Make your own free website on Tripod.com
« January 2010 »
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
and now, Benton?
Chamish
Constitutional
Economy, what's left of
General politics
general rant/rave
Kennewick Illegal
Legal actions
Richland illegal
Seattle illegal
Second-Amendment
WA Illegal
WA media anti 2A bias
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Dave's 2A Blog
Monday, 25 January 2010
Grievance filed against Richland City Attorney

 This UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGAL ordinance against firearms in the Park si an ATTORNEY problem, not just a Council problem. Realize that the Council is composed here, as most everywhere, of CITIZENS, as it should be. Problem is, they are likely not versed in law. In the REICHland (sorry, I cant leave that jab alone, it works too well) the City Attorney made the Ordinances up, with FULL KNOWLEDGE AHEAD OF TIME THEY WERE ILLEGAL.

Heres my Grievance filed with the Washington State Bar Association. Hopefully youll copy/paste and file it also.

 

-------------------

David R Campbell
PO Box 1336
Richland WA 99352-1336

 

WSBA ODC
1325 Fourth Ave Suite 600
Seattle WA 98101-2539

                            10 January, 2010

Re: Grievance filing, attached statement thereto

  To whom it may concern,

  History.

  The present matter and Grievance concerns several parties:

1.) Respondent, Thomas Lampson acting as City of Richland Attorney,
2.) Grievant David R. Campbell, a private Citizen of Richland, WA,
3.) The City of Richland WA

  The matter overall involves an RCW Statute known as “preemption” referring to RCW 9.41.290, both the US and WA Constitutions, AGO Opinion 2008 # 8 and a Richland City Ordinance 9.22.70.

  Both the U.S. and WA. Constitutions forbid Government to Infringe on Citizens Right to Bear Arms. RCW 9.41.290 forbids (Richland) from making a more restrictive Ordinance. Said RCW sets forth that any such Ordinance made contrary to preemption is pre-empted and repealed. The restrictions set forth by the Legislature,
as noticed by McKenna in AGO 2008 # 8 are with respect to:

    1.) Restricted places such as inside a Court room
    2.) Concealed weapons
    3.) brandishing and reckless discharge of

with Mc Kennas clear note that said restrictions are intended to be extremely narrow. Why? Because the Legislature knows that they are acting in deliberate disregard for both Constitutions!

  Earlier than November, 2008, the City of Richland did make a more restrictive thus illegal, pre-empted and repealed Ordinance known as 9.22.70 prohibiting Citizens possessing “weapons” in Howard Amon Park
(“the Park”)within the City of Richland, WA. Amon is a Public Park held out to Public use. “Weapons” under RCW, Definitions, includes firearms. Grievant was apparently in the employ of the City of Richland, WA when and after the Ordinance(s) was (were) enacted.

  I discovered this Ordinance by means of a sign posted at the Park entrance adjacent to the Richland Community Center. The sign read “Weapons prohibited, including paintball guns.” This is, in fact, a total ban on possession of firearms in the Park.

  I corresponded with the Respondent via the US Mail advising that RCW forbade such an Ordinance, and Respondent wrote back in complete agreement.

  A year elapsed wherein Richland had opportunity to change said sign twice, once to remove the restriction on paintball guns, and after I ridiculed this on the Tri Cities Tea Party website, to replace the paintball gun restriction.

  Dr. Robert Margulies, also a Richland resident, and myself confronted the Richland City Council in an open meeting last November regarding this matter. Respondent, as recorded for broadcast on Richland’s Public Access Cable channel 13, and as I audio-tape recorded, made two statements in response to Margulies questions:

 1.) That the sign had not been changed,
2.) That the Ordinance would be corrected.

  We were promised that the sign a/o Ordinance would be corrected.

  Some weeks passed and I discovered that the sign had been changed, this time to allow concealed carry of firearms (CCW) but to prohibit all other weapons. This is forbidden by both Consitutions and Pre-emption Statute
since:

1.) Open - carry of firearms is not regulated under RCW, especially ‘long arms’ (other than pistols)


2.) Exclusion of open carry is more restrictive than RCW allows

  I wrote a letter to the Richland City Council and Respondent, and have received no reply.

  We confronted the City Council in the first January, 2010 Council session with no response.

  Copies of documentation referred to, and audio recording of Respondent statements in the Council session are published at this web-site:

    http://second-amendment.tripod.com
 
  These facts are obvious:

1.) Richland’s Ordinance is clearly illegal, pre-empted and repealed. No such Ordinance(s) now exist(s) by the authority of the People through the WA Legislature,

2.)  Respondent was apparently an Employee of Richland before said Ordinance was enacted,

3.) Respondent admitted in writing in his capacity as City Attorney that said Ordinance was:

    a.) contrary to RCW with the words “conflict with State Law,”
    b.) admitted that RCW was sufficient,
    c.) admitted to “...prepared(ing) and circulated(ing)...” an Ordinance to “address and eliminate...”

4.) According to WSBA records, Respondent is an Admitted Attorney in WA State, bound by Professional Ethics of the Courts.

5.) Respondent did not make material objection to such illegal Ordinance, nor did he resign his position as a City Employee to preserve Public Trust, Ethics and Law, if/when pressured to comply with the Councils wishes to enact such an Ordinance.

Allegation of misconduct.

  1.) Respondent, being an Attorney since at least 1983:

    a.) knew of pre-emption Opinion of McKenna at least after November, 2008 after which the revised Ordinance was admittedly made, and knew beforehand that said Ordinance was illegal as it was more restrictive,

    b.) knew that said Ordinance was repealed on its creation,

    c.) probably had a hand in, or created said Ordinance in the first place,

    d.) admitted to creating the replacement Ordinance, which is also illegal, pre-empted and repealed,

    e.) had full knowledge of Law and Ethics did these unethical and illegal acts with fore-knowledge that such were unconscionable, unethical and illegal,

    f.) made deliberate and willful false misrepresentations to Council, Citizens, Margulies and Grievant to the correction of sign and Ordinance(s), knowing (or should have known) the sign was changed already, and knowing that the Ordinance(s) had been repealed,

    g.) has acted to, and continues to aid and abet Richland in creating, publishing and taking enforcement power in re. an Ordinance a/o Ordinances which in fact do not exist in light of repeal of RCW 9.41.290,

      h.) that Respondents actions are contrary to the Courts Rules of the following sections of RPC:

        1.) Rule 4.1, making willful and foreknowing mis-statements to “(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person”:

            a.) to others such as Margulies and Grievant,

            b.) presumably the same to the Council in advising them to make                 said un-Constitutional, illegal, pre-empted and repealed                     Ordinance     else they,
            being generally ordinary Citizens, would not have had knowledge to        make said Ordinance,

        2.) Rule 4.4 (b) (1) Respondent has clearly acted to disregard the rights of the entire People by creating  9.22.070 for Richland, his Employer, to deprive the People of their Rights.

        3.) Respondent was under no obligation to make said Ordinance or assist Richland in the same, or remain in the Cities employ per RPC 1.16 (b) (4) and 6.2 (c) [2] as to “disagree with” and “repugnant cause,” since Respondent admits in writing to disagreeing with Richland’s Ordinance which is more restrictive thus illegal.

i.) That Respondents conducts rises to the level of serious misconduct under ELC 6.2 (E).j.) That considering that Respondent acted with foreknowledge that such acts were illegal and doing so in attempting to circumvent the Constitutions, Due Process and the Rights of the People at large, that suspension be ordered per ELC 13.3 especially as we note in “Fundamental Principles Of Professional Conduct:”

    “Without it, individual rights become subject to unrestrained                          power,respect for law is destroyed, and rational self-government is              impossible.”

  Such unrestrained power to deprive the People of their Rights is categorically and expressly forbidden under both Constitutions.


                            
                       Sincerely,

                David R. Campbell

-------------------

The Grievance form is at:

 http://www.wsba.org/info/operations/odc/grievance.htm

and is: 

 http://www.wsba.org/info/operations/odc/updatedapril2007.pdf  

Court Rules, including RPC (Rules of Professional Conduct)

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/index.cfm   

http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.rulesPDF&ruleId=gaelc0505.01&pdf=1 

 

Ill post the Grievance form and response letter from the Bar Assn on the front page:

http://second-amendment.tripod.com  

 


Posted by Dave at 12:48 PM PST
The law problem
Topic: General politics

 We are in the age of legislators and courts ignoring Constitutional restrictions that WE placed on them. Law is the problem. It's taken almost two months to wrap my mind around it. Here it is.

Our Founders realized the evils of Democracy and law, King, Corporation and Church all in bed with each other. They left England and the Evils followed them, leading to them winning an impossible war. Theres no way the Colonists should have won, but they did. Its the "In God we Trust" thing.

 This Nation is based on INDIVIDUAL Freedom and Rights, but now we have laws that infringe on those rights. Why should I not be able to possess a knife or gun in a public park. It IS my park, after all. How is it that the Constitutional restrictions on Law got all twisted up and put backward?

  First, what is law? The first incidence of law is in ancient Israel. Israel tended to get into some mischief that displeased God, so God set down some rules and laws.

Whats critical about these rules and laws is that, in contrast to modern times, the laws were about relations between/among men, and basically just that - mano-y-mano. If I dug a pit and your cow fell in it and died, the State Prosecutor did not come in and charge me, I simply made it right  with you by replacing the cow, and maybe putting a sign near or a cover on the pit. Government did NOT INTERFERE WITH FREE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS.

Read the 10 Comandments, where do they say to do anything? Theres a serious misconception in modern religion that the Commandments are rules to be followed - "works" when in fact, they are exactly the opposite.

  This system does not lend itself to small groups of elitists grabbing power and control. Israel made the mistake of taking on a king like her neighbors, and thats when it all started going downhill. The "GOVERNMENT" got involved. When people give over power to a "government" then they have not lost something, they gave it away.

  Along came Alexander the Great of Greece who invented a particularly rotten form of Government called Democracy. Certain subversives in America are pushing the idea that America is a democracy. They usually hang out in universities and on Public TV. Democracy was, as coined by Alexander, as a benevolent dictatorship based on taxes. As he and his army went across the lands of the Medes and Persians, he conquered cities and promised to leave them more or less alone as long as they paid him taxes.

