Sunday, November 05, 2017

What does the current CCGOP Regime and the Soviet Union have in common?

Back in the day, particularly post World War Two in Eastern Europe, the Soviets would frequently claim they had taken control of what became the Warsaw Pact countries through "free and open elections."

What that looks like is up to the reader: one man's view of freedom may very well be another man's definition of oppression.

But MY definition of "free and open", while containing many things, does NOT contain threats or intimidation.

The Soviets would frequently kidnap leaders of the countries they were infesting and have little chats with these individuals in police stations and the like when they didn't just take folks out and shoot them if they dared to speak out or otherwise oppose the regime the Soviets wanted to... and typically did, install.

Torture would be used to get signed confessions, show trials would be held, prisoners sentenced to life or other long terms in gulags or prisons were the order of the day.

It also doesn't include ballots which can identify voters, another favorite tactic of the Soviets, particularly in their efforts to expel the Allies from Berlin.

In an effort to control the outcome, Russians used marked or different colored ballots.  That way, they could identify political opponents, many of whom found themselves living in the Russian Zone of Occupation which became first, East Germany and second, East Berlin.

The government of immediate post World War Two Berlin, known as the Berlin Assembly had control over various appointments (mayor, police commissioner, treasurer and the like) and a variety of other issues.  Initially, the Assembly met in the Soviet Sector, until their efforts to fix elections and intimidate electors became so overt that the Allies authorized the movement of these Assembly meetings to the Allied Sector, ending much of the intimidation and all of the marked ballots.

The Russians, you see, would nominate who THEY wanted... and those who spoke out against them?

Frequently wound up dead.

Regular readers are well aware of the tactics of the Clark County GOP chair.  Threats and intimidation are his shtick.

His winged monkeys don't care or don't believe it, but they haven't received the drunk texts late at night, or the threat of exposure of personal information or the lies such as the claim that I had received a dishonorable discharge as a result of an affair with a commander's wife.

The man lies like he breathes.

In everything from the post-midnight efforts to force me to meet with him to the cutsie threats, most recently this:



He's shown himself to be someone better suited for imprisonment than leadership.

But in addition to all of that, at the most recent corruption where he had his gutless followers do his bidding since the fix was in, Gellatly fell back on the Soviet-style tradition of using marked ballots.

He admits it in one of his many "can't wait to discuss internal party issues with a democratian reporter" pieces in the democrat newsletter.
"As to Wagner’s claim, Gellatly said the ballots were in fact numbered. But not to track how PCOs voted. He said ballots were marked to keep track of how many ballots were distributed. 
“If anybody was concerned, (they) could rip the corner off,” Gellatly said. 
He said most did before voting took place."
What's problematic is that Gellatly is a serial liar.

A thinking reporter, instead of one of these young morons working for minimum wage that has been brought on board the local leftist swindle sheet, would have, perhaps, talked to somebody NOT named Gellatly, and asked a few other questions:
So, is numbering the ballots standard procedure?
No.
Really?  Then why did you do it on that particular night?
Well, uh, gee.... uh...
Couldn't you have numbered the ballots and then handed them out after everyone had sat down?  You know, at random?
Uh, yeah, I GUESS we could have.
When you say that "most tore off the number off before the voting took place," do you have any way to prove that?
Uh, well, no....
Yup.  Gellatly's answers sound totally legit, to a politically ignorant girl with a crush.
The only truth to the rumors? Herrera Beutler did provide pizza and beer for the meeting.
That WASN'T the ONLY truth.  (For example, the owners imposing a $2250 "fine" was not only true, the moron who wrote their article admitted as much. That he later withdrew it doesn't mean that, at the time, it WASN'T true... but that doesn't sound nearly as cool as giving Gellatly a complete pass, does it?)

And when you want your hero to shine, you can kind of try and connect the dots the way YOU want them to look... but hey, the democratian has NEVER done that, have they?

