« February 2010 »
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
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
and now, Benton?
Economy, what's left of
General politics
general rant/rave
Kennewick Illegal
Legal actions
Richland illegal
Seattle illegal
WA Illegal
WA media anti 2A bias
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Dave's 2A Blog
Sunday, 14 February 2010
WARNING-WARNING- DANGER-DANGER Initiatives I-1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065
Topic: Constitutional

GREAT ideas behind them, but these Initiatives are so POORLY WRITTEN as to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL themselves, or void, or subject to attack in the Courts.

 READ THEM CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING THEM. Read them on the front page here:


 Yes, there is ample word-smithing and joking around on this Blog, but that is all set aside now for the following statement:

"There is a SERIOUS lack of English literacy, communications and critical thinking skills in the State of WA and that is evident in these Initiatives."

Recall in grade school when wed turn a paper in and the Teacher would say:

"I know what you mean, but youre not writing it clearly..." 

Thats the problem with these Initiatives, they are copy-cats of other proposals (Intra-State firearms in Montana) but are so loaded up with useless verbage and un-Constitutional provisions to render them, in my opinion, MORE DANGEROUS than the mess we have now.

Example from I-1065, Greenhouse gas Initiative

 "(5) "Toxic greenhouse gas" means any greenhouse gas that multiple
confirmatory scientific studies have proven beyond a reasonable doubt
is directly toxic to life under normal circumstances."

Whats wrong:

a.) There is no such thing as "greenhouse gasses" because that presumes the greenhouse effect is correct, thus the term. Vague, contradictory, void

b.) CO sub-2 IS TOXIC, try BREATHING IT for a few minutes. A "few minutes" is all you can breathe it, then ye shall be DEAD, because CO-2 is DEADLY TOXIC to humans:


Main Entry: 1tox·ic Pronunciation: \ˈtäk-sik\Function: adjective

1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation <toxic waste> <a toxic radioactive gas> <an insecticide highly toxic to birds>

HUMANS CANNOT LIVE WHEN BREATHING CO-s therefore it is TOXIC. Since CO-2 is TOXIC, the language of this Initiative is null and void.

Example from I- 1059:

"(1) Any law-abiding citizen of Washington state has the right
under the United States and Washington state Constitutions to protect

 NO, THEY DO NOT, because NEITHER CONSTITUTION grants Rights to Citizens. HAVE YOU READ THEM? If Rights are granted by the Constitutions, then the C.s can be AMENDED to remove those rights. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. BOTH Constitutions FORBID Government from INFRINGING, they DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS.


another dangerous provision:

"(2) Any law-abiding citizen of Washington state has the right to
defend himself or herself, unless he or she is in the act of
committing a crime, without interference from federal or state

Dangerous because:

a.) law is now presuming to grant rights, which it has no power to do

b.) all it takes to circumvent this is to declare possession of Arms a Crime and the Cities in WA are already attempting to do that - this is what Pre-Emption is about.


 "(3) Law-abiding citizens of Washington state shall not have their
firearms, ammunition, or other means of ensuring their constitutional
rights of self-defense waived,"

Poorly written, the subject is incorrect. The premise is limiting the Fed from action in the State, but the subject is the WA Citizen. Again, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, it is simply referenced in the Constitutions as something that Government SHALL NOT INFRINGE UPON.

The "law abiding" phrase is also dangerous, all thats needed to circumvent that is to declare all Citizens who own/possess firearms as criminals and this is voided. And again, the CITIES in WA State are trying to do that RIGHT NOW.

This one is particularly poorly written (I-1062)

"(1) The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to
the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to
the state and people of Washington certain powers as they were
understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood in
1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract"

W-R-O-N-G. Have we ever READ the Tenth Amendment?

a.) It is not "tenth amendment" it is Tenth Amendment. We CAPITALIZE the Proper names of persons, places and things. We have people ILLITERATE of the rules of English crafting legislation! It is "States", not "states."


c.) powers are NOT granted to the "federal government"  - GO TRY TO FIND A "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" in the Constution! IT IS NOT THERE. It is "not delegated to the United States." To cite "federal government" defeats the Constitutions and this Initiative because it re-defines the Constitution into something the Framers did not intend. The Constitution forbids certain actions on the United States, whether it is expressed in a federal government or not.

d.) why re-write the Tenth Amendment? Why not just CITE IT DIRECTLY.

"(2) The ninth amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution"

IT DOES NOT. HAVE YOU EVER READ IT?   IM reading it right now, and the ORIGINAL, NOT A MADE UP VERSION. Here it is, QUOTED, not my opinion:

"The ENUMERATION in the Constitution of certain rights..."

IS NOT a creation of a right, it ENUMERATES  RIGHTS that exist elsewhere.