Sound familiar? It sounds like the ROT in Washington DC (district of corruption).

 TO make a long story short (you can read about the various legal codes through history on your own) our legal system is now attacking the Constitution(s) and some of it is deliberate, some accidental.

Laws are subordinate to the Constitution because the Constitution created the system of Government from which the laws come. The first dangerous idea is that the Constitution is law. It is not. Read it.

Laws as God designed tell people how to deal with each other. Laws as subverted and manipulated in modern America cause Government interference in that process. Car A runs into the back of Car B and theres an accident report by the Police, insurance companies, maybe a Court hearing. A whole big system of people MAKING MONEY and FEELING IMPORTANT where the owners of A and B should just work it out. If they have a fist fight and call it good, then theyve worked it out. If B fixes A's car, then they worked it out. But this isnt good enough for the dictators in Gubmint, they want to control it all.

  In some areas, making law is useful and necessary. Example- a motor vehicle speed limit. Once upon a time, there werent enough motor vehicles to be a big problem, but once they became common, and accidents began to cause property damage and injury, it became wise to establish speed limits. These limits dont mean much unless:

1 .) people agree among themselves to observe them and be responsible for their actions

2.) the "speed limit" is somehow 'enforceable' (notice I didnt say "law" VERY critical distinction)

 So if B was speeding and hit A, and B refuses to be responsible for his actions that damaged A, then A has a recourse at LAW to use the power of the People through their Legislature and Courts systems to FORCE B to take care of business.

Thats great. It works. Until the system gets greedy and arrogant and starts treading on areas it is FORBIDDEN to tread on.

Second Amendment, for example.

Its one thing to regulate speed limits, there is no enumerated RIGHT to drive 100 mph in a car.

THERE IS AN ENUMERATED RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. To possess an "arm,"  REGARDLESS OF ITS TYPE.

  Certain subversives have ignored the Constitutional restrictions on their authority and restricted, at law, the Right to Bear Arms. This they are FORBIDDEN to do. They have lots of games and excuses to do so:

1.) they define "Arms" as only firearms, where no such restriction exists in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. "arms" are anything one can use to defend self and Nation.

2.) "Safety and protection" - both are smoke screens for bleeding heart subversives to pretend they can ban weapons and make Society safer. Unacceptable, because it usurps the Constitutional restrictions on them, and is PROVEN to make things LESS SAFE. The proof is in the DATA.

 The basic law problem is that Gubmint has RUN OUT OF THINGS TO MAKE LAW ON (Gods laws were good enough for God, why arent they good enough for us??) in areas where they are not Constitutionally restricted, and are intruding on Constitutional protections. Like anyone else, they have jobs which send them on power trips and make money, and they think they must do something.

We dont need any more laws. We have enough, thank you very much. What we need are unpaid Legislators and etc to remove the incentive to make laws, especially the STUPID laws that WA State makes like "you cannot wash your OWN CAR IN YOUR OWN DRIVEWAY. Unenforceable, in a work, thus invalid. I KNOW LEOs have better things to do.

There is an un-obvious problem in law called 'selective enforcement.' Some laws, especially that point out the legal systems UTTER FAILURE to control and deal with crime (which proves it cannot thus is useless and ineffective) such as traffic laws. Police often "use" speed limits (for example) to then have the ability to look into a car and see if someone possesses some drugs or a gun. They are not able to deal with the important issue (stopping criminals from selling drugs) so the speed limit is used for other purposes. The system is unable or unwilling to deal with real crime (gangs for example) so loitering laws are enforced, which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that:

1.) they infringe on our right to Freedom of Assembly

2.) are often only applied to certain people (suspected criminals) in unequal enforcement.

The danger is when the People think thats OK - its the dangerous "ends justify the means" philosophy. Hitler used that one.

When a law is made, its a law, it must apply to ALL, not just a selected group that the system doesnt like. This becomes very dangerous when other Rights are ignored such as the Right to Bear Arms, and the Gubmint tries to deprive law-abiding Citizens of firearms when theyve done nothing wrong. ITs not about "firearm," its about "personal property." Guns one day, taking your car or house the next.

The second danger to the 'its someone elses problem' (unequal enforcement to someone else) is that the much more dangerous idea of loss of rights of others such as right to speedy trial or 5th Amendment - too many Americans have fallen for the notion that criminals have no rights, and they do, especially since they are NOT criminals until having been found GUILTY.

The PD shoots a car thief dead in the streets, and the foolish cry "he had it coming." No, he didnt, he had a TRIAL coming to determine guilt or innocense, not a highway EXECUTION. IF the tables turn, and YOU are the target, ESPECIALLY FOR NO GOOD REASON, you'll not go for that Coleseum mentality ever again (reference to feeding Christians to the Lions in the Roman coleseum for entertainment).

Several States have made UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws (which are then of no effect) such as 'concealed carry," which is by nature STUPIDITY, if its CONCEALED, then its not visible and thus unenforceable. 

Since the Gubmint has been proven utterly incapable of stopping crime and  violent attacks of A upon B (God couldnt/didnt even stop that - think about that one...) which are ACTIONS, they are now going after the OBJECT. Since law cannot stop someone from using a gun to shoot a gas station attendant and taking the money, the Law wants to eliminate guns. More stupidity since:

1.) Possession of Arms is an enumerated RIGHT

2.) gun control has resulted in crime ridden CESSPOOLS like Chicago and Wash D.C. (District of Criminals) 

A bullet-resistant vest is a personal possession. It is far more a defense against a gun than a gun. A gun is more an offensive tool as defensive, except for the psychological implications. (if a criminal knows I have a gun, hell go somewhere else). There are States Laws speaking toward a vest as an offense if used to defend someone in the process of, say, robbing a bank. The purpose of the vest in that case is to attempt to prevent a PD from stopping the robber by shooting him, thus the vest somewhat becomes a criminal tool.

Such a law is basically Unconstitutional and becomes flagrantly so when the bleeding hearts attempt to outlaw a vest in total. Just like gun laws, this deprives Citizens of their possessions that may especially be used for defense of Self and Nation.

SO, our entire Legal system has become corrupt. Youll not be concerned until they come for YOUR things? Youd better be concerned now!

The less obvious problem yet is that this gun control crap, just like a myriad of other laws, are NOT from the US, they are from the UN. These gun control laws are a result of the UN campaign for small arms disarmament, just like laws concerning Federal lands and water rights come from the Communist UNs policy and beliefs that 'all the Earths resources belong to all people' (paraphrased, it gets the point across). CLM wrote about this topic extensively

EDIT: This just in: Obama/UN disarmament:

 

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7080  

Whats the solution? Stop making laws. Start eliminating laws. Unpaid Legislators, Councilmen. Everybody armed as in Kennesaw GA, where crime was more or less ELIMINATED. You tell me what the answer is - incremental change for the better, or partial collapse and reformation. I dont know. I personally pray night and day that the world economy collapses so that the entire system and its money go down the drain, and daily life becomes an individual pursiut of happiness without Gubmint and Corporation. Such a collapse would be ugly, but sometimes the cure is worse than the cause.

In the mean time, WRITE LOUDLY AND OFTEN to your Legislature, Judges, Senators and Reps. Tell them we will not tolerate attacks on our Constitutions and Rights. 

 


Posted by Dave at 11:59 AM PST
Updated: Monday, 25 January 2010 2:16 PM PST
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Re. SB6396- My letter to Olympia
Now Playing: no games
Topic: WA Illegal

There are at least two witnesses who will allege TREASON under RCW 9.. Im # 1.

 

 ---------------

 

David R Campbell
PO 1336
Richland WA 99352-1336

Sen. Jeanne Welles
219 John A. Cherberg Building
PO Box 40436
Olympia, WA 98504-0436

Rep. Ross Hunter
330 John L. O'Brien Building
PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Sen. Adam Kline
223 John A. Cherberg Building
PO Box 40437
Olympia, WA 98504-0437

Washington Ceasefire
Ralph Fascitelli
PO 20216
Seattle WA 98102


 In Re. the Seattle Times article on your proposed gun ban

  Hello Subversives!

  The amount of FALSE information you all have fed to the Seattle Paper is staggering, and we are communicating with the paper and the People to expose it. Your goal is an attempt to institute the assault rifle ban.

  In the mean time, this is the crux of the matter. The Seattle Times newspaper quotes Jeanne Welles as making some FALSE statements:

"What we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state,"

 There ARE NO such weapons sold in the State now, nor have there been. This is a DELIBERATELY false statement.

    "She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms."

  There is NO "Right to Bear Arms" granted by the Constitution.

  Both US AND WA Constitutions FORBID you to infringe on that right.

 Since it is clear you all are operating from deliberately false information, there is no point in correcting you, except to say to you all:

  In a time when our Nation is at WAR with radical Islam and you are acting
to aid and abet them by attempting to disarm Citizens from having weapons that can defeat Terrorists, decide whether you wish to be put on trial for SUBVERSION or TREASON.

 You'd better look up the penalties in RCW for those CRIMES before deciding.

  The People will NOT tolerate lawmaking to push Washington Ceasefire’s Leftist, subversive, utopian agenda, especially when such laws are a directly contrary to both Constitutions.

  Here are some talking points:

  In Richland  where people own guns, there is little crime except the illegal drug dealing Mexicans you Legislators have allowed to come here.

  It’s interesting that the type of crime you’re crusading against doesn’t happen here. It only happens in Cities that share your Leftist Agenda.

  You must want crime. We won’t tolerate it here.


                Most Sincerely


                                  David R Campbell



CC.via Email to Klippert, Delvin, Van De Wege

 

------------

 

RCW 9.82.010

Defined — Penalty.

 

(1) Treason against the people of the state consists in --

     (a) Levying war against the people of the state, or

     (b) Adhering to its enemies, or

     (c) Giving them aid and comfort.

     (2) Treason is a class A felony and punishable by death.

     (3) No person shall be convicted for treason unless upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or by confession in open court.

[2003 c 53 § 46; 1909 c 249 § 65; RRS § 2317.]

