Riots and allowing ONE BILLION DOLLARS to be ripped off may be accomplishing what COVID could not: a disaster for the democrats here in Washington and everywhere else.

Many are furious at Governor Jay Inslee over his handling of the COVID virus, although EVERY poll indicates his handling of restrictions is overwhelmingly supported and the main opposition comes from those ignorant of the Constitution as they incessantly claim he's violating it.

That's not true, of course, but it is what it is.

Meanwhile, another couple of issues have jumped up which reaffirms his incompetence, as well as that of democrat mayors around the country and several other democrat governors who support the rioting and looting of their states.

Here in Washington State, the first issue is Inslee's handling of the riots.  There is no question that these riots were going to break out.  Rioters are always on the lookout for an excuse to steal, loot, burn and destroy, all under the monumental bogus claim that they need to be heard.

So, what did stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Louis Vuitton purses from the Portland store accomplish when it came to the issue of racial justice?

Not much.

Well, that begs the issue: why weren't these democrat governors and mayors competent enough to be prepared for these outbreaks?

Why weren't National Guard units on alert and pre-positioned?  All of them have been trained in crowd-control and handling riots. A blind squirrel could see in a second that they needed to be on alert and, at a minimum, staged to rapidly deploy throughout the cities that were threatened.

And the idiocy of Inslee sending in UNARMED National Guard is totally obvious.

The intensity and immediacy of these failures is obvious to anyone not supporting the destruction of their cities, like, for example, Oregon Governor Brown and Washington Governor Inslee support it.  There's nothing to indicate they DON'T support that destruction, and a great deal to suggest they do.

Not to mention the clueless idiots running Portland and Seattle.

In Portland, it was clear that the police were totally out manned and overwhelmed last Friday.  In Seattle, it was equally obvious the the Seattle Police Department had no hope of controlling the thugs that were also using the death of George Floyd as the excuse they needed to cause millions of dollars and damage and loot millions more.

Had the Guard been deployed in adequate numbers and armed to provide security, neither city would have experienced this terrorism.  Instead, we had disaster.  Leaders in Seattle saw what happened in Portland.  They had more than enough time to prepare.  And they sat on their thumbs.

Had the guard been sent in, armed, by the thousands, none of that would have happened.

These are prime examples of REactive governors/mayors instead of PROactive governors and mayors who simply do not want to OFFEND their fringe-left voter bases.

It's a built-in issue that can actually switch the power in Olympia and Salem.

The second issue, which easily crosses party lines, is their rank incompetence, both  in Oregon AND Washington, of the handling of the unemployment crises these two caused.  Inslee allowed, now, as it turns out, ONE BILLION DOLLARS to be stolen from the People of Washington State.

While the source of that information is suspect, given that it comes out of the mouth one of the more notorious legislators when it comes to a lack of integrity, one Senator Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers, presuming it's true, both allowing the thefts and then covering them up certainly could be enough for a downfall for Inslee.

The failures of these governmental leaders is obvious.  They're coming up for election and their terrible handling of this... not only may stop them from getting reelected, it may result in them NEVER getting elected to anything else, ever.

Just sayin'.

Dave "Druggy" Gellatly running for any office? PCO Precinct 195 and CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSIONER, (AT-LARGE) POSITION 2 in Clark County in 2020 ?

Well, Druggy is fixin' to get waffle stomped, to be sure.

It hasn't been that long since his disastrous, uber-narcissistic, playground moron tenure as Chairman of the county GOP.

A history of illegal drug use WHILE GOP chair; arrests for multiple thefts, DUI's... a history of threats and even getting put up as a front to try and intimidate those intelligent enough to oppose this punk by actually SUING A PCO WHILE HE WAS CHAIR!

An utter, abysmal, failure.  An out and out liar.  A punk who wasn't spanked enough when he was a kid.  An irresponsible sexist.  An idiot who actually, stupidly believes he's the smartest guy in the room.

A moron who, along with the rest of his regime, did absolutely nothing to pay off the fine levied by the Attorney General's office... to include blowing off the Court date assigned... against the party for issues concerning filing PDC reports because that moron didn't actually believe it had to be paid.

The Attorney General's office, of course, took a different view, and the new regime he's trashing picked up the burden that this crumb left us AND PAID OFF THE ENTIRE FINE.

He's a narcissist who thinks he's all that. He isn't.

Below is a list of some of the major posts I've written on this scum.

So, guess who I wouldn't be caught dead voting for?

Another side of Chair Gellatly and a reason to make sure that all proposed Board Members are vetted.

