What The Trayvon Martin Case Is Supposed To Teach Us?

by Emanuel Mccray on Thursday, March 29, 2012 (Reposted with author's permission)

Why, in a civilized society like America, do we have laws in the first place?

Gimme Three Steps by Lynyrd Skynyrd immediately came to my mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygausyezIOc

In Gimme Three Steps, the incident did not escalate into violence or death. Instead he said: “Wait a minute mister I didn't even kiss her, don't want no trouble with you, and I know you don't owe me But I wish you'd let me ask one favor from you": “Oh, won't you gimme three steps, gimme three steps, mister Gimme three steps toward the door?”

The laws in America are designed to promote, foster and nourish civility. This is why WRITTEN civil and criminal statutes are on the statute books in nearly every State of the Union.

Zimmerman was on private property inside a gated community. For whatever reason, Trayvon gave him the impression that he was trespassing. Rather than use his phone to call his dad, 911 or the police, the media informs us that Trayvon carried on a conversation with a female friend.

Was Trayvon raised to walk around looking for a fight?

Was Trayvon raised, trained, taught and or groomed to make himself judge and jury of his own rights when confronted by Zimmerman or any other person who questioned him?

This case is solely about the reason and purpose of laws and living disciplined lives. The Bible tells us of numerous stories similar to Trayvon’s. U.S. Supreme Court cases from the early days of our Constitution are helpful in understanding why we need to focus on the TRUTH and not be misled by Satan’s agenda in the media.

In the case of CALDER v. BULL, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), the Supreme Court wrote:
“The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence…. There is a great and apparent difference between making an UNLAWFUL act LAWFUL; and the making an innocent action criminal, and punishing it as a CRIME.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=3&invol=386

Mr. Justice Bradley, writing for the Court in BOYD v. U S, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), described the situation impacting on the Trayvon case this way by quoting Lord Camden:
“The great end for which men entered into society was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole…. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing, which is proved by every declaration in trespass where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show, by way of justification, that some positive law has justified or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books, and see if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of the common law. If no such excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=116&invol=616

Mr. Justice JACKSON, dissenting in TERMINIELLO v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), wrote:
“As this case declares a nation-wide rule that disables local and state authorities from punishing conduct which produces conflicts of this kind, it is unrealistic not to take account of the nature, methods and objectives of the forces involved. This was not an isolated, spontaneous and unintended collision of political, racial or ideological adversaries. It was a local manifestation of a world-wide and standing conflict between two organized groups of revolutionary fanatics, each of which has imported to this country the strong-arm technique developed in the struggle by which their kind has devastated Europe. Increasingly, American cities have to cope with it. One faction organizes a mass meeting, the other organizes pickets to harass it; each organizes squads to counteract the other's pickets; parade is met with counter parade. Each of these mass demonstrations has the potentiality, and more than a few the purposes, of disorder and violence. This technique appeals not to reason but to fears and mob spirit; each is a show of force designed to bully adversaries and to overawe the indifferent. We need not resort to speculation as to the purposes for which these tactics are calculated or as to their consequences. Recent European history demonstrates both.

Hitler summed up the strategy of the mass demonstration as used by both fascism and communism: 'We should not work in secret conventiclers but in mighty mass demonstrations, and it is not by dagger and poison or pistol that the road can be cleared for the movement but by the conquest of the streets. We must teach the Marxists that the future master of the streets is National Socialism, just as it will someday be the master of the state.' (Emphasis supplied.) 1 Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression (GPO, 1946) 204, 2 id. 140, Docs. 2760-PS, 404-PS, from 'Mein Kampf.' First laughed at as an extravagant figure of speech, the battle for the streets became a tragic reality when an organized Sturmabterlung began to give practical effect to its slogan that 'possession of the streets is the key to power in the state.' Ibid., also Doc. 2168-PS….

There are many appeals these days to liberty, often by those who are working for an opportunity to taunt democracy with its stupidity in furnishing them the weapons to destroy it as did Goebbels when he said: 'When democracy granted democratic methods for us in times of opposition, this (Nazi seizure of power) was bound to happen in a democratic system. However, we National Socialists never asserted that we represented a democratic point of view, but we have declared openly that we used democratic methods only in order to gain the power and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our adversaries without any consideration the means which were granted to us in times of (our) opposition.' 1 Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression (GPO 1946) 202, Docs. 2500-PS, 2412-PS. [337 U.S. 1 , 36] Invocation of constitutional liberties as part of the strategy for overthrowing them presents a dilemma to a free people which may not be soluble by constitutional logic alone.

But I would not be understood as suggesting that the United States can or should meet this dilemma by suppression of free, open and public speaking on the part of any group or ideology. Suppression has never been a successful permanent policy; any surface serenity that it creates is a false security, while conspiratorial forces go underground. My confidence in American institutions and in the sound sense of the American people is such that if with a stroke of the pen I could silence every fascist and communist speaker, I would not do it. For I agree with Woodrow Wilson, who said:

‘I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. It cannot be so easily discovered if you allow him to remain silent and look wise, but if you let him speak, the secret is out and the world knows that he is a fool. So it is by the exposure of folly that it is defeated; not by the seclusion of folly, and in this free air of free speech men get into that sort of communication with one another which constitutes the basis of all common achievement.' Address at the Institute of France, Paris, May 10, 1919. 2 Selected Literary and Political Papers and Addresses of Woodrow Wilson (1926).” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=337&invol=1

This is how the before-mentioned Supreme Court cases bring us to the Trayvon case. According to the Miami Herald newspaper:
“Zimmerman and the 17-year-old had argued and struggled in a gated community near Orlando where Zimmerman lived and Trayvon was visiting with his father.” http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/28/2719868/network-broadcasts-surveillance.html

Go back to what Hitler said about his enemies, the Communists and the Marxists: “We must teach the Marxists that the future master of the streets is National Socialism…. It is “the conquest of the streets.” Using thousands of Swastikas and men and women, Hitler ruled the streets without pistol or bullets. A fair trial, called Justice, was given to all through the courts Hitler created for use in controlling the streets. Is there a semblance of Hitler’s policies in the policies of those attacking Zimmerman?

Was Trayvon acting as a “master of the streets?” To this question I will answer, YES. Blacks were immediately called to take to the streets; arrest and terrorize Zimmerman.

People live in gated communities for a reason. They put bars on their windows for a reason. They alarm their homes and cars for a reason. They want to place ID chips in their children for a reason. When the police say “freeze;” “stop;” “pull over” and “driver get out of the car,” they say these things for a reason.

HERE, Zimmerman was providing security for Trayvon’s father inside a gated community. Humm! This diffuses the claim that Zimmerman was an out-of-control racist. When a stranger is encountered in an area where they do not belong, the mind sort of twists a little.

Imagine how you’re crazy you and your mind becomes, or would become if you encountered a stranger inside your fenced yard; your garage; your bedroom. Now imagine what happens to your mind when the stranger gives you the impression they have a right to be where they are without nothing more, or better still, in a belligerent manner or tone of voice.

When I look at the media promote this as a case of race as opposed to the protection of private property, it is difficult not to reach the conclusion that Trayvon was ingrained with the mindset that the White Man is out to get the Black Man. Further proof can be found in the fact that the media, Jackson, Sharpton, the Panthers, the President and the “Hoodies” all want Zimmerman’s death, not caring an ounce about how the death of a 17 year old could have been prevented had it not been for their deep-seated racism.