 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.82

===============

 

RCW 9.81.010

Definitions.

 

(1) "Organization" means an organization, corporation, company, partnership, association, trust, foundation, fund, club, society, committee, political party, or any group of persons, whether or not incorporated, permanently or temporarily associated together for joint action or advancement of views on any subject or subjects.

     (2) "Subversive organization" means any organization which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or a purpose of which is to engage in or advocate, abet, advise, or teach activities intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of the United States, or of the state of Washington, or of any political subdivision of either of them, by revolution, force or violence.

     (3) "Foreign subversive organization" means any organization directed, dominated or controlled directly or indirectly by a foreign government which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or teaches, or a purpose of which is to engage in or to advocate, abet, advise, or teach, activities intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of the constitutional form of the government of the United States, or of the state of Washington, or of any political subdivision of either of them, and to establish in place thereof any form of government the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under, the domination or control of any foreign government, organization, or individual.

     (4) "Foreign government" means the government of any country or nation other than the government of the United States of America or of one of the states thereof.

     (5) "Subversive person" means any person who commits, attempts to commit, or aids in the commission, or advocates, abets, advises or teaches by any means any person to commit, attempt to commit, or aid in the commission of any act intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of the United States, or of the state of Washington, or any political subdivision of either of them by revolution, force, or violence; or who with knowledge that the organization is an organization as described in subsections (2) and (3) hereof, becomes or remains a member of a subversive organization or a foreign subversive organization.

[1953 c 142 § 1; 1951 c 254 § 1.]

 

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.81.010

 Attacks such as this on both Constitutions will not be tolerated.

 

 


Posted by Dave at 12:50 PM PST
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
my visit to the Courthouse today and the illegalities there
Topic: and now, Benton?

Does the contempt for and ignorance of law ever end around here?

 I trotted into the Court building in Kennewick with my pistola openly carried, to go visit a Clerk somewhere to ask about some legal filings.

 The building has a security checkpoint with xray and lock box for checking weapons in. By the book, except that I could not verify that they complied with the Law regarding restricting ONLY areas adjacent to a Court room...

I walked up to the man and pointed to the Glock and said "I assume you want this."

He made some sort of unremarkable response, so I popped the mag out, dropped it on the table and pulled the pistol out, and laid it on the table. He seemed moderately surprised, but not alarmed. 

He proceeded to tell me that the department I came to see was out to lunch. 

Being obvious that I had no idea of what their security procedures were, he explained the lock box and that if I came back, Id get a key, and that I had to show ID AND A PERMIT. 

PERMIT FOR WHAT, MY SHOES?

There is NEITHER A PERMIT REQUIRED IN THIS STATE FOR MY SHOES OR MY OPENLY CARRIED PISTOL.

 The pistol was no more concealed than my shoes. If it were concealed, I could not have popped the mag out quickly.

You'd think that close to a Law center theyd get it right.

More "dont want to" IMO. 


Posted by Dave at 3:10 PM PST
This just in from a Patriot - Kennewicks also ILLEGAL

What part of "THOU SHALT NOT MAKE A MORE RESTRICTIVE ORDINANCE" don't they understand?

   A member of the Good 'ol Boys Network just sent me copies of Kennewicks Ordinances on firearms, and it starts off GREAT, but its STILL ILLEGAL. Note the [ ] brackets for my comments afterwards :

---------------------- 

Dave,
 
I have read the below sections of Kennewick Municipal Code and this appears to be almost exactly the same as Washington State RCW.  I'll run a search for Park related code and send you what I find there pertaining to firearms.

10.12.074: Dangerous Weapon: Every person who:

 (1) Manufactures , sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement;

 (2) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other
dangerous weapon; or

 (3) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (Ord. 3558 Sec. 20, 1994)
 
10.12.080: Weapons - Prohibited in Certain Places:

 (1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his control a weapon:

 (a) The restricted access areas of a jail, or of a law enforcement facility, or any place used for the confinement of a person (i) arrested for, charged with, or convicted of an offense, (ii) held for extradition or as a material witness, or (iii) otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court, except an order under chapter 13.32A or 13.34 RCW. Restricted access areas do not include common areas of egress or ingress open to the general public;

 (b) Those areas in any building which are used in connection with court
proceedings, including courtrooms, jury rooms, judge's chambers, offices and areas used to conduct court business, waiting areas, and corridors adjacent to areas used in connection with court proceedings. The restricted areas do not include common areas of ingress and egress [1] to the building that is used in connection with court proceedings, when it is possible to protect court areas without restricting ingress and egress to the building. The restricted areas shall be the minimum necessary to fulfill the objective of this subsection (1)(b). [bold supplied]
 
For purposes of this subsection, “weapon” means any firearm, explosive as
defined in RCW 70.74.010, or any weapon of any kind usually known as a
slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or any knife, dagger, dirk, or other
similar weapon that is capable of causing death or bodily injury and is
commonly used with the intent to cause death or bodily injury. [2]
 
In addition, the county commissioners shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The county commissioners shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The local judicial authority shall designate and clearly mark those areas where weapons are prohibited, and shall post notices at each entrance to the building of the prohibition against weapons in the restricted areas;

 (c) The restricted access areas of a public mental health facility certified by the department of social and health services for inpatient hospital care and state institutions for the care of the mentally ill, excluding those facilities solely for evaluation and treatment. Restricted access areas do not include common areas  of egress and ingress open to the general public; [3] or

 (d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age. [4]

 (2) The perimeter of the premises of any specific location covered by subsection (1) of this section shall be posted at reasonable intervals to alert the public as to the existence of any law restricting the possession of firearms on the premises.

 (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:

 (a) A person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments, while engaged in official duties;

 (b) Law enforcement personnel, except that subsection (1)(b) of this section does apply to a law enforcement officer who is present at a courthouse building as a party to an action under chapter 10.14, 10.99, or 26.50 RCW, or an action under Title 26 RCW or Title 10 KMC where any party has alleged the existence of domestic violence as defined in RCW 26.50.010; or [5]

 (c) Security personnel while engaged in official duties.

 (4) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply  to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 or KMC 10.12.008 [5] who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility.

10.12 - 19
 (5) Subsection (1)(c) of this section does not apply to any administrator or
employee of the facility or to any person who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises.

 (6) Any person violating subsection (1) of this section is guilty of a gross
misdemeanor. (Ord. 5236 Sec. 1, 2008: Ord. 3558 Sec. 22, 1994)
 
==================
 
See- it is more or less an "IBR"  (incorporatd by reference) I don't know why they just simply dont IBR it and be done with the matter. I guess we look important to ourseles by making ordinances? It's back to the "keep my job" thing. If we all own firearms like Kennesaw GA and crime more or less goes to ZERO LIKE IT DID IN KENNESAW, the Police and Media are out of work. If we just IBR, then the Council cant sit up and Pontificate.
 
PRE-EMPTION SAYS THEY SHALL NOT MAKE A MORE RESTRICTIVE ORDINANCE.
 
  "More restrictive" means exactly that. A specification for buying an electronic component reads (Ive been the engineer writing such specs):
 
"Resistor, 1000 ohms, 1/4 watt, carbon composition, axial"
 
More restrictive is adding any condition to that statement, like some Technician who thinks he knows more about circuit design than me, or a parts supplier who doesnt know how to read specs, or more importantly, DOESN'T HAVE JUST THAT IN STOCK AND WANTS TO SUBSTITUTE PARTS TO MAKE A SALE. That really happens.
 
My Spec is ignored by some know-it-all salesman and replaced with:
 
"Resistor, 1000 ohms, 1/4 watt, metal film axial"
 
where "metal film" is certainly a high-quality part, but IS NOT WHAT I SPECIFIED. Did I not specify "carbon composition?" Metal film are MORE EXPENSIVE too.
 
That's pretty obvious, but the problem gets deeper in the "more restrictive" area when Salesman responds with:
 
"Resistor, 1000 ohms, 1/4 watt @ 0 degrees Centigrade, metal film, axial"
 
What Salesman doesn't have the education to understand is that when I specify a power rating (1/4 Watt) it implies "1/4 watt max dissipation of heat at ROOM TEMPERATURE, 20 * C.." Salesman has made a MORE RESTRICIVE statement " @ 0 degrees Centigrade" which I DID NOT AUTHORIZE, which may result in the component failing in use, or at least, my having to do calculations to qualify that part when it comes in not as I ordered it. His resistor will not dissipate enough heat at room temperature and may burn up. Salesman wants to run the show, wants to sell the parts he has in stock. This really happens.
 
"Apple" is a noun, red, round, large, w/o stem, are MODIFIERS that restrict "apple". "Apple" is any apple, regardless of grade
 
"Run" is a verb. "Fast," "downhill" "away" are modifiers that restrict "run."
 
Modifiers restrict the plain, simple meaning of words or ideas.
 
Here's where Kenneiwck is ILLEGAL - they are more restrictive than RCW.
Start here, then we'll look at another section: 
 
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300
  
 
[1] Notice this- it's critical - they cite RCW that DOES NOT ALLOW such a restriction on a PUBLIC PLACE. This is why Richlands ordinance was illegal (its been repealed, it no longer exists)
 
IS THE ACCESS DRIVE TO A SCHOOL A PUBLIC PLACE? Can anyone drive there in their car? Then it's PUBLIC, just like a PARK.
 
[2]  I guess that means I CAN'T GO THERE even unarmed. Ever seen the TV shows about people in Karate classes that tear a building down without tools? Been there, done that. So are they going to tell me that I can't come there? NO, thats a CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION, just like the Civil Rights violation against the SECOND AMENDMENT. 
 
[3]  that means EXACTLY AND ONLY WHAT IT SAYS, Public areas of ingress and egress OF A BUILDING, NOT A SCHOOL DRIVEWAY. Does it include "public ingress/egress for CARS in front of a building???????
What if a Parent/Guardian has to park a street over and walks to the Public access in front of the School to escort their Child? They CAN do that and they CAN open carry!  
 
[4] The Mexican restaurant in Richland (one in the flag incident) is in violation here they have posted this in an area which is not off limits to those under 21.
 