Yeah, it was very much a Soviet-style gig.  The unnecessary and unneeded muscle at the door, a serious effort to make what is supposed to be a public meeting private, a hired gun brought in without notice by the scumbag chair... marked ballots, never before seen to my knowledge.

Yup.  Nothing to see here as Davey does his best Joe Stalin imitation... and his winged monkeys won't care.

Saturday, November 04, 2017

The Injustice of Bergdahl


Many years ago, I was flying to Europe on a C5 Galaxy as a more or less newly minted Lieutenant... 34 years, now?

Seated next to me was a surprisingly ancient full bull, a US Army Colonel who, it turns out, was one of the, if not THE senior judge in USAEUR, US Army Europe.

As we flew over the Atlantic, he asked me questions about Combat Arms... I asked him questions about the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) the governing laws we all served under.

I talked about tracks, cannons, tactics, and life in the field.

He talked about court cases, some of which were truly bizarre... and military law.

The only specific thing he told me that I can remember... a thing that has stuck with me all these years.... was a simple observation that slammed me in the face the moment I heard the Bergdahl verdict:

"Frequently, there is a vast difference between military law and justice."

Indeed.

This miscarriage of justice is laid at the feet of one person and one person only, the judge that let him skate.

Army Col. Jeffery Nance, JAG, was the judge.  He doesn't have much of an internet presence.

What I know is that he spit in the face of the families of the 6 dead men who went out looking for this scumbag.  He spit in the face of Master Sergeant Mark Allen and his family.

This is what Bergdahl did.  This is as good as it's going to get for Allen for as long as he lives.

Image result for wounded looking for bergdahlThis is as good as it's going to get for his wife... who did nothing to deserve this... and his daughter.... who did nothing to deserve this.

This man and the other men..... the judge spit in their faces and the faces of their families as well.

Staff Sergeant Clayton Bowen, 29, of San Antonio, Texas, and Private 1st Class Morris Walker, 23, of Chapel Hill, N.C., were killed by a roadside bomb in Paktika province on Aug. 18, 2009, while trying to find Bergdahl. Like Bergdahl, they were part of the 4th BCT from Fort Richardson, Alaska.

Staff Sergeant Kurt Curtiss, 27, of Murray, Utah, died Aug. 26 in Paktika Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when he was shot while his unit was supporting Afghan security forces during an enemy attack. Like Bergdahl, Bowen and Walker, he was part of the 4th BCT.

2nd Lieutenant Darryn Andrews, 34, of Dallas, Texas, died Sept. 4 in Paktika Province when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device and a rocket-propelled grenade. Like Bergdahl, Bowen, Walker and Curtiss, Andrews was part of the 4th BCT.

Staff Sergeant Michael Murphrey, 25, of Snyder, Texas, died Sept. 6 in Paktika province after being wounded by an IED. Like Bergdahl, Bowen, Walker, Curtiss and Andrews, Murphrey was part of the 4th BCT.

On Sept. 4, 2009, Private 1st Class Matthew Martinek, 20, of DeKalb, Ill., was seriously wounded in Paktika province when Taliban forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device, a rocket-propelled grenade and small-arms fire.

There is, indeed, a vast difference between Army law and Justice.

This Judge made the decision that none of this matters.

Leftists are gleefully blaming the president on this, for speaking his mind on this issue.  Of course, they criticize him for anything he does, regardless.

That had nothing to do with this outcome.

The purpose of the trial judge is to adjudicate guilt or innocence.

Matters of command influence can be... and should have been... handled under appeal.  If the judge was so worried about any personal impact it was going to have on him individually, he could have... and obviously should have... recused himself.  When the soldier in question PLEADS guilty... where is the issue of "command influence?"

I can't even begin to imagine what the families of those men who bled to find this scumbag are going through.

Clearly, Bergdahl is guilty.  He said so himself by pleading guilty to the charges and specifications. And so is this judge.

