the reasons why you CAN'T, I think you'd better start focusing on ways that you CAN.

Here's Marvin Case's take on it.

Answers would be nice. But the vote would be even better.

Why not?

Clark County commissioner Tom Mielke has suggested that an advisory ballot be
presented to county residents to gauge public opinion on a multi-billion dollar
plan to replace the I-5 bridge. What could it hurt?

Mielke floated his idea in recent weeks during public meetings. He said an “advisory vote” would help elected officials and project planners better determine what the public thinks about a new bridge. Mielke and others support the idea of a third bridge and corridor connecting Washington and Oregon, and believe the public would get
behind that idea rather than a new I-5 bridge located more or less in the same place as the existing bridge.

On the one hand, such an advisory vote would cost money. The county auditor estimated the cost of such a ballot measure, in conjunction with a primary or general election, would cost about $3,000. Mielke says he can raise that money from private sources so that taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill. He points out that, even if taxpayers paid for the election, the cost would pale in comparison to the $80 million in planning money spent so far on the Columbia River Crossing project.

The cost of such an advisory vote would seem to be the only downside.

On the upside, such a vote would give planners a much better idea of what the public
thinks. They wouldn’t have to rely on computer models and sampling to collect
public opinion. One would think planners would welcome the idea of an advisory
vote because they would be able to collect opinions virtually without any cost.
Of course the exact wording of a ballot title would be important. Maybe two or
three ballots titles wouldn’t cost any more than one.

While an advisory vote on the new bridge plan is not likely, some area residents will be able to vote on a tax increase to fund light rail. That vote, offered by C-TRAN, will
probably appear on a ballot next year.

The C-TRAN vote to pay for the operation of light rail will be combined as one ballot measure with other C-TRAN needs. Voters will need to carefully examine the ballot issue when it is put before them to identify the light rail element and then vote as they see fit.

Politicians dating back several years have affirmed that voters will have a say in the bridge and light rail topic. The current commissioners have said the same thing, that a vote will be needed to make the new bridge and light rail a reality.

Too often elected officials are reluctant to ask the public to decide important issues. Why is that? What is wrong with asking voters to approve important matters such as tax increases? True, the public elects representatives to study and act on an array of matters without constant referral to the public. But the public should weigh in on important and/or highly controversial matters. Replacing the I-5 bridge is one of those important matters.

Mielke only wants an advisory vote, meaning that planners and elected officials would not be bound by the result and could still do whatever they want whether that coincides with public opinion or not. A lopsided vote against a replacement bridge, however, would likely slow the planning process.

This writer supports the bridge replacement idea although light rail seems like a colossal waste of money. A dedicated bus lane would be much less costly and would get travelers to and from downtown Portland much faster.

This writer also believes that the time has not yet come for a new I-5 bridge. While the area is congested during rush hours, that is not the case for most hours of the day. Some level of congestion is a fact of life in larger metropolitan areas. A truly independent analysis might show that a third corridor and bridge would prove to be a better short-term action, followed some years later with an I-5 bridge replacement project.

Despite all that, Mielke’s idea of an advisory vote should not be so easily dismissed by other elected officials and transportation planners. It would apparently cost nothing
to the taxpayer. It would provide useful information. It would keep the public involved and engaged during what would likely be a spirited educational campaign.

So, why not?

Marvin F. Case

Publisher

Why not indeed, especially after YOU promised ME?

I need to know. And so will everyone else.
.

The stupidity of Steve "Easy Money, Mr. Barnett" Stuart never ceases to amaze: A "scientific survey?"

.
Followers of my meager effort here in blog land know that I hold Clark County Commissioner Steve "cold hard cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart in utter contempt.

the reasons for that are many, but at the bed rock of it is his confirmed corruption with David Barnett buying him his position as a county commissioner, and his monumental arrogance in working double overtime to slam us with a multi-billion dollar waste of union pay offs and economic heart ache for Clark County by scamming us with a bridge replacement with the cursed, unwanted and unneeded loot rail that is the basis for the bridge replacement in the first place.