[5] ILLEGAL, more restrictive. the RCW does not acknowledge its being modified to include Kennewicks Ordinances.  Including their own Ordinance makes it more restrictive.
 
With a couple exceptions where they couldnt resist trying to MODIFY RCW, theyve quoted RCW. WHY waste time doing it? Like Lampson of Richland said "we dont need an Ordinance, RCW ALREADY COVERS IT."
 
It makes them feel imporant and powerful. It.s human nature to try to control and manipulate others.
 
And notice 9.41.300 (7) - theres a contradiction coming up. Put a finger in that section and read on....
 
NOW, onto the real problem with Kennewick, where they go illegal - school restrictions. Recalling the legal REQUIREMENT that all portions of a Statute be READ TOGETHER, watch the illegalities, vague portions and contradictions pop out. This is the result of IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION.
 
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.280
 
 "(1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:

     (a) Any firearm;"
 
Now, they've made an UTTERLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction, and when they try to justfify it on the ridiculous PRIVATE PROPERTY notion, the problems arise. The "private property" thing is the idea that one person can prohibit another from exercising their Rights to Bear Arms on private property, just because its privately owned. NEITHER CONSTITUTION ALLOWS THAT.
 
 Such a blanket prohibition prevents Citizens from carrying in their defense (and presumably of their minor child) to the school. If its illegal to carry to pick up the child in front of the School building, then that de-facto disarms them en-route to the School. This is the Post Office problem.
 
So, in the process of dealing with that sticky wicket, they create other problems:
 
"(e) Any person in possession of a pistol who has been issued a license under RCW 9.41.070, or is exempt from the licensing requirement by RCW 9.41.060, while picking up or dropping off a student;"
 
This appears to cover it, except it doesnt:
 
1.) Still Unconstitutional
 
2.) does not specify that the pickup has to be with a MOTOR VEHICLE.
What if you have to park a block away and walk over to the same driveway as those picking up in cars, to receive your child? If it's only limited to posession inside a motor vehicle, then I smell a CIVIL SUIT because your right to carry (openly or concealed) has been infringed on in a public place, both at the Publically accessible driveway AND on NON SCHOOL grounds they HAVE NO CONTROL OVER while you are walking to the School.
 
3.) The limitation only applies to PISTOLS. What about a shotgun? PISTOL MEANS PISTOL. Not rifle, not shotgun, not revolver.
 
4.) This section appears to limit posession to ONLY CONCEALED, and thats their GAME, they want to outlaw or harass and intimidate you into thinking the ONLY CARRY IS CONCEALED CARRY they can REGULATE THROUGH LICENSES.
 
5.) "Any person" includes STUDENTS, and is where the contradictions start.
 
5a.) are Students not also included in "any person?" If so, that contradicts their attempted blanket prohibition on Students carrying, and LAST I CHECKED, STUDENTS HAD CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ALSO.
 
The CONSTITUTION DOES NOT distinguish among Citizens, it FORBIDS GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING ON THEIR RIGHTS.
 
 9.41.280 CONTRADICTS 9.41.300 in that:
 
.280 prohibits ALL weapons IN A SCHOOL BUILDING (ignoring for a moment the part about "picking up"
 
"(6) Except as provided in subsection (3)(b), (c), (f), and (h) of this section, firearms are not permitted in a public or private school building."
 
AND is more restrictive than:
 
"(1) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto, or to possess on, public or private elementary or secondary school premises, school-provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used exclusively by public or private schools:"
 
Which defines premesis as only the BUILDINGS. 
 
AND CONTRADICTS:
 
.300 (7) "(7) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to a person licensed pursuant to RCW 9.41.070 who, upon entering the place or facility, directly and promptly proceeds to the administrator of the facility or the administrator's designee and obtains written permission to possess the firearm while on the premises or checks his or her firearm. The person may reclaim the firearms upon leaving but must immediately and directly depart from the place or facility."
 
 
WHICH ONE IS IT? All posession (except defined categories) illegal, or illegal unless a School administrator allows it?
 
The point is not whether the Leftists that haunt the Educational system wants to "allow" a parent to come armed to defend himself or child, the point is how IGNORING BOTH CONSTITUTIONS creates a MESS in Law which makes it UNENFORCEABLE. This State has an ABUNDANCE of stupid laws on the books which cannot be enforced like "you cannot wash your own car in your own driveway. HOW STUPID IS THAT because it IS NOT ENFORCEABLE.
 
Like these School laws, how will they prevent COncealed carry into a school building without a weapons check, lock box, metal detectors like at the Court house? This leaves the School in violation of 300 (1) (b): 

     "In addition, the local legislative authority shall provide either a stationary locked box sufficient in size for pistols and key to a weapon owner for weapon storage, or shall designate an official to receive weapons for safekeeping, during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building. The locked box or designated official shall be located within the same building used in connection with court proceedings. The local legislative authority shall be liable for any negligence causing damage to or loss of a weapon either placed in a locked box or left with an official during the owner's visit to restricted areas of the building."
 
Again, PICK ONE, which one is it? A court room is clearly more of a security risk than a School, so why have more lenient restrictions of lockbox etc here and not at a School? They are BOTH RESTRICTED AREAS.
 
Theres a term to describe the idiotic laws this state has cobbled together, from a less-famous movie called North Dallas Forty:
 
LIKE A MONKEY F-ing a FOOTBALL.
 
I'm afraid it's an appropriate comparison.
 
 I got into this conversation with a Pasco School teacher over Xmas. She stated that she didn't want Students to be armed, just after wed agreed on the general unConstitutional laws regarding adults.
 
After she stated that she did not want students armed, I responded:
 
"WHY NOT"
 
SHE HAD NO ANSWER. 
 
Again, the root problems here are:
 
1.) Functional illiteracy of those involved in lawmaking
2.) Laws directly contrary to BOTH CONSTITUTIONS
3.) Unenforceable laws
4.) stated, implied or apparent restrictions on OPEN CARRY 

Posted by Dave at 9:34 AM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 13 January 2010 2:30 PM PST
Tri Cities media complicit
Topic: WA media anti 2A bias

Did you expect anything else? I did. Hope springs eternal.

 Tri Cities is a home for young and hopeful up-and-coming journalists. Odd tidbit of the day.

  It's no secret there is a general, Nationwide bias against 2A in America, the very Country and Constitution that gives them the 1A right to speak out and, with few exceptions, to say anything except shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.

 Let me start this Rant with a couple Kudos to the Tri Cities Herald newspaper who did run, and has kept up, two stories on our efforts to straighten Richland out. 

It seems that the TV and radio stations didn't have the spare electricity to cover it. 

 I don't recall if the Herald contacted me, or vice versa, but contact we did. A nice young lady met me with a photographer at the Illegal Sign at Howard Amon Park and we and Bob talked for a while. The stories they ran afterwards are linked on the front page here:

    second-amendment.tripod.com   

Along with the other REICHland documents.

  Critical analyses of the stories, however, reveal some problems. There's a serious lack of critical analysis and fact-checking in both stories. Both simply report what "he said, she said" without verification and with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING done to verify what the Law is in the matter, and DON'T tell me that a Reporter can't drop into an Attorneys office and ask for some general advice. Or read the law for themselves and ask critical questions.

This is not, hopefully, a matter of inexperience, because if so, it evidences  failure to seek out someone with more experience.

  I know the Herald reporter in the first story at least tried to do some follow-up, some checking into what the Ordinance said, but I haven't heard anything further. My guess is that her inquiries weren't popular with Herald Management.

  The second Herald article is simple printing what the various City Employees responded with, and its mainly a pack of lies and misrepresentations which, OF COURSE, I challenged. Here's where the Herald earns its poor marks for news reporting.

  I responded on-line after Drews article and called out the false information and rebutted it. I challenged him and the covering and going into hiding was immediate, both from him and Herald Management. The response was more false information.

---------------------
 

Re: Re TCH article on gun ban signs



My [Drew] response: There is an ordinance. It’s 9.22.070(C), and it’s language was modified in February 2009 by the Richland City Council."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS THERE IS NO ORDINANCE, regardles of whether Richland pretends its still valid. The portions about firearms were REPEALED by authority of the Legislature.

Just because its in print does not mean it has not been repealed? Do yuo believe everything you read?


" My response: If Washington’s Constitution deems this to be an open-carry state, than it is a constitutional right."

Apparently you have never READ the Constitution. Heres the Second amendment, point out the words that ALLOW Citizens to bear arms:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There are NO words there that "allow" Citizens to do ANYTHING. they PROHIBIT government from infringing.

POint out to me where that gives Rights to anyone. Dave

PS tell your management their participation in the cover up is being documented. Itll go on the website shortly.


    1. “The ad-hominem attack is not acceptable:

    "wanted to make sure similar allegations couldn't be lobbed at the county"

    "lobbing allegations" is a personal attack, the issue is local Governments breaking the law.”

    My response: Whether or not this is acceptable is debatable. It seems to me the county saw an issue come up in another jurisdiction and wanted to make sure they were in compliance. Whether that’s acceptable is one thing, but it’s not a “false statement.” It’s what Adam said and it’s a representation of what he meant. The “allegations” portion seems to nitpicking semantics more than pointing out a “false statement.” Technically, if someone says you are violating their constitutional rights, that is an allegation until a judge makes a ruling. Then it becomes “breaking a law.”

    2. "city's ordinance regarding firearms in parks was modified "

    “There is no Ordinance, it was REPEALED by RCW.”

    My response: There is an ordinance. It’s 9.22.070(C), and it’s language was modified in February 2009 by the Richland City Council.

    3. "Rick Terway, Pasco... said ... unsure if firearms could be carried in plain view."

    “His ignorance is no substitute for the Constitutions prohibition on Pascos infringement of Peoples Rights. Neither he nor Pasco may restrict it. Dave Campbell, Richland WA”

    My response: Again, this is not false information. He wasn’t sure, so I wasn’t going to put words in his mouth. False information would have been him giving a definitive answer that was incorrect.