This whole matter goes back to how we raise our children. I was NEVER raised to see “The White Man” as my enemy. I was TAUGHT no distinction in color. Everyone was my equal competitor. If I wanted what my competitors had, I had to LEARN IT and EARN IT, legally.

I was TAUGHT to NEVER mouth off at my elders, regardless of color or against the police. When questioned, I was told not to escalate violence.

So why is there such a HUGE disconnect between Zimmerman, Trayvon, Trayvon’s dad and the fact that they were all inside a gated community?

Could it be the fact that Trayvon was visiting his dad and not his mom and dad? Was Trayvon’s dad aware his son was coming to visit? Was Trayvon leaving the gated community after visiting his dad? Why did Trayvon’s Dad not provide transportation for his son? If the community was gated, how was Trayvon able to visit or leave the gated community? Why all of a sudden is Zimmerman such a stranger to Trayvon’s dad?

Read this question carefully: Why did this particular gated community have, in addition to gates, a roving security watch that included rules and regulations for the performance of his or her volunteer security duties?

We’ve all seen a neighborhood watch where the public drives freely through its streets. This community was clearly different. Because this case is truly about the protection of private property secured behind a gated community, the 2011 Florida Statutes, Title XLVI, CRIMES, Chapter 810 provides that:

810.09 Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.—
(1)(a)  A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:
1. As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or
2. If the property is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass,

commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.

(2)(a)  Except as provided in this subsection, trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

810.12 Unauthorized entry on land; prima facie evidence of trespass.—
(1)  The unauthorized entry by any person into or upon any enclosed and posted land shall be prima facie evidence of the intention of such person to commit an act of trespass.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0810/0810.html

Zimmerman was on private property inside a gated community. For whatever reason, Trayvon gave him the impression that he was trespassing. We are told and given numerous examples not to be aggressive towards bears, wild dogs, etc., because we could lose our life. This is, in a way, the law.

When laws are not respected, we have the situation we have with Trayvon Martin. Our first reaction is to blame Zimmerman. But in American Law and Justice, it is called contributory negligence on the part of Trayvon, his parents, and the community that raised him.

If we teach our children to teach their children to teach their children how to avoid this type of situation, we will eventually have a Country where these types of deadly confrontations will cease to exist.

Sadly, the blood of Al Sharpton and other Black racists and their Satanic supporters will be around for a few more hundred years.

Kim Wyman - Jim Kastama Secretary of State Debate

The first debate, held on March 29, 2012 between two of the 4 candidates for Washington State Secretary of State in Vancouver, Washington. Candidates Kim Wyman and Jim Kastama attended while Greg Nickles and Kathleen Drew declined to debate.

Many thanks are extended to the Freedom Foundation, Couv.com and Fort Vancouver High School for the debate as well as to the two candidates willing to speak before our community.

Port of Vancouver Executive Director Larry Paulson, Light Rail Is Coming “Like It Or Not”

The Executive Director of the Port of Vancouver (Washington), who makes over $170,000 a year, plus $500 a month “car allowance,” giving public testimony before the Vancouver, Washington City Council, March 26, 2012 telling citizens in their 4th year of double digit unemployment with a median income of $58,000 that they are getting light rail from Portland, Oregon “like it or not” and they will pay for it “like it or not.”

Answering Mayor Leavitt’s call of “Our goal is to attract more citizens and a broader perspective to come and talk with us… we want to hear from those that haven’t previously spoken up! I know you’re out there…” Paulson was one of eight who spoke before city council in favor of the CRC project March 26.

While Mr. Paulson is free to his opinion, I am especially taken aback at this emphasis and repeated use of the words, “like it or not!”

Paulson, who announced he will retire this April, perhaps with a nice pension, admittedly has been involved for some time in pushing this project down our throats. With a yearly salary in excess of $170,000 a year, plus a $500 a month “car allowance.” by what right does he publicly state we that are fortunate enough to reach the median Clark County income of slightly more than $58,000 a year “MUST” pay for this project he also declares is an “International Issue?”

He has a point on “moving freight,” but who can explain how Portland’s Light Rail reaching a mile or two into our community helps “move freight?”

Whether Paulson realizes it, this project does not have community support “like it or not!”

We are in our fourth year of double digit unemployment in Clark County, “like it or not!”

Voters have repeatedly indicated by wide margins we do not want Light Rail from Portland, “like it or not!”

Voters in Clark County are expressing outrage that we are being denied the vote promised on this, “like it or not!”

It has been revealed that this project has several serious flaws, not the least of which is it is designed with insufficient clearance for river traffic due to the design of Portland’s light rail being run on a lower level. Hence, the U.S. Coast Guard will not issue the needed permit for the project to move forward, “like it or not!”

This is not the Democratic process we Americans have gone off to war for and sacrificed much for. And for a six figure income appointed official to stand up publicly and tell still struggling citizens they “MUST” pay for this project they do not want, adding and emphasizing “like it or not” is preposterous in its arrogance.

We must begin changing the face of city leadership in Vancouver, “LIKE IT OR NOT!”

View the entire Citizen Forum at CVTV

Is There No Lie The Democrats Won't Tell?

Received in email this morning

Click image for full size view

Race Baiting and Media Hype Does Not Equal Justice

Once again we are witnessing Americans being ripped apart over a tragic event while both the media and the race hucksters fan the flames to create a lynch mob mentality.

Doing so does not serve anybody, except those trying to capitalize on a tragic event for personal gain.

The death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida is now the subject of the current media frenzy and race hucksters, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Martin is dead at the hands of 28 year-old George Zimmerman and since Zimmerman has not been arrested, all hell is breaking loose down there.

Martin is Black and Zimmerman is being portrayed as White, stoking the flames of race in what is being made to look like a deliberate murder. Zimmerman claims self defense. Media and the race baiters aren’t having any of it and are once again, trying Zimmerman in the kangaroo court of public opinion they manipulate.

Let me say here that I am not defending Zimmerman or condemning Martin. I also am not defending Martin or condemning Zimmerman. Frankly, I have no more of an idea of what actually happened than those whipping the community down there into the lynch mob mentality. All that is actually known at this time is there apparently was some sort of confrontation between the two and Martin is dead.

But that doesn’t stop the race hucksters who descend anywhere they can get on TV and push their race baiting agenda as the cry of “The guy who killed him should get arrested. The dead guy was unarmed” echoes across the state.

The media one sided description even drew a comment from Barack Obama of “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” and “I can only imagine what these parents are going through, and when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”

Black or White, what parent doesn’t think about their own children when such an event happens?

While media is portraying this as a cut & dried case, they seem to be omitting some details on it. Early reports show there was a witness to part of the altercation prior to the shooting.

The witness stated, "The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, ‘Help! Help!’ and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911.” Zimmerman was wearing the red sweater. After calling 911 and hearing the shot the witness said, “And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.”

The what and why of the altercation is unknown at this time or why Martin was on top “beating” on Zimmerman. But it shows a bit more than Zimmerman just walking up and shooting Martin as is being portrayed. Those that knew Martin, who was in Sanford from his home in Miami during a 5-day suspension from school, supposedly for “tardiness” claim he was not a confrontational type of person.

It is also said that when Police played the 911 call to Trayvon’s father with the voice screaming help and he said that voice was not Trayvon’s.

Police reports also stated that when they arrived on the scene they found Zimmerman “bleeding on his face and the back of his head. He also has had grass stains on his back, confirming the story told by Zimmerman and the witness.”

Zimmerman’s father also released a statement letting us know his son isn’t “White” but is Hispanic raised in a multicultural environment.