So, what's the basis for his inanity today?

This:

Fellow county Commissioner Steve Stuart, a Democrat who represents the regional transportation council on a crossing advisory committee formed by Gov. Chris Gregoire and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, has been pushing for a scientifically valid survey to probe residents’ willingness to support the project.

Stuart envisions the survey will probe residents’ support based upon the costs in terms of tolling rates and benefits in terms of time saved in commuting. Officials with the bistate crossing office have pledged to conduct a survey, probably before the federal government publishes a formal record of decision by the end of this year.

So, let's get this straight.

We have the way to get THE most accurate, scientific survey available for the least amount of money.

It's called a VOTE. It costs an estimated $3000.

There is NO OTHER SURVEY MORE ACCURATE OR CHEAPER THAN A VOTE. NONE.

This is a lame effort on Stuart's part to try and attempt to make people believe he actually gives a damn about what the people of this county want.

When a ballot comes back overwhelmingly rejecting this hemorrhoid on the butt of the people of this county, that can't be controlled or spun. Also, Stuart and every other candidate would have to take public positions on this horrific cancer.

But another in the series of private polls, spun by those paying for it?

Not nearly as good as what the voters would say.

Do not be fooled, folks. Neither Stuart nor Boldt want to hear what we have to say in any meaningful way, because what we have to say does not fit with their agenda of wasted billions on tolls and bridge/light rail construction that we don't need or want.

And Stuart apparently thinks we're stupid and that we'll buy into his nonsensical crap. Much like his moronic whine about his idiotic plan for a never-gonna-happen Oregon tax break for commuters, Stuart wants to fool the voters like Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, (Let's remember, Stuart worked on Leavitt's campaign. Is it any wonder that he would lie and mislead the people the same way Leavitt did to get elected?) who actually scammed GOP'ers into believing he didn't want tolls, Stuart wants us to THINK he actually cares that the people of Clark County don't want this garbage.

You want to know what we want, Stuart?

Put it on the ballot. I double-dog dare you.
.

Well, I guess I was mistaken when Marc Boldt told me he would do an advisory vote.

On March 20, while at the GOP Convention, I discussed the bridge situation with Marc Boldt, my brother-in-law and county commissioner.

As a result of that discussion, I posted the following: Saturday, March 20, 2010

Boldt/Mielke to support Bridge/Loot Rail advisory vote.

As our local government clowns have wasted 10's of millions of dollars; as our despicable rag of a paper has attempted to jam this thing down our throats as those who've lied to us (Tim "The Liar" Leavitt) and those corrupted (Steve "Cold hard cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart) have taken it upon themselves to ram all of this down our throats without our say.

Well, this November, we will get out chance.

I directly discussed this situation with Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt and he agreed to put a non-binding, county-wide advisory vote on the ballot this November as part of the general election.

This is great for two huge reasons: first and foremost is that the people... the people who will actually pay the bills, will FINALLY get a say.

But second: every candidate and incumbent running this November (You listening, Steve "Unmarked bills, Mr. Barnett" Stuart?) will have to take and defend a position that so far, they haven't had to take or defend.

I look forward to the reaction from the various people who, while not having to pay the tolls this project will bring, want to ram this down our throats and the throats of the 65,000 commuters who WILL have to pay this price. I'm sure it will be classic.

Well, this IS classic, just not as I expected.

I got a call from my wife at work, warning me that things weren't going exactly the way I had been led to believe.

And, so, what's the story?

County Commissioner Marc Boldt, a fellow Republican who previously served with Mielke in the state Legislature, said he’s not inclined to support an advisory vote now.

“Once you go down that path, your ballot could be full of advisory votes,” Boldt said.