    4. "Fyall said three Benton County parks -- Horn Rapids, Two Rivers and Hover -- have signs addressing firearms, and all say it's unlawful to discharge them."

    “RCW makes no such limitation, there is limitation on "discharge likely to cause harm/damage" but NO such blanket restriction applies.” 

    My response: I think another online poster, tcindependent, cleared this up nicely.

    5. ""I don't think someone that had the same intentions (as the men in Richland) could say we were violating their constitutional rights,""

    “Bearing arms is not a Constitutional right, the COnstitution FORBIDS goverment from restricting that right. The Right is from the Declaration of independence/Bill of rights”

    My response: If Washington’s Constitution deems this to be an open-carry state, than it is a constitutional right. It’s also a constitutional right on the national level. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, is an amendment to the Constitution.

 

===========

I offered to take him and Terway to lunch at TAGARIS and lecture them on Constitution and Citizens Rights. Apparently ignorance is bliss:

--------------- 

 

On Wed, 12/9/09, Drew Foster <dfoster@tricityherald.com> wrote:


    From: Drew Foster <dfoster@tricityherald.com>
    Subject: Re: Re TCH article on gun ban signs
    To: "Dave" <gl1200harness@yahoo.com>
    Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 2:22 PM

    Dave,

    I spoke to one of my editors and I think I’m going to have to respectfully decline your lunch invitation. I’m going to put together a correction about open carry in Washington being a matter of the state Constitution, not state statute. Thank you for pointing that out. Besides that however, I’m not sure the “false statements” you pointed out in the online posts are necessarily true. I’ve laid them out below. Please don’t take them the wrong way.

    - Drew

 

==========

 Seems we cant handle a little correction, especially when said corrections destroys our politically biased thinking.

============= 

Re: Re TCH article on gun ban signs

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 3:42 PM
From:

To:
"Dave" <gl1200harness@yahoo.com>
Re: Re TCH article on gun ban signs What cover up? Aren’t we reporting the issue? I said I’d run a correction as well. That seems pretty far from a cover up.

The Second Amendment, by prohibiting the government from infringing on people’s right to bear arms, allows the practice. It was worded that way to hold up to challenges. No matter how it’s written, it means the same thing. It’s a moot point to even argue.

- Drew
 
-------------
 
And NOW he gets it right? Tagaris wasn't good enough, or being corrected of our gross error wasnt acceptable?
 
----------------
 

Re: Re TCH article on gun ban signs

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 5:50 PM
From:
To:
"Drew Foster" <dfoster@tricityherald.com>
you got it right that time. thanks. son, God gives us our rights, not paper or politicians. The rest is not to you, but towards your Papers Management. Ive got Corporate cced in on whats going on.
 
----------------
 
He wrote back again, I just deleted it. Refuse is refuse.
 
  Since I had clearly pi**ed in someones Cheerios inside the Herald, thought I'd do a little digging to see if there was any effect. Seems as if there was.
 
There was an on-line op piece by one of the Herald Staff complaining about the people who posted comments after stories and the Libel, ad hominem, red herring and generally childish behaviour (comments posted) and the Herald refusal to do anything about it.
 
Why was the Herald allowing LIBEL on their website, dont they know its ILLEGAL IN THIS STATE? Must be because they WANTED IT THERE.
 
  I left a comment in complete agreement after reading/scanning all the posts, then, as is requested of users, and in keeping with THEIR OWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON USE OF THE WEBSITE DISALLOWING SUCH LIBELOUS AND OFF TOPIC POSTS, I flagged every one that was in violation of the Heralds online TOU's. I flagged all but about 6 posts, and 2 were mine. My last one had a tally of the results. I flagged them mostly for LIBEL and personal attacks.
 
I  got an angry Email from Andy Perdue:

 ====================

 Flag this message

Re: Reporting abuse

Thursday, December 3, 2009 8:30 PM
From:
To:
"Andy Perdue" <aperdue@tricityherald.com>
Do you have time to be SUED?

Your response is recorded for possible LEGAL ACTION.

--- On Thu, 12/3/09, Andy Perdue <aperdue@tricityherald.com> wrote:

From: Andy Perdue <aperdue@tricityherald.com>
Subject: Reporting abuse
To: @yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 5:24 PM

You might think it's fun to report everything you disagree with as abusive.
I do not have time to deal with this.

Please stop immediately.

Andy Perdue
Tri-City Herald

========== 

DONT HAVE TIME TO DEAL WITH LIBEL? or dont have time to have an agenda of stirring up traffic on the website by idiots acting childishly? 

ANDY (I assume) THEN BLOCKED MY USER ACCOUNT ON THE HERALD WEB SITE.

 RETALIATION, IN ONE WORD. CHILDISH IN ANOTHER. 

PLEASE STOP FLAGGING POSTS THAT CONTAIN LIBEL THAT ARE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OWN PAPERS TERMS OF USE? 

ANDY, WHY DID YOU WANT LIBEL PUBLISHED ON YOUR SITE? 

 I spent an HOUR cleaning up his cesspool on line and another half hour writing to Herald Management, whose response was "were not required to enforce our Terms of Use." Its called, RUN, HIDE, ATTACK OTHERS, RETALIATE AND COVER OUR ASSES.

Those with something to HIDE act that way. Do you see ME hiding anything? 

 

I just got a letter from Drew, it went straight into the SPAM bin. Again, refuse is refuse. They had their chance, deliberately fouled it up and refused to get it right, now its time for REAL MEDIA to expose it. 

ME. 

 ---------------

 Now onto the Tee-Vee and Radio.

KNDU had a reporter at the November 2009 Council meeting where Bob and I first challenged the Council on their LAWBREAKING. I talked with him briefly and explained the situation. KNDU must have gone out of business? I haven't heard a PEEP from them since.

 KEPR is always blowing smoke up our asses and out various orifii about their 'campaign to give voice to the powerless' by 'investigating' various wrongs and using their Media power to put them right.

 

Ive seen REAL media outlets (TV and Radio in Ohio) who really DID do that. It doesnt happen here!  A TV station in Ohio stepped right up to the plate and challenged a Corrupt Ohio College who was illegally attempting to defraud me out of an HONORS DEGREE I PAID FOR, just because I exposed their fraud and lawbreaking, and told their buddy the Ohio Atty General to go jump in the lake for his corruption. Little did I realize at the time how correct THAT allegation was.

KEPR had no problem interviewing me over Clearwire's violation of WA Law by printing too many digits of a credit card number on a receipt (Clearwire is STILL in violation of the law, by the way). KEPR has run two lead stories during/after the time the Herald ran its stories - ABOUT THE WIND. Yes folks, the wind, it's a real danger here.

But KEPR doesn't have time to deal with IMPORTANT issues like defending Citizens Rights and the CONSTITUTION. I called Holly Z. about Richland, no response. Ruth was at the last Council meeting, I gave her info and contact information, no response.

I also couldnt get the courtest of a return call from Ruth after leaving a voice mail wanting to give them first shot at announcement of a Class Action against Richland. Isnt THAT news? No, news here is only Government interfering in peoples lives and police chasing and arresting people.

Wonder why I wont watch these stations or read the paper? 

Is the transmitter down? All of KEPR's phones out? Cars won't run? I know the stations still on the air because I still hear the bleating like sheep about their investigative journalism, which doesn't want to investigate TOUGH ISSUES.

------ sidebar 

I bet if I offered to donate a PILE of CASH to a local CHARITY the TC Media would cover it.

BUT WAIT- I did make such an offer and the AGENCY REFUSED IT BECAUSE I DEMANDED MEDIA COVERAGE. There's a skeleton in that closet and I know what it is.

I offered to donate/raise enough CASH to WIPE OUT HUNGER IN TRI CITIES AND THEY DIDN'T WANT IT.

That little game is based on two things:

1.) I expect to buy WHOLESALE

2.) I made it conditional on TV MEDIA reporting to challenge others to donate

I wasn't talking about tens-of-thousands of dollars either.. that's too easy.

 ---------------

 Neither does 870 AM seem to have any electricity to cover such a critical issue, especially when they run Conservative talk radio. I guess its OK when they're making money at it but not when it compromises PC in TC!

I called the station and explained the situation to someone, but no response. 

 ------------------

Chamish has an EXCELLENT video on the Lebanon war from 1982 which uses the phrase "advocacy journalism" to describe NBCs deliberate mis-reporting of Israels bombing of Lebanon. Apparently he was there, on the ground.

 Regardless of the events in Lebanon which are not first-hand material here, the tricks NBC used to mis-report and villain-ize Israel are interesting.

"Advocacy:" 

*Pick a side and report only favorably on that.

*Report without challenging the sources with facts.

*Report one-sidedly.

 Standard fare for the utterly biased Leftist media in the US. Guess why the INTERNET is so popular? I can go to BBC and Times Online and get REAL news about whats happening here.

Write /Email Barry and ask for the "NBC in Lebanon 1982" DVD.

 It's the same story there as here in Tri Cities, so called "journalists" with their heads stuffed full of radical Leftist activist notions in School pushing an agenda - anti Freedom, anti Constitution, anti Second Amendment. 

Or is it their MANAGEMENT?  Geesh,from the looks of the events at the Herald, I might guess its EDITORIAL MANAGEMENT doing this!

Saying nothing, reporting it wrong, not "holding their feet to the fire" (please KEPR, that's SO LAME AND HOLLOW when you don't mean it) , standing by idly while someone else is robbed, may as well ALL be complicit in wrongdoing.

Fortunately the economic crash is getting the Medias attention across the Nation. Now they will be lucky to stay in business. Hopefully the crash will bankrupt most of the Leftist media and we can stat over, I can run a radio station from my home if needed. I could reach a LOT of Hanford workers with a few mW.

======

 Thursday morning. KNDU had some programming on a vehicle theft in Yakima (unknown whose truck it was- duh, CHECK THE VIN?) the Hati disaster, followed it up by video from the Haq trial (Haq is the CONVICTED murderer in the Seattle Jewish Federation killing) and dear Melanie stated "alleged murder."

 You MUST be crapping me, Melanie. The ILLITERACY in the Media here is staggering. IT'S NOT "ALLEGED" AFTER A GUILTY PLEA AND CONVICTION.