This doesn’t make the shooting automatically justifiable nor does it mean Martin started the altercation. That part is unknown still. But it also shows that based upon initial evidence, Police had no cause to immediately arrest Zimmerman.

It also calls into question why the media chooses to omit these facts in their coverage. The race hucksters are noted for their extremely biased rants, while ignoring other crimes that show them for the race baiters they are.

But too, citizens across the country up in arms and demanding the arrest of Zimmerman, which might still happen once a thorough investigation into the tragic event is completed shows me something else. It shows me that we have gained a distorted view of criminals and Police work. Not every case is solved in an hour like we see on CSI or Criminal Minds. No, they take long intricate investigations, collecting evidence, interviewing witnesses, family members, school officials and they may take months to solve.

Even forensic evidence collected does not always turn up the truth or guilty party within a half hour as seen on shows such as Forensic Files. This is brought to our attention by the site Criminal Justice Degrees Guide in their post 10 Forensic Myths Spread by TV. We can see that even DNA evidence isn’t as quick or cut & dried as television makes it appear. Nor are eye witness accounts always as reliable as we would like.

While their intent is to caution people entering the forensics field against the misperceptions of the field, it also gives us good cause to question distorted media reports and why we should ignore the race baiters like Jackson and Sharpton as they whip people into a lynch mob mentality.

Have we forgotten the damage caused by distorted media reports and the race baiting of the Jena 6 in Louisiana in 2007?

It is irresponsible of the media to issue such biased reports when they ignore even bigger more heinous crimes such as the torture and murders of Christopher Newsom & Channon Christian. Where were Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton then? Where was media now condemning George Zimmerman in the court of public opinion then? Where are they now as trials and sentencing go forth?

White people are not inherently bad any more than are Black people. Nor are we all inherently good either. All races have low life’s and all have exceptionally good hearted people and everything in between.

But the biased, distorted reporting and race baiting by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton only serve to further divide us Americans, not hyphenated Americans. They draw in big dollars while you are out in the streets demanding a lynching without all of the facts.

We abhorred lynching’s a few years ago.

We don’t need that attitude to rule our country today.

Let’s tone it down and allow the Sanford Police and the other investigators we pay to do their jobs.

Above all, we should stop listening to the race baiters.

Lynching’s, whether actual or just an attitude never was justice and it isn’t now.

Scapegoats, Lies and Photo Ops Will Not Bring Gas Prices Down

“The recent spike in gasoline prices following that huge spike in 2007, 2008 is a reminder to Americans that the price of gasoline over the long haul should be expected to go up just because of supply and demand issues.”

The above quote was spoken by Steven Chu, Energy Secretary for the Obama Administration in a March 20, 2011 Fox News interview, clearly acknowledging that supply is a part of why our gas prices have climbed. At the time he spoke that, gas was costing on average about $3.54 per gallon.

One year later the average price of a gallon of gas is $3.88 with several areas of the country exceeding $4.00 per gallon and inching closer to $5 a gallon.

Acknowledging that supply has an effect of how much we pay at the pump, we saw Barack Obama down in Brazil in March 2011 telling the Brazilians, “We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

Months after being inaugurated, with unemployment already well above 9%, still indicating the importance of supply, Obama, speaking of the Saudi’s was quoted, “In those discussions I will be very honest with Saudi King Abdullah with whom I have developed a good relationship, indicating to him that we are not going to be eliminating our need for oil imports in the immediate future.”

Clearly, in spite of growing calls for more alternative energy sources, even though they have been shown to be inefficient, unreliable and overly expensive, Obama and those in power realize that oil remains our most efficient and economical source of energy available. Several past calls have been made for Middle Eastern countries to increase their oil production, increasing supply and bringing prices down.

Given that Democrats continue to acknowledge our need for increasing the supply of oil, it is quite perplexing to see them also promoting a so-called “study” proclaiming, “U.S. drilling won’t lower gas prices.” Even Obama, in his photo-op appearance in Oklahoma was quoted, “no connection between the amount of oil and gas we drill in this country and the price of gas” blaming instead “global demands from countries like China as being behind the rising prices.”

Yet, we read of Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y) claiming, “I was pleased that Saudi Arabia declared that it would fill any oil gap as a result of an Iranian embargo,” adding, “the move is the best short-term solution for lowering gas prices.”

Mark Green, of the American Petroleum Institute writes, “We say crude oil supply matters – in the context of global-market pricing, which affects fuel prices because the cost of crude accounts for 76 percent of what Americans are paying at the pump. More supply alters the energy equation, exerting downward pressure on crude prices. Energy Economics 101.

“The president seems to disagree, saying there’s no ‘silver bullet,’ while suggesting there’s not much that can be done to affect global markets and offer hope to beleaguered consumers. At the same time he tacitly acknowledges market forces work – but only from the side of the equation that reduces demand through efficiency and other measures.”

“We’re all for greater efficiency, but the president is ignoring the effect on markets of increasing demand. Or is he, because even as he scoffs at the notion of greater development of domestic oil and natural gas resources, there are conversations with the Saudis about increasing their production, talk of releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and pledges to Brazil that we’ll be customers for their offshore oil when it comes on line – all implying that, yes, supply matters.”

We see Barack Obama stopping over in Oklahoma to announce his approval of building a short stretch of the Keystone XL Pipeline from Oklahoma to the Texas Gulf, after killing the project from the Alberta Oil Sands for purely partisan reasons, facing the same criticisms he leveled towards President Bush in 2008, now saying, “Anyone who says that we're somehow suppressing domestic oil production isn't paying attention,” even though Rep. Steve Pearce, (R-N.M.) informs us, “While oil production on private lands has increased, according to the Institute of Energy Research, oil production on federal land was down 11% in 2011.”

Can we forget that our own two Democrat Senators from Washington State, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell joining in with Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) in advocating a “Permanent Moratorium” on off-shore drilling along the Pacific Coast?

Also from the American Petroleum Institute, Rayola Dougher supplies with a breakdown of “Oil & Gas Development on Federal Lands and Waters” showing us how it has decreased in the last couple of years.

Enter Paul Driessen with his well written Op-Ed, “Hunting for Scapegoats Won’t Lower Pump Prices.”

Driessen breaks down the costs for us, “Energy Information Administration (EIA) data show that 76% of what we pay for gasoline is determined by world crude oil prices; 12% is federal and state taxes; 6% is refining; and 6% is marketing and distribution.”

He further states, “World prices are driven by supply and demand, and unstable global politics. That means today’s prices are significantly affected by expectations and fears about tomorrow.
A major factor is Asia’s growing appetite for oil – coupled with America’s refusal to produce more of its own petroleum.”

Shedding even more light on Obama’s often used claim of “we’ve got 2 percent of the world oil reserves; we use 20 percent. What that means is, as much as we’re doing to increase oil production, we’re not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices. Anybody who tells you otherwise either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or they aren’t telling you the truth,” the Washington Post Fact Checked the claim, labeling it “Obama’s ‘non sequitur facts’,” or “two bits of information that actually bear little relationship to each other.”

In their revelation, we are told, “Energy Information Administration data shows that proven U.S. reserves hit a peak of nearly 40 billion barrels in 1970 — after the Prudhoe Bay oil field was found in Alaska — and now stand at about 22 billion barrels. But here’s the strange thing: the United States also had proven oil reserves of 22 billion barrels through much of the 1940s.”

“How is that possible? New sources of oil kept getting found, more-difficult-to-obtain oil suddenly became more economically viable, new oil-extraction techniques gained favor, and so forth.”