Exclusive of the absurdity of such an observation (It really doesn't matter if their are 50 advisory votes on the ballot or none, I would submit that any time there is a multi-billion dollar project that will cost 65,000 or more Clark County commuters $100,000,000 a year, blowing a hole in both family AND county budgets, there should, at a minimum, be an advisory vote) Marc looked me in the eye and promised me that such a vote, a non-binding advisory vote, would take place.

Apparently, it isn't.

I, of course, felt just the tiniest bit slighted considering what Marc had told me.

To my face.

So, I asked a couple of questions via email:

Marc,

The up or down vote on light rail will only apply to operation of light rail, not if either the bridge or light rail will be built. If the bridge is to be built, it must have light rail infrastructure on it. Since the only reason to replace a 6 lane bridge with a 6 lane bridge is to bring light rail into Vancouver, there is absolutely zero chance to build it without light rail.

If there is an advisory vote on the bridge there will be no light rail vote because when the people vote this down, and they will, any chance of one dime of federal money will vaporize.

The light rail/CTrans people don’t need to make a sub district, they can just use the one they have now. Meanwhile, the people of this county will pay the bill, even though, once again, no one will ask us. Further, when the light rail operations vote goes against them, they could just make their sub district THEN, using THOSE results. In short, an advisory vote that will likely kill this deal cannot stand as an excuse to not hold this vote because CTrans might use the outcome as some sort of template for a sub district.

Clearly, they will do that ANYWAY, since that’s what they did with the CTrans vote where 10’s of thousands of us were excluded from the vote, but not excluded from paying the tax. No matter what the outcome of such a vote would be, CTrans will keep trying until they get what they want.

Kill this bridge through an advisory vote, and there won’t be any light rail operations vote.

Failing to do this will result in a minimum of 65,000 commuters and their families being highly upset because one, the toll is going to vacuum $1300 or so per year out of each of their pockets (of which the county will not get one dime of revenue) and two, you will be held responsible for not allowing them any say.

As for an advisory vote, the assistant director of elections for the secretary of state said in the article that

State law does not explicitly prohibit advisory votes, according to state elections officials.

“There’s nothing that says they couldn’t,” said Katie Blinn, assistant director of elections for Secretary of State Sam Reed. “This whole animal of advisory votes is simply advisory. The process is not spelled out in state law, so there aren’t black and white parameters around it.”

Thus, there are no legal reasons not to hold such a vote, Potter’s babble notwithstanding; and anyone telling you different is lying.

The directive to Potter shouldn’t be “find a way to keep us from doing this.” Instead, it should be, “Find a way to make this happen or we will replace you with someone who will.”

Potter is, of course, dead wrong on his positions concerning advisory votes. Advisory votes by their very nature have precisely zero effect or authority or legal requirement to make any alteration of any kind on any issue.

Unless he can find a LAW that EXPLICITLY makes such advisory votes illegal (And the secretary of state’s office has indicated that he cannot) then he is flat wrong. And Stuart’s moronic idea of a “scientifically valid survey” will cost a hell of a lot more than $3000 and supersede the BEST survey: the results at the ballot box, which transcends any other type of survey in its inclusion and accuracy.

Marc, I get that you don’t want to take flack over allowing the people to have a say. But in this instance, giving the people a voice is the right thing to do for two reasons:

First, on a project of this magnitude with the horrific impacts that will result on family budgets across this county, the people deserve a say.

Second, you promised me that an advisory vote would be held.

I recognize that I’m a nobody relative to Steve Stuart or the unions. But someone, somewhere, has to care about what the PEOPLE want.

An advisory vote will provide that opportunity.

The comments on the article in question were generally supportive of such a vote, save for the usual fringe-leftist scum and union hacks who think we owe them a job and who certainly don't want a little thing like the will of the people to get in their way.

One particularly moronic slimeball commented that those of us who want to determine the will of the people on this issue should move to Somalia.

Well, it's a lesson learned. About politics, about what's important, and about my brother-in-law.

He had the opportunity to do something for the people of this county; to provide them with a voice... to make up for his support of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, who, as I warned, scammed people into actually believing he was opposed to tolls.

And he did nothing.