Onto Hati. Some IDIOT thinks that sending bottled water will "make a difference." Fools its up to HALF A MILLION DEAD. W-T-F are they going to do with BOTTLED WATER? 

KEPR proclaims "Pipes burst in House" (in Minnesota)

NOW THATS RELEVANT NEWS. My day is better knowing pipes froze and burst in Minnesota when local Cities are attacking our Constitutional rights.

Next up CAMEL WRESTLING in Turkey.

Where do they dredge this trash up at?  HOW IS THIS NEWS?

And now, for the SECOND time this hour, more on the stolen truck accident. How is this news TWICE? It isnt, its called FILLER. Now were on to parading emergency services and police, its the daily routine.

Cant we find anything of worth, value, positive morals to talk about? And now, recycling video from an old story on "vehicle prowling up in Richland."

God this is sad. Turn the transmitter off and save electricity. May as well, its clear they have no interest in SAVING THE CONSTITUTIONS.

Time to turn the TV off. Cant stand the incompetence any longer. Off to the  INTERNET for my news. 


Posted by Dave at 7:18 AM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 26 October 2010 10:54 AM PDT
Saturday, 9 January 2010
just what I've been saying
Topic: Economy, what's left of
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/business/global/08chanos.html?scp=1&sq=contrarian%20investor&st=cse

 

 

Contrarian Investor Sees Economic Crash in China

" SHANGHAI — James S. Chanos built one of the largest fortunes on Wall Street by foreseeing the collapse of Enron and other highflying companies whose stories were too good to be true.

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News

James Chanos made his hedge fund fortune predicting problems at companies and shorting their stock.

Now Mr. Chanos is betting against China, and is promoting his view that the China miracle has blinded investors to the risks in that economy.

Now Mr. Chanos, a wealthy hedge fund investor, is working to bust the myth of the biggest conglomerate of all: China Inc.

As most of the world bets on China to help lift the global economy out of recession, Mr. Chanos is warning that China’s hyperstimulated economy is headed for a crash, rather than the sustained boom that most economists predict. Its surging real estate sector, buoyed by a flood of speculative capital, looks like “Dubai times 1,000 — or worse,” he frets. He even suspects that Beijing is cooking its books, faking, among other things, its eye-popping growth rates of more than 8 percent.

Bubbles are best identified by credit excesses, not valuation excesses,” he said in a recent appearance on CNBC. “And there’s no bigger credit excess than in China.” He is planning a speech later this month at the University of Oxford to drive home his point. "

 Recall what I wrote about CREDIT?

  The problem with credit is not credit, it is business expansion far beyond the SBA's recommended "15% per year" maximum level into the stratosphere of ultra greedy, ultra rich corporations - and that expansion fueled ONLY by credit. When the lid blows off, there's nothing left of the lid - or what the lid was mounted to the kettle with.

It's easy to tell whether the news is real or fabricated. This man is predicting a China collapse and backs up that position with evidence. Read the story at NYT and look at the nay-sayers who have nothing to base their response on except ad-hominem. 


Posted by Dave at 3:45 PM PST
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Economics 301-Hamou
Topic: Economy, what's left of

" After a period of Irrational Exuberance, which has inflated the Mother of All Asset Price Bubbles, we will have a Keynes' Liquidity Trap, The Crash and The Deep Depression. " 

 Economy 101 according to Hamou, who is apparently an Economist in Israel:

1.) were hosed

2.) were hosed

3.) were hosed.

Simple, aint it? Were between "The Crash" and "Deep Depression."

The world economy has descended into a Liquidity Trap from which it will not recover. There was an admission, finally, on netWORTHLESS TV last night that construction jobs have been lost that will NEVER RETURN.

Y'see, the economy was based on inflated, baseless valuations of goods and services (as much as we can steal) which raised price levels. Theres NOTHING at GOOGLE thats worth $600 a share for COMMON STOCK.

Since people couldnt afford goods/services, they had to use CREDIT to buy on "time." That was the old phrase - " I need to buy on time"  That used to mean a consumer having credit with a merchant. Now its been corrupted to "credit with a bank."

When prices went crazy (real estate, for example) and money went tight, people and companies that could not afford payments went bankrupt. They werent paying on the goods, they were paying on the INTEREST.

This makes things worth what the interest on them is, and since interest is zero, things are worth- umm, shit or shinola, pick one. It's a wash.

The Liquidity trap is the fact that banks make money on lending with interest. Now the goods arent good because the interest isnt good, no one can sell goods, and there is no one to buy over-priced goods because no one has any MONEY. They cant get credit because their credit is wrecked because they couldn't even pay interest. And now they are too poor to pay ATTENTION. Don't worry about not being able to see who they are, that will become MOST evident when they stat going HUNGRY.

Since interest rates are zero, banks cant lend for two reasons:

1.) cant make any money, cant assume risk, for no return

2.) banks know interest rates have to increase in the future, so they wont lend now. Why would YOU loan 450,000 for a house at Prime + 5 or 5.1% if  prime/LIBOR (whichever) will go to 10%? Do YOU want to be hung out to dry for -5 to -10% for 30 years?

  The "trap" aspect is that if there's no lending, and business and Government cannot operate a positive balance and can only exist on CREDIT, then no lending and no business recovery.

  The shadow Gov't at the Federal reserve cannot raise interest rates, so the banks can make money (see anything illogical in that statement?), because raising interest rates raises price levels and people/businesses cant afford to buy now that there's no credit to buy on. Catch - 22 to the 10'th power. STALEMATE, in Chess.

    The purpose of the Fed, under macro-economic theory, is to control/manipulate/manage the money supply to keep the economy from making wild swings. If they weren't MANDATING interest rates, then the banks could raise rates on their own, just like car makers could raise fuel economy figures if the Govt wasn't manipulating them to low levels through CAFE standards. Realize the 'hold' over the banks allowing them to manipulate rates stems from the banks using "their" money.

Look up something known as the "crowbar laws of 1855" in your spare time. 

Please don't fall for the "economy is recovering" lie the Gov't is telling the Media to tell you, "recovery" means "going back to where it started from." 450,000 jobs lost this month versus 550,000 last month IS NOT RECOVERY- its a little less disaster. Recovery from the flu is not just reduced fever, its ridding the body of the virus which caused it, restoring it to the previous state of health.

Watch the video "F**k the Fed" on yield-curve and notice the photos. Notice the man holding the hot steel bar with GLOVES? This is what an economic collapse looks like.


Posted by Dave at 9:45 AM PST
Updated: Saturday, 9 January 2010 3:30 PM PST
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Comments to Students
Topic: General politics

Since Im sure there are local High School students reading in on this Blog (I'd passed out some basic info last night at REICHlands Council meeting) heres a brief description about what this is all about. Youll find some VERY heavy political stuff here, and may not understand what's behind it.

Youngin's (thats what you'd be called where I come from back near the hills of Kentucky) here's what's up.  And from the obvious conduct of the REICHland City Council recently, I'd suggest they learn some American History and Gov't here also.

Years ago, and not that many, people were more or less free to do what they wanted. The Great Depression wrecked the economy. Its happening again,  RIGHT NOW - watch CLOSELY. World War II was a tragedy that killed many Americans. The 1950s were a decade of prosperity where people could afford houses and education.

Some bad things happened up to this time:

1.) The United Nations was formed. It started off as a good idea, that went very bad.  The UN formed from the failure of the League of Nation to stop World War I. War can't be stopped, especially as many of us believe, it's deliberately started. After WWII, the alliance of the US, Great Brittain and Russia went bad when Russia wanted control. They're Communist (don't believe the lies that "the Soviet Union fell") , the US is a Republic, and G.B. (England) was moderately Democrat/Socialist. The Communists have taken the UN over.

The worst thing is that the United States gave control of its military over to the UN and thats why we got into Korea, Viet Nam and a whole lot of other wars that we probably shouldnt have been it. Or that were started by our Government...

2.) Psychology was invented in the 1950s. Its used now for mind control, especially in Media advertising.

3.) Communists tried to take over our Federal Government in the 1950s and a man named Joe McCarthy blew the whistle on them and exposed them. Theres a movie about that on the "This" channel on TV.  Since then, the Communists have tried to re-invent themselves as PROGRESSIVES/Socialists and use subversive tricks to gain control of Government in the US.

4.) The 1960s began a drug induced crazy movement against war, especially Viet Nam (regardless of the question whether it was right or wrong, a fringe element got in) with all sorts of religious ideas about how the world should be a peaceful, happy Utopia. They were called Hippies.

They are running Washington DC RIGHT NOW. They pretend that Government can make laws to tell people to not do bad things like crime and drugs (bad things for sure) and are amazed when these laws fail. So, to cover up their mistakes, they try to make more laws that don't work.

5.) There was/is a lot of anger over wars still going on over Viet Nam. Thats led to a political and social situation in this country which isn't good.

If you think thats bad, wait till the generations of the late 1990s and on get into power. Theres a real disaster coming. Social collapse.

You see, the Hippie movement had a mind set of an ideal world where they had made everything right by their radical religion and social values. Gen X, Y and Z are here now with ideas of "theres no hope at all." 

All these Hippie social/socialist Hope and Change religions are exactly that, and they are based in the crazy religions of ancient Greece where they believed not only that the world was of mysterious origins, but that it became whatever they imagined it to be. The crazy things youre being taught in School (feminism, homosexuality, climate change, gun control...) are not social items, THEY ARE RELIGION. All of these philosophies can be traced directly to ancient Greek ideals, and these Greek ideals are what people are forced to believe when they go to College. Where do you think frats and such with Greek names come from?

These philosophies from ancient Greece teach that man is God. This theme is the basis for the book of Daniel in the Bible. 

There's nothing more dangerous than someone who is desperate and has nothing to lose.

6.) Music- it changed from the 1960s-1980s rock and roll message of "let's party andhave a good time' (that wasn't all good...) to a message of "utter desperation, death and destruction. This began in the 1980s with the heavy/death metal bands. 

This is the message that 15 or so years of young people have been brainwashed with.