Heres another danger:

" (4) The second amendment to the United States Constitution
reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right
was understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood
in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract
between the state and people of Washington and the United States..."

Since when do the Constitutions hinge on UCC? Contract? I dont think so!

A contract is a legal construction. Our Constitutions are NOT bound by LAW.

"(5) Article I, section 24 of the Washington state Constitution
clearly secures to Washington citizens, and prohibits government
interference with, the right of individual Washington citizens to
keep and bear arms."

 NO, the Constitutions prohibit Government from INFRINGING, not "interfering." All it takes to circumvent this game is to define "interfering" in a way that is pleasing to the gun grabbers and  this is void.

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. (1) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory,
or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in
Washington and that remains within the borders of Washington is not
subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration,
under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce."

 Yeah, tell us something we dont know already. That protection ALREADY EXISTS, therefore there is NO PLACE for law to stick its nose in the matter.

"The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms,"

Since WHEn does the WA Legislature have the authority to circumvent the US Constitution and tell Congress, elected of, by and for the People, what its authority is? That topic is already defined in the US Constitution. Why state the obvious?

This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in iteself:

" (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(b) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and one-
half inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a
(c) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion
of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(d) A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more
projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing

This prohibits frangible ammunition, which is currently not regulated.


They dont exist, and this is PROOF that these Initiatives are created by Subversives, for they act to SUBVERT BOTH CONSTITUTIONS:

Main Entry: sub·vert Pronunciation: \səb-ˈvərt\ Function: transitive verb

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French subvertir, from Latin subvertere, literally, to turn from beneath, from sub- + vertere to turn — more at worth

Date: 14th century

1 : to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : ruin
2 : to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith

The FOUNDATION of our Nation is /are the Constitutions, and these initiatives attack BOTH CONSTITUTIONS and attempt to subvert their limitations on government by placing the C.s within control of Law, where the GUN GRABBERS IN OLYMPIA can tear it down.


 Its not good enough to say that a Toyota accelerated and caused an accident, we have to say "why" and fix the problem. Here, the fixes are simple:

1.) Eliminate the attempts by whomever wrote these Initiatives to re-write History and sound intelligent, and just limit the wording to the matters at hand

2.) REPEALING ALL FIREARMS laws in required, because they ALL INFRINGE.

3.) Without flowerly language, dont play games with Sherriff First, just set it out straight:

'No Feds in our Sherriffs jurisdiction" without his permission. PERIOD.

4.) These Initiatives are as USELESS as existing Laws which dont work, because they carry no penalties for Govt violating them. Place specific, substantial CRIMINAL PENALTIES in them for anyone trampling on Citizens Rights.

You can tell these are bad Initiatives by two methods:

1.) the anti freedom gun grabbers in the Legislature will not object to them


Posted by Dave at 10:55 AM PST
Updated: Sunday, 14 February 2010 11:52 AM PST
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Pay attention to this one
Topic: general rant/rave



Alleged missiles spotted over Newfoundland

Residents of N.L. report seeing flaming “bullets” in the sky

Thursday, January 28, 2010 6:05pm - 36 Comments

Three long, thin glimmering “bullet-like” objects with tails of fire and smoke were sighted in the sky off the southern coast of Newfoundland on Monday. Resident Darlene Stewart of Harbour Mille, N.L. was snapping photos of the sunset when she saw the first mysterious object; her neighbour Emily Purdy, who viewed it through binoculars, said it looked like “a humungous bullet, silver-grey in colour and it had flames coming out of the bottom and a trail of smoke.” The witnesses say the alleged missiles were visible in the air for roughly 15 minutes. Gerry Byrne, the MP for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, said Thursday, “It’s not making any sense and nobody’s providing any real answers, so questions are mounting.” Neither government officials nor the RCMP have confirmed the sightings."


... and see how fast it disappears. 


Posted by Dave at 4:56 PM PST
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Critical observations from "Defensive Arms Vindicated" Stephen Case, 1782
Topic: Constitutional

I could not have the bandwidth to comment on this writing, nor the ability or authority to do so. These men were there, at the time and witnessed what happened, and invented a new form of SELF Government while clearly having in sight, the failures of all previous forms.


Three critical things to notice:

1.) First Concession, paragraph 12. The doctrine of obedience to a King was rooted in the failure of the kings of Israel, to paraphrase an old rhyme:

"when the king was good, he was very good, and when he was bad, he was awful."

And SO WENT THE PEOPLE. And there WE go.

We are not under a King or monarch, the War for Independence broke that mold in favor of LIMITED SELF GOVERNANCE. We do  not have a government to govern us. No one rules us. We broke that mold of the Kings and went back towards the ideals of Moses - back towards direct rule by God.

And now we have 'government' full of un-godliness. The source of our present problems, and the source of the American Revolution are the same - A-THEISM. From France then, from everywhere now.