I will remember. 2012 isn't that far away.

Boldt/Mielke to support Bridge/Loot Rail advisory vote.

.
As our local government clowns have wasted 10's of millions of dollars; as our despicable rag of a paper has attempted to jam this thing down our throats as those who've lied to us (Tim "The Liar" Leavitt) and those corrupted (Steve "Cold hard cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart) have taken it upon themselves to ram all of this down our throats without our say.

Well, this November, we will get out chance. I directly discussed this situation with Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt and he agreed to put a non-binding, county-wide advisory vote on the ballot this November as part of the general election.

This is great for two huge reasons: first and foremost is that the people... the people who will actually pay the bills, will FINALLY get a say.

But second: every candidate and incumbent running this November (You listening, Steve "Unmarked bills, Mr. Barnett" Stuart?) will have to take and defend a position that so far, they haven't had to take or defend.

I look forward to the reaction from the various people who, while not having to pay the tolls this project will bring, want to ram this down our throats and the throats of the 65,000 commuters who WILL have to pay this price. I'm sure it will be classic.
.

Formula to solve Clark County's revenue problem.

.
These are tough times for government. Not nearly as tough as they are for the governed, but tough times, nonetheless.

So, how do we get the local budget under control? How do we get those leading us understand that tax increases are not the way?

I've long advocated that those government employees that have budgetary input should be allowed to personally keep 10% of any monies they save.

Unfortunately, bureaucrats are not promoted or awarded bonuses for walking into their boss's office and telling them, "Boss, you know what? My budget is too big, and I've got too many people."

What's the incentive for them to reduce the size of their empire?

You want budget cuts? Then have the people using the equipment, offices, cars and so forth make the recommendations.

We're not getting the recommendations now because there's precisely zero incentive to provide them. So make an incentive. And make it substantial.

Each recommendation has to be reviewed for viability, of course, otherwise the budget would resemble a collapsing star, it would shrink so fast.

An additional step will be to cut the pay and benefits of all county employees.

Those cuts might get less drastic if some of the county's 11 labor bargaining units, eight of which are now negotiating with the county, agree to wage freezes or benefit cuts next year.

There's really noting TO negotiate, except for the size of the pay CUTS.

Yes, that sucks for them. But does unemployment suck even more? Is a reduced pay check with county benefits preferable to NO paycheck with ZERO benefits?

It would be to me. And like it or hate it, this is hardly a worker's market, with Clark County having the highest unemployment in the state.

Here's a clue: we're in a horrific recession. Things are bad enough for the people paying the bills; there can be no way for this county to make it worse. And to Commissioner Stuart, already indebted to David Barnett for buying him his office, you're coming up for reelection in 2010. As a new-bridge/loot rail maniac and a corrupt commissioner elected entirely because of the check your boss sent in for you, you're going to have it tough enough as it is. Don't make your re-election impossible by jacking up our taxes in the midst of a recession.

In short, a little of that American ingenuity and sacrifice that our president is calling for; sacrifice on EVERYONE'S part, including those in government, is called for.

So, allow the budget writers to cut and keep some of their cuts as an incentive while cutting the pay and benefits of everyone still employed by the county... or laying off enough employees to make up the shortfall.

This situation is NOT an "emergency." It is, instead, a reflection of the economy that surrounds us all. And if Commissioner Boldt "has to do what we say," then don't ignore us by raising our taxes without asking.

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Boldt.
.

So, the county plans to verify worker citizenship? Weren't we already doing that?

.
So... is it the typically poor writing of the local paper? Or is it the disturbing revelation that the county has not been confirming the citizenship of the county work force?

The only aspect of the new policy that I find myself in disagreement with is this:

The commissioners asked Tuesday for a proposal by Jan. 1 to start feeding the Social Security numbers of new deputies, secretaries, janitors and other county workers into the federal E-Verify database.

My operative concern is for the word "new." Why is it just "new?" Why doesn't this apply to all current and retired county employees as well?