I know what my reaction would be if I were one of those families.  And now, the only question is: how long does Bergdahl have before justice is meted out the way it should have been by this judge?

Thursday, November 02, 2017

Even after confirmation, local leftists still cover for Jacks.

It's not like they give a damn about the truth when it involves one of their own, right?

Jacks denied it and the rag covered for him. To my knowledge, he never admitted his misconduct with female staff and the rag never really pushed him on it.  No problem there, right, Jim?

IMAGINE what these same people would be saying if Jacks had an "R" after his name.

Jesus... you people make me sick.


Jim Luce · 
Really? You really needed to print this AP wire story? It is very old news.
Jim Jacks served as a valued member of our City Council. As a State Representative his addiction led him to do something stupid. He apologized prosely. He resigned. And he moved on.
Jim and his family live in our community. He has for years been a valued member of the Portland State University. We are proud to count Jim as a friend.
If the Columbian really wants “the local angle” on sexual harassment, send out a reporter and write a story that is current. I hope you don’t find any but you won’t know until you do some real reporting.
LikeReply22 hrs
Jeffrey Gibbons
I am also hearing the same story on OPB so the Columbian is not the onlt news source to be publishing this. The original news story the Columbian published was from the AP.

While the Jacks story may be "old". the underlying issue about how the Washington state house "handled" the situation is a valid concern and perhaps deserves a second look. In any case the time for covering up this type of stuff is over.

Perhaps the next thing we need to concern ourselves will be the "guilty until proven innocent" response to these situations. People need to be held responsible for their actions but let's remember that a "charge" does not always equate to truth...

Yes, I broke the story on the Jim Jacks' resignation for misconduct with female staff.

So, the democratian FINALLY gets around to the truth of the Jim Jacks matter that I had told everyone about years ago... at the time it happened.

No leftist cover up.  Nothing to see here, move along.

Excerpts from the posts detailing both the reasons for his resignation and the democratian's efforts to cover it up.  These are in reverse order: my post breaking Jacks' resignation long before the democratian got around to it is at the very bottom of this entry.

February 21, 2012

One has to wonder: why is the newspaper protecting Jim Jacks.... I mean, Marc Boldt?

Former Rep. Jim Jacks (D-49) was forced out of the legislature by his caucus for alcohol-fueled misconduct with female staffers.  The Columbian refused to report the entirety of the truth on this issue; in fact, when presented with the opportunity, never specifically asked Jacks anything about the issues in question.

It has been over 332 days since Jacks' expulsion.  The excuse repeatedly given by the Columbian is a so-called "lack of a paper trail."  It would seem that actually interviewing people in Olympia who know is somehow out of the question.  I guess those reporters doing such "solid, informative" work just couldn't find the time.

November 20, 2011

It's eight months today that the Columbian began their cover up of the Jim Jacks scandal, to protect him... and the democrats.

Self-describing:

Former Rep. Jacks resigned due to misconduct that involved staffers and alcohol.

This has been confirmed to me by multiple sources.

Jacks is a democrat, so naturally the local Goebbelian propaganda arm will do anything they can to protect him or any other democrat... after all, didn't they insist on endorsing a democrat for Assessor WHO HAD NEVER VOTED IN THE ENTIRETY OF HER LIFE?

The allegations concerning Jacks range from repeated sexual harassment episodes, to inappropriate physical contact to all hours "drunk calls" to at least one female staffer.

The democratian likely knows this. The information is, in fact, readily available, and the democrat's efforts to keep it covered up, while expected and supported by the rag is hardly the kind of transparency exhibited during the episodes concerning Jim Dunn and Richard Curtis... so the double standard is both obvious... and blatant.

September 22, 2011

Well, it's been 6 months now and thanks to Brancaccio and Chopp, Jacks looks like he's getting away with it.

This blog broke the story that former Rep. Jim Jacks (Boozer-49) quit in the middle of the last legislative session as a result of misconduct he engaged in related to his alcoholism.