Rightfully, the Washington Post, although initially labeling his claims “True but False,” have upgraded them to “Two Pinocchio’s.”

Somebody is not giving us a straight story on using more of our own resources. It makes no sense whatsoever to call on the Saudis, who are paying about $.91 per gallon of gas to increase their output to help lower the price we pay at the pump while claiming recovering more of our domestically available petroleum will have no affect on the price of gas at the pump.

Given the Democrats agenda for some time now to “wean the U.S. off of oil,” long before any viable alternative is available, it becomes very clear who is not giving us the straight story.

Obama’s Energy Secretary Steve Chu said in February 2012, “As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”

Shouldn’t that include actually stepping up the production of our own readily available supplies without all of the confusing double talk?

Furor Over “Free Birth Control” Just A Lot of Hot Air

“I want it and I want it now!”

How many times have we heard commercials with that sentence? It seems to now be part of the left's push towards socialized medicine, beginning with “free birth control,” as evidenced by a female heckler towards GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.




This is but the latest in a series of phony calls from Democrats in fabricating a GOP “war on women” that has grown from the testimony given by supposed Law Student Sandra Fluke weeks ago. That she appears to be trained and well entrenched leftist activist as well isn’t reported, though.

Her cry of birth control for women not be covered by health insurance has resonated across the land as our ‘lamestream media’ that promotes the march to socialism echoes the call daily. But is that even a true stand?

What also doesn’t make the news is that this is not the first time this has come up. In the 2008 campaign, Senator John McCain was confronted with the question, “It’s unfair that health insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. Do you have an opinion on that?”

McCain stumbled in reply, “I don’t know enough about it to give you an informed answer.”

That caused FactCheck.org to investigate the claim and they concluded in 2008,

“The premise of the reporter’s question is a myth. We couldn’t find any data that show a disparity between health insurance companies that cover Viagra and those that cover birth control. The full range of contraceptives, in fact, are covered by more than 86 percent of private insurance plans written for employers.”

Thirteen years ago, 1999 the New York Times reported,

“Around the country, more than a half-dozen state legislatures, swayed largely by insurers' coverage of Viagra treatment, have recently passed measures requiring carriers that cover prescription drugs to pay for women's contraceptives as well. More states are expected to follow.”

No, not every insurance policy will cover birth control, but a significant number already do. That gives us a choice. Not everyone wants Viagra or Birth Control and added coverage also adds costs to premiums. Those who want it covered have the choice just as those who don’t want or need also have a choice.

So what is the entire outcry about?

I am of the mind that it is just another play on our innate compassion for others being used against us to push towards full socialized medicine provided “free” by the government. We already see the cry for free drugs for addicts or at least lower costs under calls for legalization. We see Transgender wanting to be given free sex change operations. These are but 2 examples and where does it end? Nothing is free. Someone must pay for it.

A commonly asked question in this ongoing debate, “As a society do we really want women who can’t afford birth control and don’t want babies to be having them?” The implication is that providing “free” birth control costs us less in the long run.

Not addressed is what of those who want more babies to increase the amount of “free” money received through welfare? What of those women who don’t want birth control due to adverse side effects? Do we force drug addicted women or the professional poverty class to take them or be sterilized so they stop popping out babies?

People must become responsible for themselves again. What have we become that we allow our sexual urges to control us? Where does the “I want it free and I want it now” attitude end?

Do we give everybody a house so they don’t end up sick from sleeping out in the weather? The argument that we must supply them birth control so they don’t produce babies that we must care for is an emotional argument to dull our senses to the real goal, socialized medicine.

Planned Parenthood reports they provide birth control from $15 to $50 a month. WalMart sells birth control for less than $10. Where is the urgent need? It’s available and affordable already. But think a moment. Most insurance policies have a co-pay on prescriptions of maybe $15 to $20 for generics and $35 to $40 for name brand prescriptions. Where is the savings for these people with it available at such a low price as WalMart provides? Is the effort to end co-pays and place more of the burden for other people’s choices in the lap of an employer?

No, it’s time we stood and called the leftists and Democrats on this. The disparity claim being used is a myth, just as FactCheck told us back in 2008.

Birth control is widely available and affordable for those who want it.

The whole argument is just a lot of hot air!

The Presidential Debate That Almost Was

As most readers know, if things had gone according to plan, instead of writing a blog post I would now be on my way to the South Side of Portland, Oregon to participate as one of a few bloggers invited by Oregon Public Broadcasting to live tweet the planned Republican Presidential Debate. If things had gone according to plan.

Only Newt Gingrich firmly committed with Ron Paul saying he would appear if others did. Both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum did not commit, so the planned March 19, 2012 Oregon Presidential Debate had to be cancelled.

In appreciation, OPB threw a thank you luncheon today for all who were involved. Crew, moderators, bloggers, staff, Police and Press, we all were treated to quite a spread of food, catered by Portland’s Elephant’s Delicatessen.

Allen Alley, Chair of the Oregon Republican Party was present to express his thanks for all of the work put into building a fantastic set, that I am convinced would have looked really great on TV.

Portland’s mayor, Sam Adams was opposed to holding the Republican debate in his city. Does he not realize that since OPB was going to broadcast in conjunction with PBS, NPR and the Washington Times that his city would receive a lot of attention nationally? Yes, there was the risk of Occupiers protesting or trying to disrupt the event, but do we all need to cower from such morons who have nothing of merit to add to the community?

As I was told today by one of the OPB coordinators, this event would have shown Portland to really and truly be a diverse city, as claimed and not just a haven for far leftist progressives.

It is disappointing not to be live tweeting such an important event as this marks the first time I have been invited to something of this importance. But there will be other invitations and future events to attend.

I extend my thanks to Libby Clark of the Columbian for recommending me to OPB and to Amanda Peacher of OPB for inviting me. I especially thank OPB and Elephant’s Delicatessen for delicious lunch.

Security Credential

RNC Silence over “Women of the 99%” Illegal Robo-Calls Deafening

It has long been said that the Republican Party has an uncanny knack of snatching defeat out of a victory. And they continue to prove it!

The left has launched an all out attack against conservative America, feigning moral outrage over any and everything they can muster. A usual tactic of the left, being met by the usual silence and spineless response from RNC leadership.

After years of debasing derogatory comments against conservative women, we have all seen the feigned outrage over Rush Limbaugh labeling a left wing activist a “slut” and immediately labeled as the “de facto leader” of the Republican Party. Silence from the GOP.

Emails have flown into my inbox from the likes of Guy Cecil, Executive Director DSCC making the false allegation, “While Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans wage a war on women, yadda, yadda, yadda...”

From Robby Mook, DCCC Executive Director I received, “From their all-male panel on birth control coverage to their refusal to denounce Rush Limbaugh’s vile attacks, blah, blah, blah…”

From a Kelly Ward, DCCC Political Director was received, “Republicans aren't backing down from their War on Women crusade.”

Rep. Diana DeGette, Co-Chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus sent, “Our goal is to expose the truth about Republicans’ war on women….”

Sen. Patty Murray sent, “The GOP’s war on women has reached the danger zone,” and “If Republicans win, women won’t get the care they need, and women will die. Period.”

Jennifer Crider, DCCC Deputy Executive Director sent, “Enough is enough! The Republican War on Women must be stopped NOW.”

Also received from Guy Cecil, “Today we’re seeing another stunning GOP attack on women’s rights,” and “These attacks never seem to end, and it’s jaw-dropping.”