As for Commissioner Boldt's concerns.... and subsequent efforts to placate the so-called "League of United Latin American Citizens".... that's a crock as well.

If ONE job is held by an illegal alien, that's one job too many.... one county job... one private sector job.

Assigning some level of power or concern to illegal alien advocates is a bad idea. Bad for this community and bad for our economy.

Printing an obvious lie:

"Many municipalities are having problems with unemployment," said Maria Rodriguez-Salazar, a local LULAC leader. "And it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. It has to do with greedy people who made some bad decisions."

and caving to the faux "victimization" agenda:

Also Tuesday, Commissioner Marc Boldt said the commissioners shouldn't have implied, in their earlier action, that illegal immigration is responsible for the county's unemployment rate.

The Sept. 1 resolution mentioned the local unemployment rate as a reason to check contract workers' identities electronically.

"It almost made the reader believe that we have high unemployment because we have undocumented workers," Boldt said. "And that's not true."

to further the leftist, illegal alien agenda gives this fringe group power they do not merit and assigns them a platform they do not deserve.

There are three, absolutely unassailable facts here:

First: They are not "undocumented workers." An undocumented worker is someone that doesn't have the paperwork to prove they have a legal right to work. That someone CAN have the right to work by citizenship.... they just don't happen to have the necessary ID.

We are not discussing those who have the legal right to work here, and I am getting sick of public officials who turn their backs on their legal responsibilities by kowtowing to political correctness.

We are discussing ILLEGAL ALIENS. ILLEGAL ALIENS HAVE NO RIGHT TO WORK HERE. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE HERE. And no amount of lipstick on that particular pig can change it. That local illegal alien advocates don't like the phrase "illegal alien" does not make it any less accurate or useful as a term of description.

Words have meaning. Illegal aliens are violating our laws. The prissy use of the term "undocumented workers" provides them with cover for being here and cover for breaking our laws... as if the issue was merely one of some paperwork snafu and not one of a deliberate choice to violate the laws of the United States.

Second: we have illegal aliens working in Clark County.

Third, contrary to the lie that illegal aliens do NOT contribute to our unemployment, the mere fact that an illegal alien is holding a job in Clark County during these difficult times by definition indicates that their presence here DOES, in fact, do the very thing they now claim it does not:

Contribute to the highest unemployment rate in the State of Washington.

Boldt needs to be a little less concerned about placating those who do not deserve it, and a little more concerned about enforcing the laws he's sworn to uphold.
.

Disturbing news about the County Commissioners: apparently, it really is who you know.

.
If the Columbian is to be believed (and they by no means HAVE a high believability quotient) there's goin's ons down at the county that are way over the line of corruption.

The article states:

Saying they hope to respark the economy, county commissioners are letting a few well-connected developers push aside costly new environmental rules that others are forced to follow.

Oh, really?

This, if true, is the kind of thing that sickens me about politics and politicians.

In this era of massive budget cuts and reduced revenues, our political leaders must go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of corruption.

For example, the democrat-controlled legislature engaged in obvious corruption when they gave the democrat newsletter called the Columbian and the others of similar ilk a massive cut in their business and occupation tax in the midst of a $10 BILLION budget deficit, guaranteeing the continued "love" of the media... since they bought and paid for it with our money, fair and square.

It's far too easy to be seduced by money. If our commissioners are giving anything approaching "special consideration" to those who financed their campaigns, then that amounts to "pay for play."

It's bad enough that the commissioners have us subsidize the developers by charging outrageous permitting fees to private landowners for additions and car ports.

But there is absolutely no excuse for this kind of corruption. And that is precisely what this seems to be.

Today's quiz question: what are they going to do about it?
.

So, the Gorge Commission's budget has been cut. Where's the Columbian's demand for resignations and firing of those who cut it?

.
It wasn't that long ago that I've forgotten.

A little over 10 years or so ago, the budget of the Columbia River Gorge Commission was whacked by about a third to a half.