7.) The housing collapse (which more or less drove the economic collapse) happened in the 1930s also. Its not because of what they are telling you- its caused by local Governments artificially raising house and land "values" If there were not inflated prices on Homes and Land, there would not be pressure to commit fraud with it. Criminals don't go after things that dont make money. This is especially bad in the Tri Cities where local/County Government and real estate companies conspire to jack up prices on houses and land for no real reason (its SAND, people) and try to gouge people for more money for an old house than a new one.

  This has turned out to be a world wide disaster because when things are not looked at by their real value, but a false inflated value, then when the credit supply runs out (few people could afford inflated prices for things so they had to borrow money to buy them) the system collapses.

8.) These "do-gooders" with the radical 1960s socialist mindset are running around trying to make laws to magically make crime go away. Gun control is one failed example, its proven beyond a doubt with data to back it up that gun ownership REDUCES crime. Yet Governments want to take guns away from people. Doing so is against the Constitutions limits on their authority. Our limits...

Whats really bad there is that they see someone doing a crime and the "bleeding heart" nature of them tries to stop the criminal act. That cannot be done- theres no way to stop people from doing bad things. Since they are not able to do so, they play a game of trying to force a single tragedy on everyone else and force them to believe its a threat to them personally as an excuse to make laws to prevent crime. Again, it doesnt work. So since it fails, they then try to take away personal private property (guns for example) and that is what led to the Founders of America coming here from England and starting the Revolutionary War to prevent, corrupt Government taking away peoples property.

Part of that "taking away" seems innocent, but it still accomplishes the same thing - they want to force people to have LICENSES to have or do things. Dog license, gun license, car license... Then if you dont pay the license, they try to take your property away.

9.) The Democracy lie. You are being led to believe that this Nation is a Democracy. That is absolutely FALSE, and Democracies are NOT based on freedom, they are based on dictatorship. Read about Alexander the Great and his invention of Democracy where he went across Asia conquering people with his army and promising to leave them alone as long as they paid him taxes. THAT'S democracy. Youll have to get books from the 1800s to get the truth on this, modern textbooks have been sanitized of the truth. Start with the History of Greece by J. B. Bury. Youll have to go to the old book store in Richland or to abe.com to get books like this.

Democracy is dangerous and does NOT lead to freedom, because Democracy always ends up with a radical majority trying to take over and tell everyone else what to do. Democracies are "mob rule" that deprive people of their greater Freedoms.

The problem with democracy is that it promises that whatever the most number of people want is what Government does. The men who founded our Nation and its Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitutions knew that was bad, they saw democracies failures in Europe. The problem is that a majority can be FORCED with military threats, and thats EXACTLY whats happening in the Middle East right now. And is the reason these countries always fail and fall into terrible civil wars- the most radical powerful cult gets in and tramples on peoples basic rights, usually over religion.

Our Nation is a REPUBLIC based on Constitutional limits on Government that 'government SHALL NOT infringe on individual freedoms"

This is the basis of Richlands attack on our freedom to bear arms. What happened in that case, and in many similar on other issues, is that in a democratic system, its easy for people in Government to make up a story and statistics that some social thing needs fixed with laws when such a thing does not exist, its people in Govt manipulating other to get their own personal, political and religious agendas put into law. 

 

=============== 

You have a serious mess to deal with in the future. We are in a financial Depression right now, the Government and Media are just hiding it from you. They are scared to death that telling whats really going on will make the collapse happen faster, and they are probably correct in that assumption. Unemployment is over the 10% figure they have been saying is the indicator for a depression. Real unemployment is more like 17-20%.

Last report I heard period, 430,000 more people lost their jobs. I think that's CHANGE.

Our Nation is under attack, we are at war, regardless of who started it, there's something different this time- the enemy is inside the country TWICE:

1.) Radical Leftist politicians with the 1960s mindset

2.) Radical militant Jihad (they are enemy SOLDIERS, NOT TERRORISTS and there are in the Northwest)

 We've never had a military enemy inside the US before, except the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor.

You are living in a very dangerous time.

What men and women like Bob and I, and those like us across America, are doing  is restoring Constitutional rule in America - We the People own and run this country, and were in the process of throwing the Communists, Socialists and radicals out so hopefully YOU have a free Nation to live in in 50 years.


Posted by Dave at 11:53 AM PST
Updated: Monday, 29 March 2010 12:46 PM PDT
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Now THAT was fun
Topic: Richland illegal

The "dog breed" issue was front and center at REICHlands Council meeting, and of course yours trvly were there to hold their feet to the fire for their continuing CONTEMPT for YOUR Constitutions and Laws.

 I havent received the courtesy of a response on my last letter:

http://second-amendment.tripod.com/cor3.rtf 

and of course they have no response except "guilty as charged."

The pleasant surprise of the night was one of the dog owners, had the facts and figures all ready. Especially about sueing REICHland out of existance should they pass such a stupid Ordinance.

I of course followed that up with my promise, not threat, to sue them up and down the river. Fortunately we have a river nearby. Theres a Federal Courthouse here too. The list of potential charges wouldnt quite literally stretch from "here to the Fire Dept across the street" but I believe you would find the list MOST impressive.

Ill digitize tonites audio ASAP.

So, if in a year or two there is no REICHland, youll know why. I intend to bankrupt them and Im not sure Im at the head of the line....

 

REICHland, do you realize your corruption has certainly made news across the world by now?

Ruth from KEPR did a bang up job, especially interviewing Bob. She really put the questions to him, and fortunately hes a walking encyclopedia on dogs, self defense, firearms, law, on and on.

The dog issue is like any other "bleeding heart" issue, Governments seizing on any single or small group misfortune, even if they have to use them as POLITICAL HUMAN SHIELDS to implement their personal desires as law.

The sob story from Kennewick was just that, one man from Kenn trying to convince REICHland to make an ordinance - wait - what's that got to do with REICHland? Anyhoo, its the usual "force my sorrow on everyone else" routine.

 I reminded REICHland that these were ultimately attempts of Govt to seize personal property, either de-facto or through licensing. Same difference.

Yes, its tragic that he was unable or unwilling to defend his property (his two dogs that were attacked) but thats between him and the attacking dogs owner, or should be. Theyd not fare well attacking me, I can stop them with a ball point pen or fingers-or a 9 mm full of buckshot. I carry rattlesnake rounds on top of the mag. There ARE lots of rattlers around here.

But this poor fellow isnt satisfied dealing with the owner of the animals that attacked his dogs. Thats mano-y-mano- one on one. Leftists dont like that, they like to coerce Government into granting them superior rights to everyone else.

I reminded Council that (pointing to the US Flag) that thats not what this Nation was founded on and not what our Founders died for. 


Posted by Dave at 10:36 PM PST
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Words not needed- cartoon of the Decade
Topic: General politics


 


Posted by Dave at 8:51 AM PST
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Someone gets it right - US Attorney Generals on Constitution
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: Constitutional

Excerpt from an AP story tonite:

 ----------------------------------------- 

 " 13 state AGs threaten suit over health care deal

FILE - In this Thursday, June 7, 2007  file photo, South Carolina Attorney AP – FILE - In this Thursday, June 7, 2007 file photo, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster announces …

COLUMBIA, S.C. – Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

"We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision," they wrote. "

and 

 " "Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation's legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation," the attorneys general wrote. "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_deal_states

 

The AG's gets it RIGHT. The Constitution DOES NOT give People Rights.  The "and" conjunction expresses the true intent of the Constitution, We the People have Inalianable Rights and the Constitution prohibits Government from infringing on them.

  They DID NOT say "protect peoples Constitutional rights."

Three Thumbs up! 


Posted by Dave at 6:20 PM PST
Updated: Thursday, 7 January 2010 9:00 AM PST
Interesting tidbits on Security at airports - ahem - lack of security
Topic: Chamish

 From Barry:

 -------------------------

 

EXTRA

I have a reading list of over 3000 divided into 15 groups. Within, some 150 addresses are now extinct. They are really messing up the system. I have to find and remove them. All at once is daunting, one a day is doable. So, you get an extra little report, while I solve the problem. Your writer, Barry Chamish

    Within days of my last report on Ehud Barak and 9-11, an American passenger plane almost exploded in mid-air. The terrorist was one of 14,500 select people on international airport computers as a flight risk, yet the airport screeners missed him and allowed him onto the plane without even a passport. Read report one followed by my report from the previous article. You decide if it was an accident or the excuse, now given, of "systemic failure." OR, did I get something awful, right?

Israeli Firm Responsible for Amsterdam Airport Security Where
Terrorist Boarded Airport

An Israeli firm is responsible for security inspections in the
airport in Schiphol, Holland, the airport where Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab boarded the Airbus 330 heading for Detroit (USA). The
Israeli company, ICTS, is reportedly one of the leaders in security,
& operates in Amsterdam and a number of other European countries.

ICTS was established in 1982 and today employs 11,000 security
personnel in 22 countries. Many airports and airlines seek the
Israeli expertise and opt for ICTS to provide security for passengers
and employees.

According to Rom Langer, the director of the company, who granted
Channel 2 News an interview on motzei shabbos, the terrorist did
undergo a security inspection in Amsterdam, but he does not have the
information pertaining to the inspection.

When asked about the fact that the suspect attempted to set fire to
the aircraft, Langer responded, "You too can set the seat on fire,
using a lighter".

Schiphol is among the busiest airports in Europe, with many
passengers from Africa and Asia passing through, making their way to
North America. Security is reportedly stringent, and passengers are
limited regarding quantit
ies of liquids and other substances
permitted on a flight.

A "total systemic failure" or PLAYING WITH THE DETECTION EQUIPMENT FOR A FEW MINUTES:

And now Ehud Barak, PM of Israel in 1999. In the late 80s, the two chief accountants of the Likud Party, Ehud Olmert and Menachem Atzmon, were tried for graft and corruption but only Atzmon served prison time. When he was released in 1999, during the term of Ehud Barak as PM, he got a reward for his silence:

Menachem Atzmon, convicted in Israel in 1996 for campaign finance fraud, and his business partner Ezra Harel, took over management of security at the Boston and Newark airports when their company ICTS bought Huntleigh USA in 1999. UAL Flight 175 and AA 11, which allegedly struck the twin towers, both originated in Boston, while UAL 93, which purportedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from the Newark airport. This convicted Likud criminal's firm was in charge of security at Logan Airport­ inspecting the validity of passports and visas, searching cargo, screening passengers­ when two airliners were hijacked from there on Sept. 11, 2001, and demolished the World Trade Center towers in New York.