Received today from Robby Mook, “Republicans reached a whole new level of low this week in their War on Women...”

During this time, received from the RNC was reports of “Schools can choose ‘pink slime’ or not,” and a single email from GOPUSA informing the reader that celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred wanted Rush prosecuted.

And now, continuing in their spineless wonder, we read in the UK Daily Mail, Voters targeted with illegal robocalls linking Republican politicians to Rush Limbaugh’s ‘slut’ gaffe informing us of an unregistered shadow group labeling themselves “The Women of the 99%” launching a series of robocalls in at least “25 Congressional districts in 12 different states” across the U.S. targeted by Democrats as “Red to Blue.”

We read, “The automated calls are illegal because they do not state who they are from (there is no known group called The Women of the 99 Percent) or provide a callback number, as required under the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.”

Gateway Pundit goes further with GOP Officials Remain Silent After Dem Group Is Caught Running Largest Political Robocall Scandal in History informing us, “It’s now been over a week since a shady liberal group (they don’t even have a website) calling themselves the “Women of the 99%” made tens of thousands of illegal robocalls across the US attacking Rush Limbaugh and Republican lawmakers in battleground districts. Republican leaders have yet to release a statement on the scandal.”

We are further told this group is “not a registered PAC or lobbying group. Therefore, it is illegal for this group to make robocalls. The group is making the calls anonymously – which also is illegal.”

Where is the GOP Leadership? Why are they remaining silent while such egregious violations of campaign and other laws are carried out by Democrats and their shadow groups?

We hear no outrage over the blatant lies of this “war on women” from RNC Leaders or elected officials. We hear no challenges of Rush being the “de facto leader” of Republicans.

The RNC remains as spineless as ever under moderates. Democrats are slashing at the throats of Middle America while Republicans continue “being nice.”

It isn’t enough for bloggers to spread the word; we need some leaders with a pair. We need some spine at the top. We know the American media will not favor the GOP or even report such leftist violations fairly, if they report them at all.

Republicans, pulling the covers over your heads an going back to sleep will only give us 4 more years of Obama and return the House to Democrats while strengthening the Democrat majority in the Senate. They are in this to win and remake our great country into what it was never intended to be.

GOP Leaders, stand up or get the hell out of the way.

Play Ball

This morning saw the opening ceremony of the 2012 Salmon Creek Little League Season at the brand new Luke Jensen Sports Park on 78th Street in Hazel Dell. Below are highlights of the event.

Luke Jensen, if you recall, was the 9 year-old who succumbed to leukemia a couple years ago.

How fitting that shortly after his death, the community chose to name the new field in honor of this brave little boy.

I encourage you all, when you have a chance to stop by the field and see this state of the art facility.

Feds to “Mediate” CRC Incompetence

Time and again the utter incompetence surrounding the Columbia River Crossing project is revealed to the public. This blog, the Willamette Week, other blogs and even both the Columbian and the Oregonian have run articles exposing the sheer incompetence we still see pertaining to the CRC.

Supporters and those involved with the CRC just continue burying their heads and plowing ahead, though.

Accounting irregularities were poo pooed by an “internal audit.”

Traffic predictions being much less than anticipated were ignored.

The Oregon Supreme Court finding that light rail was the driving force behind the bridge, after years of denials from CRC, was swept under the rug.

And of late, the refusal of the US Coast Guard to grant a permit to the CRC for the bridge was all blamed on the US Coast Guard.

And now, concerning the fact that the bridge is designed with too little clearance to handle river traffic, we read in the Columbian LaHood: CRC height won’t derail plan, “LaHood” being Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

We read that Washington Senator Patty called upon LaHood to intercede between the CRC and the US Coast Guard, Murray saying, “It’s an issue everyone frankly thought was solved years ago.”

It is just another display of incompetence for Murray to claim “everybody thought it was resolved years ago.”

It was revealed by the Columbians Andrea Damewood that Vancouver, Washington mayor Tim Leavitt was fully aware of this “glitch” as she wrote, “Obviously, the CRC staff and the Coast Guard knew what was up, but the CRC had also been quietly informing those “in the know” about the problem. A Vancouver city official was among them. So was Mayor Tim Leavitt.”

A letter dated December 07, 2011 from the US Coast Guard to the CRC, obtained by Couv.com dispels that notion in the first paragraph. It reads as follows

You may read the letter in its entirety here

Of note in the paragraph is, “Extensive discussions at several levels of our organizations have substantially exhausted the dispute resolution measures set forth in Section IV.B.9 of the 1981 Memorandum of Agreement between the Coast Guard and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). As previously stated, the Coast Guard cannot determine if the preferred 95 foot bridge clearance will meet reasonable navigational requirements based on the information provided for review.”

That Ms. Murray now says she thought it was all solved years ago just shows how little attention has been paid to this project, incompetence in other words.

LaHood, who states he is “totally committed” to this boondoggle adds, “We’ll get the Coast Guard, the (Departments of Transportation), and the two states, and make sure everybody’s on the same page to make sure there are no delays.”

Whether or not that means he intends to strong arm the Coast Guard into granting the permit, ignoring the needs of adequate clearance under the bridge for river traffic remains to be seen.

He also described the project additional cost of $150 Million to iron out this incompetent oversight as a “little hiccup that will not stop the $3.5 billion project.”

Nancy Boyd, director of the CRC stated, “we do not expect the permitting process to affect our schedule.”

That this project continues unabated, drowning in incompetence while sucking up Millions of tax dollars before even one shovel of dirt is overturned is a travesty.

Citizen support for the project is decreasing and was never well supported; raising fears in elected officials to deny a vote of the people, obviously fearing it would be denied, again.

Mr. LaHood as well as other federal elected officials should bring this project to a screeching halt and launch a Justice Department investigation into every aspect of it. Prosecutions should follow if warranted.

There is just no way to mediate incompetence.

Shouldn’t America Practice Separation of Mosque and State As Well?

Without a doubt, the United States of America is the greatest experiment in freedom and liberty in all of mankind’s history on this planet. Our ancestors migrated to this ‘New World’ centuries ago in large part to escape religious persecution and have the freedom to exercise, or not exercise the religion of their choice, without fear of repercussion from the state for deviating from a “State Religion.”

Nowhere has this concept been shown better than after gaining our Independence from Britain’s King George and putting a constitution in place, our founding fathers wrote in the very first of our 10 Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” Placed before all other rights, our freedom to practice the religion of our choice, unhampered by the state was established.

For most of our history, Christianity, in all of its various factions was the predominant religion, alongside Judaism, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and others to much smaller degrees. Still, everybody practiced freely with few if any problems. Communities held Christian ceremonies and holidays while showing honor and respect to the smaller religions when they held their holidays and ceremonies.

Many of my teachers when growing up were Jewish who all received days off to recognize their holidays. We recited the Lord’s Prayer every morning until the early 1960’s when an atheist woman successfully had prayers in school banned nationwide, citing “separation of church and state,” a concept not recognized in our country until a 1947 Supreme Court Ruling in Everson v. Board of Education that relied on a few words contained in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists stating, “... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Since then, we have seen a very gradual expansion of just what is said to be religious expression in government. Prayers once common in school were banned. Displays of the 10 Commandments were demanded removed from court houses and judges courts. Christmas Nativity scenes banned from display in government buildings and public parks unless all other religions holy days were equally displayed. Veterans Memorials containing a cross torn down or lawsuits filed to have them torn down. Military Chaplains cautioned on sermons concerning Jesus. It’s almost as if Christianity, still the majority religion in the country has been consigned to the dark back corners of a closet, ridiculed and banned all over.