David Gellatly's circular firing squad: time for him to resign.

The Gellatly Revenge Tour: His effort to keep me from being seated as a PCO continues.

Most recently, Druggy seems to have been sending out little love notes to new PCO candidates in his never-ending effort to be relevant.

It's filled with the typical lies and half-truths Druggy is known for as you might expect.

Not surprising.

But that THIS clown actually wants to run for office, in this case, to have any say of any kind in Clark County government?  With a proven record of poor judgement, incompetence  and drug use.

Outrageous.

Threats, lies, attempted intimidation.  The worst judgement of any elected official I've EVER seen.

Elected?  Imprisoned, maybe, but not elected.

There are many posts here on CCP dealing with this nimrod.  His cult supports him fanatically.  But I wouldn't let that clown run an elevator for me.

Unlike when he was the only candidate ruining for GOP chair, he's been vetted this time.  His record.... his drug use WHILE GOP CHAIR shows that he lacks the kind of judgement, integrity and responsibility to hold any political office, anywhere.

The death and riots from the George Flynn murder.

Like 99.99% of the people commenting on the George Flynn murder and aftermath, I did not know the man or anything about him.

Except he was black, had been arrested, and had a white police officer jam a knee onto his neck in such a way and for such a length of time that Mr. Flynn died.

As I expected, the officer, Derrick Chauvin, was arrested.  Having glanced at Minnesota law, I didn't expect him to get charged with Murder 1:

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:

(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;

I expected Murder 2 or Manslaughter:

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

 However, Minnesota has a Murder 3 law, which can include the lesser, included charge of Manslaughter.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

It may very will be that 3 other officers on the scene may also be charged with one or more violations for failing to act.

But before the arrest was made, riots broke out.  And, as usually follows the pattern, looting (which was the major reason for the riots to begin with, IMHO) took place because, you know; what's protesting about racism when you can steal that big screen TV?

As you might expect for a political junky, I've read thousands of words about this.  Despicable reactions from the left (Who naturally, blame all of this on Trump) and the edict that they must follow the dictates of Rahm Emanuel, who most famously proclaimed "we must not let a crisis go to waste."

Reactions from many who support the rioters, the lootings, the theft, the assaults, the arson.  The complete destruction of upwards of 200 businesses, many minority owned.  The unbelievable decision by the mayor of Minneapolis to allow the complete destruction of an entire police precinct building.

Politicians remaining silent, except, of course, for the racists blaming the president.

I posted a statement from a black state representative who wondered aloud at the wisdom of rioting and how these actions move the ball forward.

Blacks in the discussion immediately called him an Uncle Tom, among other things, because he dared to disagree with them.  Always an adult way to discuss differences.  But then, it's fairly clear that trying to bridge differences isn't nearly as powerful as being able to steal those $200 sneakers.

Meanwhile, where are OUR elected officials?

Many of the local electeds, part of the Gellatly Cult, have so much to say in their righteous indignation about the administration of the local GOP.

But now, as our country burns?

Crickets.

Never let it be said that those allegedly representing us have an over-abundance of courage.

Questions remain. The typically unasked questions in situations like these, unasked of those in charge who have, as their primary duty, the protection of the public's safety... a duty they have clearly failed to carry out.

Why didn't the Governor immediately send in the National Guard?  Why didn't the Mayor require the police to restore order?  How can so many people think the President was wrong when, shortly after 1 a.m. Friday, he tweeted:

“These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

Tough, stern words by a president dismayed by the total lack of leadership in the area and the failure on the part of those who are SUPPOSED to stop these things from happening.  And, of course, absolutely on target.

A line is crossed when your reaction to this type of crime is to break out jewelry store windows and steal all the diamonds.

Those concerned about racism do not engage in theft to show their angst, because it is clear to a blind man that when you loot, steal, damage, burn.... racism has nothing to do with it.  Dr. King, who accomplished so much, never looted.  Never rioted.  Never assaulted.  Never engaged in arson.

He managed to get a great deal done.

But by failing to act and act quickly, all these state and local governments have done is to reinforce the idea that these THUGS will not be held accountable for the crimes they've committed.

Former Officer Chauvin SHOULD have been arrested THAT DAY.

That he wasn't, however, excuses nothing.  Justifies, nothing.

Those who wear blinders and focus on killings by police to the exclusion of all else are putting their finger in the dyke while the rest of the dam collapses around them.

Yes, there are unlawful killings of suspects by police.  MOST of the time, they get it right.

We had a case here recently where a mentally deranged, unarmed man was shot to death by 4 Vancouver Police officers.