Led by then Rep. Marc Boldt (R-17) and current Sen. Don Benton (R-17) on the Washington side, and Sen. Ted Ferrioli (R-John Day) on the Oregon side, the budgets for both states, which have to match, was cut as a way to get the Commission's attention.

The Gorge Commission had increasingly shared the Columbian's view that the people of the Gorge are a nuisance, and the phrase through out the Scenic Act, that is, "visually subordinate," actually meant "totally invisible."

They took months to approve projects as mundane as painting your house (The reader, of course, is aware that the Commission must approve a request to say, paint your house if you live in the Scenic Area. They and they alone can approve YOUR choice of colors.) and far too often would implement an overly restricted series of policies NOT called for by the Act's language.

Then, of course, there was the debacle of the Bea House; a house approved by the Commission only to be stupidly and arrogantly challenged by both the Commission and our local stain on journalism.... positions utterly destroyed by a 9-0 State Supreme Court decision.

The reaction by the democrat newsletter that is this rag?

Howls of outrage. It's one of the many reasons why this waste of pulp has never endorsed Sen. Benton, and why they've only recently endorsed Marc Boldt. In fact, Tom Koenninger demanded Boldt's resignation, moronically suggesting that Boldt "resign before the people do it for him."

Over the years, the stupidity of that position has become self-evident.

Slashing the Commission's budget as a teaching moment proved to be wildly successful. Attacking those who orchestrated that move proved to be hideously moronic.

In short, that the fishwrapper believes that the people of the Gorge should be bulldozed out (with the appropriate re-planting of trees) so that OUR side of the Gorge could go back to its natural, pre-people state (OUR side of the Gorge anyway... I wonder if the rag has noticed an interstate freeway on the Oregon side of the Gorge...) so that it could remain the post card that THEY want to look at... but would never dream of living in with all the restrictions and assaults on their freedoms that they have to put up with, is not a universally-shared view.

In fact, voters here locally would have no problem if the Commission were abolished.... let alone have their budget cut.

All of which begs the question: Where's the faux outrage? Where's the demands for resignations? Where's the barrels of ink, the screaming, whining and moaning.... the generalized idiocy of Tom Koenninger trying to bully people and destroy them politically?

Where is it?

It's no where.

Now.... why is that?

The answer is simple. THIS time, the legislature cutting this budget were all controlled by... democrats.

THAT is the difference. The state democrats OWN the despicable rag that is our paper. They SLASHED this miserable rag's business and occupation tax in the midst of a $10 BILLION budget deficit... so they now OWN this steaming pile of garbage... and as a result, they have cemented their position as being beyond criticism or question... because this rag knows that the legislature giveth, and the legislature taketh away.

Combine that with Koenninger's utterly rank hypocrisy, and the result speaks for itself.

One need look no farther than the Gorge Commission's despicable efforts to steal operations dollars out of money's MEANT for economic development and recreation planning dollars.

And that the money in question STILL hasn't been paid out on an Act in place since the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION is a testament to the weak representation of the 3rd Congressional District since the Scenic Act was put into place.

So, why is it that this garbage heap of a paper isn't hammering Baird, that cow Murray, and ol' round heels Cantwell for failing to get the money into the Gorge that the Act calls for?

Here's a bulletin, morons: our elected representatives don't give a damn about the Commission, either. If we were to wake up TOMORROW and discover that the Gorge Commission no longer existed... most of us wouldn't give a damn... much like we wouldn't give a damn if your paper ceased to exist.
.

At least 2 out of 3 county commissioners get it: They say "railroad as important as bridge."

.

Man, did the Pravda Columbian throw a tizzy today, or what?

Clark County commissioner Tom Mielke has been a vocal critic of plans to replace the Interstate 5 Bridge

Boldt and Mielke come out and put the nonsensical, wasteful, unwanted I-5 replacement bridge/loot rail project into perspective, and the paper loses what little is left of it's mind.