Judaism, while more tolerated has seen a rise in anti-Semitism, especially as Palestinian groups continue to launch wave after wave of propaganda concerning Israel, expressed in the Charter of Hamas as, “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Subsequent claims of no longer holding that view are specious at best and not to be trusted as Hamas continues to launch rocket attacks into Israel from Gaza nearly every day.

Although that concept of a “wall of separation between church and state” remains firmly entrenched, meaning to me that religion is not to hold influence in government; Islam appears to gaining influence in government.

While Christianity is all but kept out of schools, efforts in our state to include Islamic studies in public schools is sparking outrage.

Iranian born Gubernatorial candidate Shahram Hadian, a former Muslim who founded the TIL Project to expose creeping influence of Islamic religion into government with hopes of imposing oppressive Sharia law, denounced efforts by The Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to grant special accommodations for Muslim students that are not granted Christian students in school.

In September 2010, the Texas State Board of Education “approved a one-page nonbinding resolution urging textbook publishers to limit what they print about Islam in world history books, by a 7-5 vote,” in hopes of curtailing what they viewed as “a creeping Middle Eastern influence in the nation’s publishing industry.”

A Massachusetts school district ended up having to issue and apology to parents of sixth graders for a September 2010 “field trip” to a nearby Mosque where the children did not just observe Muslim services, but were “separated by gender and the boys were asked to join the Muslim adults in their prayer.”

While there, a spokeswoman for the mosque was videotaped telling students, “You have to believe in Allah, and Allah is the one God, the only one worthy of worship, all forgiving, all merciful.”

Can you imagine how fast the ACLU would file a lawsuit against any school district who took 6th graders to a Cathedral or Synagogue where they were instructed as they were in the Mosque or urged to participate in religious services?

More recently, a young Christian student in Grand Junction, Colorado drew attention for quitting a school choir after he was supposed to sing a song “composed in the style of Islamic prayer chants.” Efforts to remove the song from the program were rebuked by the Choir leader and others within the school system with the claim of “bringing diversity to the students and showing them other things that are out there.” This, as we see increased pressure for traditional Christmas music not to be played around Christmas time.

Days ago we see Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs blog in an effort to counter an anti-Catholic ad ran in the New York Times that urged Catholics to abandon their religion over their refusal to abandon a basic tenet of their religion by Barack Obama, rebuked by the New York Times who won’t run her identical ad urging Muslims to come out of Islam.

I first broached this notion of “Separation of Mosque and State” back in July 2007 in my earlier days of blogging where I posted then condemnations of all prayers in schools by atheist groups who strangely enough, remained silent on several inclusions and accommodations to Islam back then.

I brought out a San Diego school adjusting its schedule to accommodate Muslim worship.

We see back in 2007 where some schools were granting special treatment to Muslim students so they could practice their worship during school hours.

In October 2011 an American Judge Ruled American Courts Can Use Sharia Law in settling cases.

Do you think the ACLU would tolerate a Judge ruling it was proper for courts to settle cases based on Biblical scripture?

More and more every day we see this concept of no religious influence in government chipped away as under the cry of “diversity,” Islam is allowed publicly where Christianity is not.

I’m not a particularly religious person, but if we are to truly honor the spirit Separation of Church and State, keeping religious influence out of government and schools, then we must also begin imposing a “Wall of Separation Between Mosque and State as well.”

If not, our offspring just may end up with a State Religion, something our founders abhorred.

March 19 GOP Debate, Portland, Oregon

We will know Thursday Morning if the debate goes forward when it is known if Rick Santorum agrees to appear. So far, only Newt Gingrich has confirmed, Mitt Romney said no, Ron Paul is a maybe, if others show up.

Should it go forward, I will be live tweeting the debate from Portland as I have been invited by Oregon Public Broadcasting to come and participate tweeting the debate.

You can follow me on twitter at @LewWaters or look for the hashtag #GOPMarch19 Monday evening, starting about 5 PM Pacific Time
.
Read more at Oregon GOP or visit KATU News

UPDATE: It looks like the debate has been canceled, according to a news release from the Oregon GOP
If any other updates are released I will post them.

If Obama Is To Be Defeated, It’s Time Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul Dropped Out

Seeing the results from the Republican Primaries in Alabama and Mississippi, it is obvious now that the nomination is a race between two candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. That Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul remain in the race is a distraction, and only further divides an already divided party.

Not that Republicans are noted for running smart campaigns, but if both Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul dropped now, it is likely Gingrich would get behind Santorum and release his delegates to back Santorum. That would bring the projected delegate count to within 100 between Romney and Santorum.

Ron Paul’s 47 projected delegates would further close it, but let’s face it, Ron Paul supporters will stick to him, even if it means Obama is reelected.

Santorum and Romney have been showing strength in the primaries and caucuses with Romney carry 14 states and Santorum 10 including Alabama and Mississippi, Hawaii results not in at the time of this posting.

Newt Gingrich has won 2 state while Ron Paul once again, has not won a single state, often coming in dead last or close to it as he did today in Alabama and Mississippi with a 5% and 4.4% showing respectively.

ABC is reporting that the Libertarian Party is extending an invitation to Ron Paul to be the Libertarian candidate, as he was in the 1988 election, garnering less than one half of one percent of the popular vote.

Dropping out of his 2008 bid, Ron Paul urged his supporters to reject both the Republican and Democrat party candidates and vote for Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin or Cynthia McKinney, all 3 who did not stand a snowballs chance.

Mitt Romney remains the front leader so far, but does not draw favor with many conservatives. Rick Santorum doesn’t draw much favor with Moderates. Newt Gingrich receives more of his support from conservatives and if his supporters switched and supported Santorum, this could easily become a drag race, if Santorum can continue closing the gap.

We are about half way through the primaries and caucuses and I believe with only the two candidates left, Romney and Santorum, either one would stand a decent chance of getting the nomination.

Although many Ron Paul supporters have vowed to sabotage who ever received the nomination, other than Ron Paul, I really don’t believe his support is that strong to make much of a difference.

But let’s face it, Ron Paul still doesn’t stand a chance nor does Newt Gingrich.

How Ron Paul supporters think their “strategy” of gaining the majority of delegates will force him onto the ticket and see him sitting in the Oval Office escapes me.

Hate to say it as they surely won’t believe it, but the country is rejecting Ron Paul and his ideas for the third time.

While doubtful he will drop out, Newt Gingrich is smart enough to read the writing on the wall.

It’s time for the bottom two to drop out and let the top two, Romney and Santorum duke it out.

Let’s see who the country favors more and get behind that candidate, or see 4 more years of Barack Obama destroying the country.

International Brotherhood of Crack Ho’s?

The older I get, the more absolutely astonished I become at the level of stupidity that we human beings stoop to. The bleeding hearts seem to have turned the world upside down. Good is bad, up is down, black is white and it just gets crazier all of the time.

Nothing symbolizes that more than discovering that right here in America, we have chapters opening up of a relatively new “union” designed to give drug addicts a stronger presence in the “discussion” over health care.

The group falls under the International Network of People Who Use Drugs or, as I prefer to label them, the International Brotherhood of Crack Ho’s. Their website and explains their position, they choose to walk through life high on drugs and expect wide acceptance from the rest of us.

This advocacy group came to my attention through an article appearing in the Los Angeles Times, Drug users’ union in San Francisco part of growing movement where we read of different drug users, current and former who strive to feel good about using drugs.