This man was also black.  He appeared to be absolutely unstable.  He was apparently armed with sticks.  So, I'm not going to pound my desk or my keyboard and claim that police are always blameless.

Nor will I claim that there are NOT racist cops, mentally unbalanced cops, crooked cops or any other variety of police you might know of.

But correspondingly, others, who happened to be white, were also killed by police officers who happened to be black.

Did those officers in Chicago act out of racism?  Not likely.

He wouldn't stop resisting.  They tried everything they could and got nowhere.

Does that make the shooting justified?  I have no clue. The first shot fired seemed kind of random since the suspect did not appear (IMHO) to be armed or threatening.  The second shot took place with the suspect out of sight, heading up an escalator.

This case is current enough that it hasn't been decided as yet.

The reality for me is that there is no question that bad things happen sometimes and sometimes the police cause them... while sometimes, they're the victims.

And for those who do wear a badge, they have to make split second decisions that sometimes come out wrong.

Much like in many other professions.

So, as I punch this post in, riots are breaking out.  And the Floyd case is the excuse.  But as I see it and review the video and ponder... how does the death of anyone, for any reason, justify these riots?

Because at some point, society will say, you know what?  We've had about enough of this.

And those rioting will ultimately and painfully, lose.  Racism is likely to be the least of their problems.

In Flanders Fields

  In Flanders fields the poppies blow

    Between the crosses, row on row,

   That mark our place; and in the sky

   The larks, still bravely singing, fly

    Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead.

Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

   Loved and were loved, and now we lie

    In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

   The torch; be yours to hold it high.

   If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

    In Flanders fields.

John McCrae, MD.  Lieutenant Colonel of the Canadian Expeditionary Force

I've been saying all along the efforts to reduce COVID exposure are Constitutional: The Pacific Legal Foundation agrees with me.

More and more legal experts are speaking out on the Constitutionality of quarantine efforts to keep the Wuhan Flu in check...

My research indicated as much; the Supreme Court decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) pretty much laid it out.

But along comes the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative legal group that has repeatedly fought for and won on conservative rights issues.

Here's their take:

Are quarantine orders constitutional?

April 10, 2020 I By MARK MILLER

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The question on many minds during our time of quarantine: How far can state government officials go in curtailing constitutional rights like the freedom of association, free exercise of religion, and right to travel among and between the states, in service to public safety by reducing the spread of the coronavirus?

The courts have been there, done that, and the answer is, “quite far.”

This is not the first time our country has faced a life-threatening epidemic. Our Founding Fathers saw mass death due to the mosquito-borne Yellow Fever on a nearly year-in, year-out basis in the 1790s and the decades that followed.

They did not know that the fever was mosquito-borne, and that their efforts to quarantine would not “flatten the curve.” They simply knew the fever took lives indiscriminately. And so they quarantined. In 1798 conditions became so bad that the governor of Pennsylvania banned travel between Philadelphia and New York.

The most significant early decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to mention the state power to quarantine occurs in an 1824 case known as Gibbons v. Ogden. Considered a landmark decision on the federal power to regulate commerce on the interstate waters, Chief Justice John Marshall — our greatest chief justice; the competition is only for second — explained that one of the powers the state possessed was the power to quarantine.

This was not controversial; as Marshall put it, the power to quarantine was seen as a power “flowing from the acknowledged power of a State to provide for the health of its citizens.”

The Supreme Court’s most direct comment on the power to quarantine arose in Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, a case from Louisiana, when the court considered a broad quarantine order, not unlike some of the quarantine orders our state leaders have considered over the last few weeks. Louisiana had faced outbreaks of Yellow Fever two out of every three summers throughout the 19th century, leading to a very aggressive state stance on the power to quarantine. The order the court considered read: “hereafter in the case of any town, city, or parish of Louisiana being declared in quarantine, no body or bodies of people, immigrants, soldiers, or others shall be allowed to enter said town, city, or parish so long as said quarantine shall exist.”

The Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, approved that order as constitutional when it was challenged by individuals who attempted to enter the state on a ship from Italy. Even though there was no evidence of symptoms of the fever or other disease on board, the court held that a state was justified to keep people out in order to protect the citizens of the state; that to do so did not violate the Constitution.

The broadest of the statewide shelter-in-place orders in California, New York or Pennsylvania go further than past precedent — controlling economic activity and populations over vastly more territory. But assuming courts are likely to approve today’s quarantine measures, what should we look for as Americans to make sure the government is not taking advantage of this otherwise unconstitutional power to restrict constitutional rights during this emergency?