The local paper, which I refer to as the democratian for reasons such as this one, did absolutely nothing to discover the nature of this misconduct, which involved female staffers working for the Legislature both in the democrat caucus and from the Office of Program Research.

The only thing I didn't do is provide the names.

The rag's excuse was there wasn't a "paper trail." and, therefore, they were helpless.

Brancaccio did a powder puff interview with Jacks which accomplished absolutely nothing concerning either the true reasons for Jacks' departure or the names of his victims.  he had the opportunity to specifically ask Jacks... and refused to ask the questions that should have been asked.

July 23, 2011

Was it four months ago the cancer on our local society began their Jim Jacks cover up?

The little clock widget continues the countdown from the day politic journalism finally died at the democratian.

It was 120 days ago that then State Representative Jim Jacks was unceremoniously ejected in a web of lies, drunkeness and misconduct with female staffers, all while our local rag stood there, paralyzed like it had just been visited by a Tarantula Wasp, stung, and had the egg laid on it's abdomen to be eaten alive later after the egg hatched.
.
Given the last election cycle and Lou Brancaccio's despicable columns crucifying candidates and others smart enough to oppose his twisted world view, it's hard to deny his efforts to protect a fellow leftist, particularly one who had carried the rag's agenda like Gunga Din bringing Slurpees to the troops out in the field.

There's precisely no excuse for this floor-flusher's failure to have gone after Jacks with all the enthusiasm he displayed in going after, say, me... or Peter Van Nortwick... or as he was winding up to punch Brent Boger before others with some decency knocked him into next week.

Let's set the stage.  Then Rep. Jacks (D-49) was a drunk.  He engaged in misconduct with his own legislative assistant and with a female staffer from OPR.  He was observed by another legislator engaging in that misconduct on St. Patrick's Day this year in Olympia.  As a result, he was gone before the week was out.

June 27, 2011

A quick quiz for Lou Brancaccio. So Lou, what's it mean when an organization like ICC (aka Identity Vancouver) has a speaker like Jim Jacks?

It wasn't that long ago that local media bully sprayed a few hundred gallons of ink my way by attempting to hurt Ann Rivers by beating her over the head with me.

A classic case of attempting to infer guilt by association.  In fact, that punk was so enamored about his one-sided mud-slinging that I rated two consecutive weeks of his babble.  Later, he was loading up to crucify Brent Boger the same way, but stupid enough to tip his hand, and he was beaten senseless as a result.  Naturally, he ran away with his tail between his legs, having FINALLY crossed the line.

That brings us to this situation: the ongoing democratian cover-up of the escapades of a drunk, serial harasser by the name of Jim Jacks.

Jacks was a state representative invited to get his ass out of the House of Representatives most-riki-tik because of his final straw shattered over the back of a camel last St Patrick's Day.

While Jacks has publicly confirmed he has an alcohol problem, he has never publicly disclosed the extent of his misconduct with female staffers in Olympia.

June 26, 2011

A sad anniversary passes: The Columbian continues their cover-up on the Jim Jacks misconduct issues.

When you're a democrat front publication, it's difficult to break the leash from your fellow fringe leftists and it's even harder to treat a bridger/looter Gunga Din water carrier for our local rag the same way they have treated, say, Peter Van Nortwick.

So, here's what we've got: a fringe-leftist who voted almost exactly like neo-communist Jim Moeller; who was a drunk, and who engaged in misconduct with female staffers.

The other thing we've got is a self-neutered newspaper, who, like the people living across the street from Dachau who didn't know it was a concentration camp, doesn't "know" about Jacks' well known and easily verified misconduct... misconduct that led to his resignation and subsequent expulsion from the House... that, because they're too stupid to find a paper trail, can't "prove" anything so they refuse to "speculate" about Jacks' expulsion.

And like those living in Dachau... if they don't know?

It's entirely and only because they don't WANT to know.