The group meets regularly in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district, “not for treatment, but to discuss public health policy and share their experiences free from shame or blame.”

We read of the groups’ plan “to testify before a city panel on housing discrimination,” one member speaking of her arrest record for “being high in my own house” that has prompted landlords to renting to her. Imagine that!

Indicating the movements beginning in Europe some years ago, University of Connecticut anthropologist Merrill Singer states the movement is getting a late start in America “because of racism and class discrimination, which are intimately bound together in our conception of drug users.”

The group doesn’t care much for the terms “addict” or “abuser” and neither encourages nor discourages drug use. They do discourage dealing during meetings, telling attendees, “You can be high, but don't be disruptive.”

One user explained it as, “People say, ‘you’re a drug user, you brought this on yourself. Do people say that when you’re 300 pounds with heart problems from eating McDonald’s every day?”

As a matter of fact, they do, from Michelle Obama’s goal of forcing people to eat better to what must be called the “war on obesity.”

Claiming to advocate “reducing disease, injury and death among drug users without passing judgment or demanding abstinence,” it also admitted two goals, “to put a face on those whom most people despise” and decriminalization.

The International site lists as their mission,

“INPUD is a global peer-based organization that seeks to promote the health and defend the rights of people who use drugs.”

“We will expose and challenge stigma, discrimination and the criminalization of people who use drugs and its impact on our community's health and rights.”

“We will achieve this through processes of empowerment and international advocacy.”

Left to be read between the lines, it appears more that these addicts simply want others to pay for their drug habit and accept them for walking around stoned. Do I even need to cover the hazards of stoned people walking and driving around our communities? Don’t we have a hard enough time trying to stop drunk drivers?

And, since alcohol too is a drug, would such a move undo efforts to curb drunk drivers and alcoholism?

Seeking to capitalize on what many believe to be Portugal’s successful decriminalization of drugs, these addicts fail to recognize the Portugal drug program isn’t quite the wine & roses they believe.

Ed Miliband, British Labour Party Leader Bob shot down an effort in Britain to “decriminalize” drugs in 2010. Bringing this out in a Dec 2010 UK Telegraph article it is driven home,

“Would the problems caused by drugs be easier to solve if all criminal penalties for their use, cultivation and trade were removed? Advocates of that policy insist that if the drug trade was in lawful hands, it could be taxed, so the vast revenues would flow not to thugs but to the state. Prices would fall, they say, and to levels low enough to mean that addicts would no longer have to steal in order to feed their habits. That would lead to a drop in the amount of property crime, and allow police officers to spend their time arresting people for serious crimes – rather than trivial ones such as possession of cannabis.”

“It all sounds wonderful – but it's not credible. The reason is simple: making an activity legal does not necessarily stop there being a colossal illegal market. Sex between adults is legal, but that has not prevented the development of a huge sex industry, controlled by criminal gangs who kidnap, rape and enslave the girls involved.”

While Portugal is often touted as such a success, with the experiment in decriminalization, drug advocates ignore Sweden’s Zero Tolerance of drugs, including marijuana. Sweden also has the lowest illegal drug usage in Europe.

The International Brotherhood of Crack Ho’s seems to fail to notice that.

Drug addiction, like I or not, is a choice. A very bad choice. We all have problems, we all have troubled times. Forming an advocacy group in order to get taxpayers to pay for their habit and to seek “normalization” of their inability to cope with life and to force others to be openly acceptable of their bad habits is about the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard of in years.

Then again, 10 years ago I’d say the thought of two men marrying was just as ridiculous.

There is no doubt in my mind that is the ultimate goal of the International Brotherhood of Crack Ho’s, normalization and becoming a protected status class.

It seems one day the only unprotected class left will be those hard working people who look out for their loved ones and families and try to make the country a better place.

I shudder to think what group will next seek normalcy and acceptance.

Washington State, We Do Have a Choice for Governor: Shahram Hadian

Tired of the status quo and the same old, same old every election? Fed up yet with the major political parties choosing who we may vote for? Don’t be fooled that our only choice for governor this election is Democrat Jay Inslee or Republican Rob McKenna.

Excerpts from a much longer talk given by Conservative Republican candidate for Governor of Washington, Shahram Hadian. He spoke before the We the People meeting in Clark County, November 11, 2011.

I first posted about Shahram Hadian last October, prior to actually meeting him. I have since met him twice and like who and what I see in this candidate.

As we saw just this weekend, Democrat Jay Inslee has resigned his elected position as Representative for the 1st district, leaving some 675,000 constituents who elected him to be their voice in Washington D.C. without a voice, any advocacy or representation, all so he can pursue his own personal and political gain.

Republican Rob McKenna remains in his office as attorney general, but in spite of impressions from the Washington State Republican Party, doesn’t inspire a lot of conservatives with his moderate views.

As I mentioned in my October post, it is obvious that the WSRP has once again chosen a candidate and is playing favorites on who they have decided we should be able to vote for. Mentioning this on a facebook group elicited the response from WSRP chair, Kirby Wilbur, that the party “has not officially endorsed any candidate.”

Nice play on semantics as he never returned to respond to an additional question from me, if the party is not endorsing and promoting only McKenna, why was Wilbur quoted by the Seattle Times saying, “he and other state party leaders recently notified the Republican National Committee that McKenna was the only credible Republican candidate in the race, clearing the way for the party to start funding his campaign before the Aug. 7 primary.”

This same article quotes Washington State Democratic Party chair Dwight Pelz, “Sometimes primaries are good, and sometimes they are not necessary, adding that he’d ‘look askance’ at any Democrat who picked a primary fight at this point.” At least the Democrat Chair is honest enough to come out and warn any other Democrat to not even try.

Although the article claims this “two-man race” was not intentional, neither party is receptive to any other candidate, as can be seen in the several notices sent out by the WSRP promoting only Rob McKenna and completely ignoring the other Republican, Shahram Hadian, who is steadily building a grassroots support team.

Many of you are already convinced and committed to either Inslee or McKenna and that is well within your rights. But many aren’t and are either going to hold their nose and vote for whoever is on the ticket after the primary or will just not vote at all.

I urge you, before you decide to not vote, give Shahram Hadian a look and see for yourself that he is committed to making the hard decisions that will be necessary to break the gridlock and get our state moving again.

At the very top of our state constitution appears,

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

The “power” resides with us, the individual voters, not a handful of chosen people in a political party.

For me, I really like that Shahram Hadian has a clear focus on the problems within our state and has not been part of the process that put us so deep in the hole. He sees the dangers in where our country is headed and that many of those dangers are in fact state issues that need addressed, not just swept under the rug again.

As we just saw in this latest and short legislative session, at the urging of the current governor Christine Gregoire, a nearly $1.5 Billion budget gap was cast aside for almost half of the session in order to ram an unnecessary social issue down our throats, requiring yet another special session to work out the budget for the state.

That is not leadership.

Shahram Hadian is running for governor on a platform of “Courageous Leadership,” ready to make the difficult and hard choices needed to turn our state around.

Before you commit, I urge you to visit www.hadian2012.com and to attend any event near you where he appears.

Let’s begin taking the power in our state out of the hands of political bosses and parties and restore it where it belongs, in the hands of the people.