Without Atzmon in charge of Newark and Logan Airports, 9-11 could NOT HAVE HAPPENED. The same goes for Schipol this week.

 

============

After living on this Earth a while, one realizes that things do not happen for no reason. 

 

 


Posted by Dave at 5:48 PM PST
these are Patriots? Or subversives?
Topic: Constitutional

  Heres an Email recently received:

=================

Hi there, 

Haven’t talked in you in forever.  Just wanted to make sure you received my personal invite. We are going to have 6 speakers (including Rep. Matt Shea speaking of legislation he is going to introduce) then we will move into meeting with your legislators and let them know why we expect them to uphold the constitution and the 10th amendment specifically. 

Will you be able to join us? 

Tawnya

Today I am writing as one mad-as-hell patriot.  I have a stack of meaningless responses from our non-representing Representatives.  Health Care, Cap and Trade, A failed stimulus package, a second stimulus package on the horizon, net neutrality, terrorists in criminal court, and NO Christmas.....

I have had it!

I want to ensure I keep my freedom and make certain I maintain it for future generations.

HOW DO WE MAKE IT HAPPEN?     State Sovereignty - our last line of defense. 

Why Sovergenty? 

The 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  

“We the People” want our Freedom!

I am asking all Freedom Loving Patriots from across our state to STAND WITH ME for FREEDOM at the Sovereignty Winter Fest.

WHY JANUARY 14TH?

January 14th was chosen because it is the first week of the 60 day State legislative session. 

 

We must charge our state legislators to reaffirm State Sovereignty (HJM 4009), to support Health Care nullification (like Arizona), to endorse the Firearms Freedom Act (like Montana), and to put forth Sheriff First legislation before they get off track.  We must insist our state legislators STAND for FREEDOM.  We want them to uphold the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and take their Oath of Office seriously.  We want them to know that we are armed and dangerous with our Constitution, with our vote, and with our numbers!

 

     We will assemble at the State Capital North Steps at noon

     Our numbers will show our state legislators that we mean business.

     We will work together to ensure our State legislators protect our Constitutional Rights. 

WE INVITE YOU TO STAND WITH US!

Will you, will your group join us in this STATE-WIDE STAND for SOVERIEGNTY 

Help us to get the word out!   

Several groups across the state have been connecting, but we want to make sure we make sure every freedom loving patriot is involved! 

January 14thSovereignty Winter Fest, our last line of defense

Washington State Capitol, Olympia WA 98504-1031

North Steps 12 noon – 4pm
 

We understand that this is simply a starting point, and that we will have to maintain a huge endeavor to keep our non-representing Representatives focused on Sovereignty. 

We MUST remain watchful…We MUST remain vigilant….We must remain FREE! 

Thank you for your time and consideration, 

Tawnya CitizensforHJM4009.ning.com

 ===================

Isn't that nice, I can be part of the in-crowd! 

 Did you catch the DANGEROUS error:

" We will work together to ensure our State legislators protect our Constitutional Rights.

Since WHEN do Legislators grant RIGHTS and Protect us? Since when does a Constitution GRANT RIGHTS?

Read BOTH of them and point out to me where rights are "granted."

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm  

http://www.sos.wa.gov/history/constitution.aspx  

 

"HOW DO WE MAKE IT HAPPEN?     State Sovereignty - our last line of defense.   "

Bull **** it is. Soverignty of the radical Leftist CRACKPOTS in Seattle/Olympia MY last line of defense? HARDLY. My last line is making holes in things. 

Some defense against Federal abuses? Yes. An unconditional defense? NO.

If Government granting rights is "Patriotism", we're screwed. 

 And watch out carefully for these so called "Citizens advocating this or that law..." these proposed legislations often have bad things hidden within, like one a year or so ago that had provisions to grant Illegal Aliens drivers permit. READ THEM CAREFULLY before jumping on any bandwagon.


Posted by Dave at 9:53 AM PST
Updated: Thursday, 7 January 2010 9:03 AM PST
About Clintons supposed 'gun ban on military bases'
Now Playing: a request by Ralph H.
Topic: General politics

  I just received a link to what appears to be an Army document that is the supposed source of "why soldiers at Ft Hood were not armed." The rumour is that Herr Clinton banned firearms possession.

  IF this document is correct, we have not solved one problem, we've created another, and a disaster is still not mitigated.

   There is no such blanket prohibition in this document. Read it for yourself:

<http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r190_14.pdf

   What the document establishes is application of existing DoD rules setting out:

1.) mandatory safety training within 12 months for those applying to carry  a firearm.' They should ALREADY have that.

CORRECTION- (see below) 

[[ 1.) mandatory training and proficiency testing within 12 months for those applying to carry  a firearm.' ]]

2.) permit process to carry said firearm by those mentally competent (Obama should have to carry)

3.) Mandates possession of only Govt issued firearms and ammo

4.) provisions for those in a CI or enforcement role

5.) rules for aircraft possession (which are now contrary to  TSA guidelines)

So unless Im missing something, the solders at Ft Hood either didnt want to be armed, or someone in chain of command had an anti gun agenda and wasnt issuing permits. 

IT'S THE (ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, MARINES, pick one), THEY ALL SHOULD HAVE TO CARRY. Are they being trained to go overseas and NOT carry? Oops, theres that damned U.N. Peacekeeping role... 

  We must be vigilant to not allow this DoD thing to become a model for requiring training and permits in Free Constitutional Society. This may be the only thing good coming from the Ft Hood TERRORIST ATTACK, that the masses being unarmed were defenseless, even with physical conditioning and other training. Hands against guns is not effective.

  This leads into what I haven't pontificated upon yet, because I'm still in the wrapping my brain around it stage, firearms laws. It's coming.

  How can such a misunderstanding of a clearly written code happen? How could it be that even I had an incorrect belief on the subject? Simple, I was ignorant of the facts.

   There are three hidden dangers here: 

a.) is that common belief replaces law in peoples minds

b.) control mechanisms like these DoD policies, or unconstitutional firearms restrictions are made in the first place

c.) the false notions get implemented into law, which are further contrary to the Consitutions.

The current catalyst for c.) are outright Leftist lies about "guns kill people" and its fueled, maybe unintentionally, by other non-non 2A folk who have misconceptions about "the law says this an such about firearms."

 Let's take the unConstitutional restrictions in WA State (and others) on 'concealed carry.'

 The WA Legislature ignored the WA Constitution and enacted restrictions on concealed carry. THEY ARE FORBIDDEN BY THE WA CONSTITUTION TO DO SO. What part of 'thou shalt not infringe' is so hard to understand?

  The current RCWs on concealed carry state several things:

1.) concealed carry (CCW) requires a permit ( enter the slippery slope) 

2.) CCW means in a motor vehicle, hidden or not (illogical)

3.) CCW restrictions do not apply to those going to a shooting range(figure that one out)

4.) penalty for CCW without permit is ONLY a $250 fine and one CANNOT be arrested unless he cannot show I.D. - IT IS A CIVIL INFRACTION.

I have $250!

  But this gets blown out of proportion by - get this - people who are PRO 2A. The list of folk tales about CCW are:

a .) concealed means concealed, no print, no show, when Law does not specify that,

b.) one can be arrested for CCW without a permit

c.)  that possession of firearms is legal

d.) that the only carry is concealed carry, which implies two things:

1.) permit, training etc is required for open carry

2.) that CCW permit holders are part of the in-group- with superior rights to others. 

Did you catch the importance of c.)? 

Possession of firearms is NOT legal. Neither is it LEGAL. LAW HAS NO HOLD ON THE QUESTION. Or should not. The Constitutions stand is "HANDS OFF." 

Theres the end game, to coerce, to force the question into the "law" arena where it can be manipulated away from the Constitutional limits.

  The result is dead soldiers at Ft Hood.

EDIT-SHAME ON ME.

I just finished posting this and was mentally deriding one of the ads at the top of the blog page which reads:

 Gun safety
"Keep Guns Safe!" Help protect "Special People"
www.raclocked.com

 Even in critical thinking mode, it took a few moments for me to realize that I had fallen into the trap I just spent several paragraphs railing against:

"the Gun safety lie"

I'm not going to edit the Blog entry above to remove the error, its instructional, instead I'll copy it down here for your critical analysis.

At the top of this page, you'll find my statement:

"1.) mandatory safety training within 12 months for those applying to carry  a firearm.' They should ALREADY have that."

I fell right into it - contradicted my own advice. See how ingrained it is?

  There is no discussion of "safety training" in the Army document, it reads:

Section II
Conditions for Carrying Firearms               
2–5. Eligibility requirements


To be considered eligible to carry firearms, personnel must have
satisfactorily completed mandatory training and proficiency testing
within the preceding 12 months.
a. Mandatory training must include—
(1) A thorough briefing on individual responsibilities.
(2) Use of deadly force training.
(3) Instructions on safety functions, capabilities, limitations, and
maintenance procedures for the firearm to be carried.
for written authorization to carry a firearm. "

The bleeding heart bleating of "safety" is so-o-o ingrained.

Correction to my ignorance is posted above in [[brackets]].

That's what I get for not accurately quoting the source, so that makes TWO errors committed in just a few paragraphs.

^ Firearms are NOT ABOUT SAFETY.                          They are about making HOLES in/through things.

^ Firearms possession an use are a RIGHT in America  not to be infringed.

^ If said holes happen to be in an attacker, so be it.  She started it. 

(do you like the "she?" Thats using the Feminist games against them...: ) Read my Blog entry on subversive speech and realize that this game revolves around stereotyping/ingrouping positive things with females, and negative with males. Why are attackers always "he?")

 


Posted by Dave at 8:51 AM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 30 December 2009 9:29 AM PST

Newer | Latest | Older