Yeah, I know his lies about "resigning."  But he didn't "resign" so much as he left under the threat of exposure.  The rag knows this, of course, but because Jacks was their faithful lackey, well, they couldn't go out there and follow up... and then publish it, could they?

May 23, 2011

Congrats to the democratian for 60 days of burying the Jim Jacks/House democrat story.

It's got to be tough on the lazy D.  When the democrats own you because they gave you a huge tax break while they jacked everybody else's taxes up, you know you're beholden to them, because you also know that switch flips both ways.

In this case, the democratian is repaying the favor by continuing to bury the Jim Jacks misconduct story as they have failed to engage in even 7th grade school newspaper journalism to get the facts in the hopes that everyone will "forget."

Well, I won't forget.  And every so often, I'll remind the reader that the local paper failed in it's duty to dig out the story, letting the supposedly "transparent" democrats completely off the hook and failing to report on then Rep. Jacks' rank misconduct, likely alcohol fuel but never the less, misconduct of a sort they don't want the average reader to know about... because the pattern of misconduct isn't recent... it's long term.

Our local paper has lowered the bar to unheard of levels.  The editor, who has had no trouble at all crusading against ME seems incapable of speaking truth to power and crusading against THEM.

Rest assured, gentle reader, had it been Rep. Hinton, there is no stone the local rag would not have turned over; no colleague or staffer they wouldn't have interviewed, no rumor they wouldn't have run down to the DNA level.

Because that's how they roll.

May 9, 2011

More democratian double standard: Speculation on Jacks misconduct verbotten. Speculation on Randy Leonard's daughter's death? Encouraged.

Was it just 45 days ago that democrat former State Rep. Jim Jacks' alcoholic misconduct caught up with him and his caucus ejected him under the guise of his "resignation?"

Most know the details the rag won't publish or even spend any time investigating.  You know... that would be something akin to "journalism," one of the long, lost "dark arts" the paper knows so little about.

Remember the first effort to cover for Jacks and the fringe-left democrats?  Here's a brief reminder:

April 25, 2011

Lou puts up another nonsensical self-serving poll:

What a total crock.
Did former Vancouver State Rep. Jim Jacks do the right thing by going public on why he suddenly resigned from office? 
Yes. Not only did he have an obligation to do so, most members of the community will rally behind him now. 55%  94 votes 
No. As soon as he left office he was a private citizen and had no obligation to tell the community anything. 35%  61 votes 
No opinion at this time. 8% 15 votes 170 total votes
It's this variety of self-serving crap that makes Brancaccio ooze the way he does.

It's a variety of "heads I win, tails you lose" questions that, once again, completely ignore Brancaccio's complete lack of journalistic integrity and the fact that he's let Jacks skate like Jacks was paying him.

The questions Brancaccio SHOULD have asked?

We all know there's much more to this than Jacks has told us; no one resigns and moves out so fast they leave a vacuum behind.
1.  Was I right to violate any tenet of fairness and integrity to let Jacks off the hook so I can cover for him?
2.  Will This paper EVER have any respect for the unvarnished truth instead of just continuing on as a left wing swindle sheet?
3.  Should I have asked him about specific examples of misconduct instead of letting him control the interview and blow me off like a rookie cub reporter?
4.  Should I resign immediately as well?
April 20, 2011

More confirmation of the democratian double standard.

As we all know, Jim Jacks resigned suddenly for reasons the local rag will not only not print, but will neither speculate about NOR ALLOW OTHERS TO SPECULATE ABOUT.

Comments to that effect were removed from the Jim Jacks democratian puff piece because, by golly, when it comes to Jacks... ve vill not allow speculation! und, und, und!

Unless it's for any other story.

Speculation and unsubstantiated claims ran rampant recently when it came to a local Oregon lottery winner, going so far as to claim she was a heroin addict.

All of this begs the question as we end the 27th day without any news from the democratian... because, of course, they've made no effort to GET the news concerning Jacks misconduct.