Once one understands that an unwanted and unneeded project that will subject 10's of thousands of our county residents to what amounts to a $1200 or more yearly tax so they can work in Portland, the dramatic and obvious complete lack of importance for a project that has wasted 10's of millions of dollars already should become readily apparent.

The people of this county do not want any of this project. None. The idiots behind this massive waste of money know this, or else they would put it to a county-wide vote.

Have you heard about any effort to do that? *I* haven't.

To suggest that an unwanted, unneeded $4 BILLION transportation funding black hole is THE most important project for transportation in the region is idiocy wrapped in a cloak of moronic self-delusion.

A project that will accomplish NOTHING except to massively increase the tax burden to the commuting public, and those of us who despise paying taxes on something we will not be allowed to vote on, is to suggest that our in-county infrastructure needs have no place at the table; just like, come to think of it, the commuters and the rest who oppose this nonsense have no place at the table.

Steve Stuart, wholly-owned subsidiary sellout of David Barnett/Megacasino developer remains clueless or unconcerned about what the people here actually want. Like most who will not have to bear the daily burden of taxes and fees that HE is attempting to impose on others, what the people want is of no consequence to him.

Royce Pollard has become a complete liar on the project, and like his toady announced opponent, Tim Leavitt, has ignored any call for a vote on the subject, imposing his superior will over an increasingly cynical electorate. His typically moronic response to this effort:

"There is no project that's going to have a greater impact on the economic viability of our region in the future," Pollard said Thursday. "We have to be able to compete with the world. …We can't just close the borders, as I think Mr. Mielke might want."

...is, of course, an outright lie, start to finish. But then, that's what we've come to expect from bridge replacement/light rail proponents, who have no concern for any perspective but their own.

The problem is one of perspective. Unlike Mayor Pollard's lies, this project will have precisely and absolutely zero impact on our "economic viability." On the contrary, sucking out $4 BILLION desperately needed tax dollars that actually COULD make a difference when used to build 2 additional and much more badly needed bridges over the Columbia River shows, in comparison, precisely how unnecessary and worthless this unbelievably massive waste of money can be.

The next lie is Pollard's moronic and idiotic statement that Commissioner Mielke wants to "close the (presumably state) borders." It takes a genuine, gold plated ass to come up with that kind of bizarre rhetoric.

And, by the way, for sell out Commissioner Stuart, Pollard's response sure seems to fly in the face of your observation that this is a "lot of fuss over nothing."

The 2 commissioners did the right thing. I now await their effort to put this thing to a county wide advisory vote, so we can shut the pro-bridge/light rail loons up, permanently.

Two county commissioners say railroad as important as bridge

Thursday, February 12 10:21 p.m.

BY MICHAEL ANDERSEN
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER

A quiet short-line railroad that runs from west Vancouver up past Battle Ground is at least as important to the region's future transportation system as a new Interstate 5 bridge, two county commissioners say.

The rails, which the county bought for $2 million starting in 1986, currently carry three or four trains a week, usually with two or three cars each, in their busiest stretch.

Commissioners Marc Boldt and Tom Mielke feel strongly enough about the issue that they withheld the county's logo from a letter to state legislators that described the I-5 bridge as "our region's top transportation priority."

It's not that the $3.5 billion bridge project is unimportant, Boldt explained this week.

"But it isn't the most important," he said.

Boldt doesn't want to choose between it and other important projects, like the county's Chelatchie Prairie Railroad and various roadwork.

More:

.

Once again, the Pravda Columbian blows the call: In our view Feb. 12: Rail-Trail Boosted

.
Clearly, the leftists running the Pravda Columbian are among those idiots that think milk comes from Safeway instead of cows.

They whine and snivel because the commissioner that actually represents the area in question voted "no" on a state government waste of yet another million dollars.

Steve Stuart, wholly-owned subsidiary of Barnett Megacasino Developers, Inc; joins with the rag by pointing out that the "state grant is for a specific purpose."