I proudly trust and endorse Shahram Hadian to lead Washington State this election

Jay Inslee to Abandon Constituents to Seek Governor’s Mansion

A ‘Breaking News Alert’ from the A ‘Breaking News Alert’ from the Seattle Times announced that 7 term Liberal Democrat, Jay Inslee (Wa. 01) will resign his position to the House of Representatives in order to devote more time in his struggle to be Washington States next Governor. announced that 7 term Liberal Democrat, Jay Inslee (Wa. 01) will resign his position to the House of Representatives in order to devote more time in his struggle to be Washington States next Governor.

Click image for larger view

Inslee, with a 92% record of following the party line has lagged behind GOP candidate Rob McKenna throughout the campaign and if the GOP were not once again playing favorites, it is likely he would be shown to be lagging behind conservative gubernatorial candidate Shahram Hadian as well.

The media and both parties have placed their bets on Inslee and McKenna, locking out others who would place the state the people of the state above all else.

Inslee, who supports homosexual marriage, says he knows how to create jobs and undoubtedly will continue to push deeper into taxpayers pockets again shows how self means more than anything to elected Democrats. His term was to end in January 2013, but quitting now frees him up to devote more time to raising money and sprinting around the state trying to sucker voters into voting for him.

It should not be forgotten how the Democrats lined up to demean former Alaska GOP Governor Sarah Palin over her decision to resign in July 2009. I have no doubt those same Democrats will now laud Inslee over his announcement quitting his constituents in order to seek the governor’s mansion as a great idea.

Shahram Hadian has not quit his day job to seek office nor has McKenna.

Inslee shows the mindset that has placed our state in such dire circumstances economically. Winning comes first, the good of the people of the state comes in somewhere down the ladder.

After nearly 8 years of Christine Gregoire at the helm and more years with total Democrat control of the state, we need a change and frankly, Jay Inslee is not it.

He shows himself to be just more of the same.

Moveon.org To Train Occupiers

If you still believe the Occupy "movement" was spontaneous, think again. It's all orchestrated by those who have long sought to destroy America as we know it and rebuild a socialist society.

The following email I received from Moveon.org explains their goal along with asking for our money to do it.

Click image for larger view

As for their words of "nonviolence?"



Don't you believe it.

Attacking Limbaugh, Liberals Ignore Years Of Their Own Misogyny

FOUL LANGUAGE WARNING

Time and again, the sheer hypocrisy and double standards practiced by Liberal Democrats glares out at America, and goes largely ignored, especially by our very own liberally biased lamestream media.

No better example can exist than their cries of a “Misogynistic Right” and their actions of being “holier than thou” in condemnations of Rush Limbaugh or any other well known conservative they despise when they make a clear disparaging comment against a woman.

I won’t excuse Rush and agree that his use of the word “slut” was over the top and uncalled for. But, he did apologize on air.

That meant nothing to liberals who have for many years now wanted to silence the right, especially Rush Limbaugh.

March 6, 2012 saw an email blast from “Kristen at MomsRising.org,” a spin-off of far left leaning Moveon.org that begins, “That's it. We need to rush Rush off the air,” and adds, “Rush’s misogynistic tirades are harmful. Our daughters see that when women speak up for women, they can be ridiculed, demeaned, and labeled ‘prostitutes.’ And what’s even more outrageous is that many of the commercial sponsors of Rush’s show are marketing directly to women.”

Just today, this same “Kristen” sent another email blast titled, “Tell Rush's Corporate Sponsors to Use the Withdrawal Method.”

Also on March 6, 2012, a “D. Washington” representing Moveon.org and titled “Clear Channel: Cancel Rush Limbaugh‏.” That email makes the claim, “Rush Limbaugh’s radio show is a part of the Clear Channel lineup, and it’s time that they no longer allow Rush Limbaugh to spew hateful and derogatory comments.”

The Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri penned a blatant lie and when called on it by Rush, on air, and instead of just admitting she was wrong and issuing a simple apology, launches into a screed attacking Rush because he described her trash as “b-i-tchy” and “an out-and-out lie,” whining it is not how she expected to spend “International Women’s Day.”

And, can we not see the hypocrisy in her meme attacking Rush’s poor choice of words as she claims “It turns out that people who really, truly still enjoy Rush Limbaugh’s show are, how do I put this, jerks?”

Maybe Ms. Petri has already spent an excessive time Getting in tough with her Inner Bitch.

Returning to Kristen from MomsRising.org, she also says, “Let's teach Rush Limbaugh and his corporate sponsors that moms stand up to bullies. And if you target and try to silence us, or our daughters, there will be a high price to pay.”

Do Mom’s really stand up to Bullies? If so, I’d like to know where the email blasts have been over the years when Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi or Ed Schultz spewed their own Misogynistic vitriol against conservative women.

In the 2008 election Ed Schultz labeled conservative radio host Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” He apologized as the cone of silence descended around him. He’s labeled conservative columnist Kirsten Powers a “bimbo.”

Keith Olbermann has described conservative columnist and radio and TV personality Michelle Malkin as a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He had no problem saying conservative commentator S.E. Cupp “should have been aborted by her parents.”

Left-win author/journalist Matt Taibbi refers to Representative Michelle Bachman as “batshit crazy.” Disagreeing with him, 70 year-old novelist and feminist Erica Jong found herself labeled an “800-year old sex novelist.”

Chris Matthews, expressing his disdain for darling of the Democrats Hillary Clinton, frequently labeled her as “Nurse Ratched,” “Madame Defarge,” “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity.”

Another darling of the left, Bill Maher who recently donated $1 Million to the Obama campaign, has labeled former Alaska Governor and VP candidate Sarah Palin as a “dumb twat” and a “cunt” on his TV show.

Perhaps to be expected and once again proving the double standard, two prominent female Democrats, Sheila Jackson Lee and Jan Schakowsky, both of whom have been outspoken and calling for Rush’s head, would not even comment on Maher’s Misogyny nor would they call on Barack Obama to return the donation.




Red more revelations of liberal’s Misogyny from Kirsten Powers at the Daily Beast.

Even with his own Misogyny exposed, the Alabama Democratic party has recruited Maher to host a fund raiser for Barack Obama.

Apparently calling women “dumb twats” and “cunts” is okay, just as long as it is a liberal Democrat doing it.

All of these examples above resulted in total silence from the lamestream media. Not an utterance of condemnation from Barack Obama, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz or anybody on the left. Most of you are probably unaware any of the above went out over the air since they weren’t “newsworthy.” Yet, these same people feign being so offended over Rush Limbaugh.

Don’t expect condemnation of Über liberal radio host Randi Rhodes for the following either.




No, condemnation from the media and Democrats is reserved for the right as they continue to call for “more civility” that they refuse to give.

Is Congresswoman Herrera Beutler Paying Any Attention?

Totally unbelievable that as more and more revelations of incompetence keep being revealed, Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, in who's district the bridge is located seems to be completely oblivious to what continues being revealed. A partial list can be seen in my recent posts here and here or simply scanning through current editions and archives of Couv.com and the Willamette Week, particularly articles by Nigel Jaquiss.

With all of the revelations of the bridge not supply sufficient clearance for river traffic, the Oregon Supreme Court admitting the prime reason for the project was to overcome Clark County's objection to light rail, traffic estimates being wrong that proposed tolling is based upon, questionable financing and accounting and many more problems facing this $3.6 Billion boondoggle, what does our freshman 3rd Congressional District do?

Send out the following mailer, of course.

It's time to stop "fighting for more money" to be poured into the fiasco.

It's time our elected officials, especially Ms. Herrera Beutler began demanding accountability of the CRC and those in office who continue with such incompetence.

We do not need more questionnaire’s asking if we even want a vote.