March 28, 2011

A recent, illustrated history of democratian hypocrisy: Jim Jacks compared to an auto accident

Most anyone reading my blog is aware of the Jim Jacks debacle, some level of his rampant misconduct in Olympia concerning female staffers and alcohol at a minimum, and the democratian's cooperation with the democrats; who, through tax breaks, own that rag like they use it to mop up oil in a garage and their not even subtle efforts to bury this, covering for both Jacks and democrats.

From the comment section on the lame article the democratian settled for:

Friday, March 25, 2011

The democratian's, reeking, rank hypocrisy on Jacks' "wishes" and "privacy."

As someone who has been the object of a one sided, exaggerated, slanted and biased character assassination by the democratian, I can't help but be amused by the concern expressed by the rag over Jack's departure. For example:

Truth time, democratian: Rep. Jacks forced resignation is due to misconduct.

Former Rep. Jacks resigned due to misconduct that involved staffers and alcohol.

This has been confirmed to me by multiple sources.

Jacks is a democrat, so naturally the local Goebbelian propaganda arm will do anything they can to protect him or any other democrat... after all, didn't they insist on endorsing a democrat for Assessor WHO HAD NEVER VOTED IN THE ENTIRETY OF HER LIFE?

The allegations concerning Jacks range from repeated sexual harassment episodes, to inappropriate physical contact to all hours "drunk calls" to at least one female staffer.

The democratian likely knows this. The information is, in fact, readily available, and the democrat's efforts to keep it covered up, while expected and supported by the rag is hardly the kind of transparency exhibited during the episodes concerning Jim Dunn and Richard Curtis... so the double standard is both obvious... and blatant.

Democrat State Rep. Jim Jacks (D 49) resigning effective immediately.

Due to some issue with a staff member. More as I get it.

Wednesday, November 01, 2017

My disgust at the Clark County Youth Football League cannot be overstated.

I was stunned and sickened to read this article in the Reflector:
FEATURED
Hockinson youth football team shut out of playoffs due to success 
Hockinson’s seventh and eighth-grade football team is so dominant other teams are refusing to play them again
Jonathan Haukaas jonathan@thereflector.com
Seventh and eighth grade Hockinson Hawks
Seventh and eighth-grade Hockinson Hawks tackle a Battle Ground athlete earlier this year in a Clark County Youth Football game. The young Hawks have proven to be one of the most dominant squads to ever come through the league, having outscored their opponents 272-34 this season.
Photo courtesy of Rachael Wheeler
Last week, Sean Mallory’s squad of stout seventh and eighth grade Hockinson boys were preparing for the Clark County Youth Football playoffs when he got a call from the league office. 
Although his team had won every game in decisive fashion, proving themselves the heavy favorites for a championship, the league office informed them that they would not be a part of the playoffs. 
Why? The other teams were refusing to play them.
More:

The upshot of all of this is the morons running this league are punishing this team because of their pursuit of excellence.

They're punishing these kids... because they worked harder and have more talent than the other teams in their division.

Out of sheer gutlessness, the teams remaining refuse to play Hawks because they've given up already and believe they'd get stomped.

And because of that... and that alone...    the league has decided to punish these kids who worked so hard to achieve the success that has rightfully come their way as a result.

We look around at the snowflakes infesting us.  The products of inculcated victimology.  And we wonder, "Gee... how did that happen?"

This is but one of the many examples.

Those running the league are moral cowards, who shouldn't be allowed to run an elevator, let alone a league where developing young men and young football players of character should be job one.

As for me, I wouldn't be caught dead allowing my kids to play in a league like that.

Punishing success and blaming the obviously exceptional "management" of the Hockinson Hawks little league team as their excuse... holding a tournament to determine the first loser... all of that is both despicable and indefensible.  It sends a message... the wrong message... and each and every whining, sniveling punk involved in the decision should be removed.

This decision is despicable at the cellular level.  And those who made it should be ashamed of themselves.