First, these powers are by their nature temporary. They are justified by the extraordinary circumstance of a pandemic, in which a highly communicable and frequently lethal disease can be spread by infected people merely interacting with others. The government is acting legitimately if the purpose and scope of its actions is to prevent infected people from harming others. Do we know when the virus will subside? Of course not. But when the pandemic ends, the justification for the extraordinary assertion of government powers ends, too.

Often our government has used real emergencies — like the 9/11 terrorist attack — or manufactured emergencies — like the so-called drug war of the 1970s and ’80s — to take on additional powers and then refuse to relinquish those powers when the crisis subsides. Americans should watch their government officials carefully to make sure they do not exploit this emergency after it ends.

Vigilant Americans should also monitor the government to make sure it does not abuse the quarantine power during the pandemic. Is the government quarantining an individual as a pretext for some other improper reason to hold that individual? Officials who would exploit their powers in this manner must be dealt with severely, and there is precedent of courts ending quarantines when this power is abused.

Or are the officials privileging some politically favored activities and curtailing others under the guise of the pandemic? If we are in a quarantine, then the government should not play favorites. Protecting the public must be paramount; if the government appears to allow some violations of quarantine orders but arbitrarily prohibits others, the people will lose faith in their leaders and fail to heed otherwise justified quarantine orders. That will jeopardize lives and is an abuse of power.

One should not assume the governors and other officials who have issued these orders are seeking to violate the Constitution. But it’s up to us as Americans to not accept our government’s actions without question. The law provides broad authority to our elected officials to respond to an emergency, but when our leaders violate the limits of that power, Americans must call them on it.

This article was originally published by InsideSources.com.

_______________________________________________________

This is a summation that lays bare the incorrect idea that these efforts are unconstitutional.

I have stated more than once that the Constitution was never meant to be a death warrant.

Getting people who believe what they want to believe, not because it's true but because it fits their meme... to actually step back, take a deep breadth and dig deeper than their preconceived, but unsupported and factually incorrect notions has been as difficult as finding a hardcore leftist to vote for Donald Trump.

Those who oppose these efforts do so in large part because it hasn't impacted them.

I was struck by a man in Seattle a month or so back who, in a two week period, lost his mother and two sisters to this disease.

I have yet to read or hear of anyone who has lost a family member who opposes these steps.

He was no exception.

Bring these issues and the evidence of Constitutionality to the attention of a denier and they literally lose their collective minds.

One just tonight wrote, "I don't care if it is constitutional."

Seriously.

I do.

And just because you don't agree with a law, an ordinance, an executive order given under an emergency situation... that doesn't make it wrong, illegal OR unconstitutional.

I say this without any rancor.  MY position is based on the singular question of constitutionality as our government and history defines the word.

This is completely separate from my "feelings" on the matter.  I never supported gay marriage, for example, but the people of this state, given the opportunity, voted it in.  And I DO support that.

I'm also intrigued by the obvious hypocrisy of the deniers, who demand that the will of the people as expressed last November in the issue I-976 ($30 car tabs) by the vote of the people of this state be implemented immediately instead of allowing the courts to tie it up... But when it comes to the matter of Senate Joint Resolution 8200, ALSO on last November's ballot, which gave the governor broad powers in the event of a declared emergency, THAT particular will of the people (That passed by a 2: 1 margin) should be ignored.

So, the determining factor for whether or not a law should be followed boils down to this:

If I don't LIKE the law.... we should ignore it.  And anyone who disagrees with that should be publicly vilified in every imaginable way, under Rule 5 of Alinski's Rules for Radicals:

Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Those opposed to these measures simply don't care about the issue of Constitutionality.

In many cases, they want what they want when they want it, Constitution be damned.

Imagine where we'd be as a society if a rule like that was actually in effect.

For me, it's simple: you don't like or agree with the law?  Then change the Law.

You don't like or agree with Supreme Court decisions?  Then get the Supreme Court to overturn themselves.  It HAS happened.

Make it happen again.

You don't like the governor's executive orders? (and let's face it, some of them were stuPENDOUSLY moronic; private construction is bad, public construction is OK; no hunting or fishing, etc.) then get him to change them or get the Legislature to overturn them.

You don't like the articles or amendments to the Constitution that make all this possible?

Then change the Constitution.  But you have zero credibility if you believe you can simply ignore the legal reality confronting us and just do whatever the hell you want, when you want, merely because YOU want to.

That's not how this works.  That's not how any of this works.

But then, you knew that.... right?