Neither Stuart, who's vision is clouded by the corruption of his campaign donations from the powers behind the massive casino project that he so longingly supports; nor the fish wrapper idjits can grasp the concept behind Mielke's opposition: the state should not have provided this waste of our taxpayer dollars in the first place.

Here's a clue to the total moron that asked the rhetorical question:

What in the world was County Commissioner Tom Mielke thinking when he voted against the grant? The trail is in his district! Logic dictates that Mielke should be one of its strongest proponents.

YOUR logic, if you can call it that, is that if YOU want it, you're simply incapable of understanding how or why anyone could oppose you. And you thugs continue to do what you do best by ignoring the people... and ignoring facts. Mielke SAID in the SAME article you reference for your lapdog Stuart, this:

"There's been a lot of opposition to this along the way that's been ignored," Mielke said. "I guess I've always had a problem with it."

YOU just decided to selectively quote him; because, after all, except to a low-functioning squash like whoever wrote this editorial, actually DOING YOUR FRICKING JOB AND INCLUDING THIS QUOTE would have gone a LONG WAY TO ANSWERING YOUR IDIOTIC QUESTION.

The logic of a conservative in this matter is simple enough that you leftists should have been able to figure it out instantly: a TRUE representative of the people would concern himself with the negative impacts that will be felt by his own constituency, AND WHERE THIS MONEY IS COMING FROM.

Neither the clown posse running this disgrace to journalism or Steve Stuart give a damn about the impacts to anyone if those impacts interfere with their agenda. That explains why Stuart is committing political suicide by supporting a bridge that we do not want and loot rail that we do not want; and that explains why the Pravda Columbian is circling the drain.

Besides the issue of impacts, that you morons actually believe in the concept of "Free Money" is so completely, sickeningly bizarre as to be stunning in the level of tonedeafness you and Stuart exhibited with your bizarre comments.

There is no such thing as "free money," you idiots. I just shoveled almost $3,000 in Business and Occupation taxes to this state, and you seem incapable of understanding that this "free money" CAME OUT OF SOMEONE'S POCKETS. And HELLO! This state is facing a $6 BILLION deficit! Do we HAVE millions of taxpayer dollars we can waste?

As a liberal rag, it's not surprising that you don't get that. Whether it's this unneeded and unwanted million dollars or $4 BILLION dollars, you people are incapable of understanding that IT ALL COMES FROM SOMEWHERE.

Your inability to grasp these simple facts make both your publication and Steve Stuart a danger to our community. The sooner either of your are no longer able to impact government at any level, the better.

As for Marc Boldt, I will limit my comments to this: a true conservative would not have voted for this. That it's on this waste of paper's agenda is no reason to vote for it; that it's not in either Stuart's or Boldt's district made it an easy vote, because they will not have to deal with the impacts of this moronic effort. They, effectively, made those impacts Mielke's problem.

There. Have I answered your question as to what Mielke, and thousands like him were "thinking?" Get a clue... and get a grip.

County accepts $1M on 2-1 vote
Mielke objects to taking tax money for trail near railroad tracks

Tuesday, February 10 7:51 p.m.

BY MICHAEL ANDERSEN
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER

From the county government's perspective, it might have been free money. But new County Commissioner Tom Mielke said he was elected to look out for taxpayers.

So Mielke voted Tuesday to turn down a million-dollar state grant for a project he doesn't like: a three-mile recreational trail in Mielke's own district, beside the railroad tracks east of Battle Ground.

"There's been a lot of opposition to this along the way that's been ignored," Mielke said. "I guess I've always had a problem with it."

Mielke, who lives near Daybreak Park west of Battle Ground, was outvoted 2-1 by commissioners Marc Boldt and Steve Stuart. The county will accept the grant and move forward with the project.

The trail, supported by a federal grant as well as the state grant of almost $1 million, will run from Battle Ground's Fairgrounds Park to the front entrance of Battle Ground Lake State Park.

Mielke said he's concerned for the safety of pedestrians.

More:
.