2.) Sixth. I condemn all rising to revenge private injuries, whereby a country may be covered with blood, for some petty wrongs done to some persons great or small.

3.) "I once read of a good old general that was walking through his army, when, at length, he saw a young prodigal officer beating an old soldier unmercifully: O! says the general, lay on, for you know that he dare not strike you again! Which reproof, though very modest, covered the officer with blushes, and caused him to desist—and, in fact, it is a sure sign of a coward, to be beating a man that we know dare not, for his life, resist."

Think about that a day. "Lay on" is directed to the one being beaten, and not to, or though, the beater. The meaning is that after being beaten enough, that one having the might to resist dare not be resisted, because he has a power from somewhere higher.

Posted by Dave at 10:21 AM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 2 February 2010 10:22 AM PST
Publius: The Federalist 85 (August 13/16, 1788)
Topic: Constitutional

  From the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, 1788, this CRITICAL OBSERVATION: 

" (The additional securities to republican government, to liberty and to property, to be derived from the adoption of the plan under consideration, consist chiefly in the restraints which the preservation of the union will impose on local factions and insurrections, and on the ambition of powerful individuals in single states, who might acquire credit and influence enough, from leaders and favorites, to become the despots of the people; in the diminution of the opportunities to foreign intrigue, which the dissolution of the confederacy would invite and facilitate; in the prevention of extensive military establishments, which could not fail to grow out of wars between the states in a disunited situation; in the express guarantee of a republican form of government to each; in the absolute and universal exclusion of titles of nobility; and in the precautions against the repetition of those practices on the part of the state governments, which have undermined the foundations of property and credit, have planted mutual distrust in the breasts of all classes of citizens, and have occasioned an almost universal prostration of morals)


WERE THERE, FOLKS.  And just after that section, why it is imperative we preserve theUnion. Just because the bath-water is dirty, we dont throw the baby out. Just throw the dirt out!

Our Political processes have been SUBVERTED by Leftists pushing a Utopian agenda (Government can make everything all-right with Socialism) and the means to that suversion is this:

The representative democracy principle, and in fact, practice, has been subverted to "pick one of two parties, at least appear to have support of the People as evidenced by their majority vote (last Presidential election) at a time where all that is being voted on is WHO is elected, then transfer that vote to all succeeding legislation and process, where that is not acceptable, the VOTE must continue. The PARTIES are being voted in, not PEOPLE (elected Reps). Elected Reps are taking their platform as a mandate to then go vote in some direction instead of polling the People (who were the Electorate, but are, after the Election, not Electorate but Constituents) on each and EVERY ISSUE.

When the Nation was formed, it was a simple matter to poll the People and send a Representative, the land - area a population was small. Until recently, this was somewhat more difficult as the population has become very large in comparison to the communications abilities. Now with COMPUTERS its easier than EVER to poll the People. Computers are everywhere. 

Posted by Dave at 9:17 AM PST
Thursday, 28 January 2010

" I helped create with President Clinton the Hart-Rudman Commission, we warned in March of 2001 about terrorist attacks on American cities, I've been at this a long time. "I am genuinely afraid that this political system will not react until WE LOSE A CITY and nobody in this country's thought about the threat to our CIVIL LIBERTIES the morning after we decide its that dangerous and how rapidly we will impose ruthlessness on ourselves in that kind of a world. " Newt Gingrich


You think your Police are going to stop this? Lemme tell you a story I was told recently. I have it somewhere around 3rd or 4th hand through reliable people that this happened. Im not going to say where because its irrelavent.  Here's the short version. A man with US Special Forces background went at the request of a Sherriff to demonstrate SWAT techniques to his Department. Said Sherriff was alarmed as to why his Department "wanted to quit."

Put 2 and 2 together. Do you understand that even these people cannot stop a terrorist attack from destroying a US City?

Its real simple. You in Tri Cities think about this. A dozen Al-Quada with one at each major highway artery (maybe an overpass) with  explosives to blow a road, a couple with rifles to take out electrical power substations (one round thru a transformer is sufficient) and one each to take out a water plant and shut down the hospitals. MASS CHAOS. Not a bus load of them, just a couple.

Remember Mumbai? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Mumbai_attacks

No, it doesnt take a plane load of "terrorists" because THEY ARE NOT TERRORISTS, THEY ARE MILITARY OPERATIVES. Terrorists want people afraid. Military ops want people DEAD. Thats what Al-Quaida wants. Their training makes our typical PD training look like a JOKE.

 WE THE PEOPLE are reponsible, charged by the Constitution, to defend this Nation. Not Obama, not the Police, not the Military. YOU. Your VOTE cannot do this. The shotgun in your closet aint gonna get it done.

Heres the MINIMUM for dealing with terrorists:


Newt, 110 MILLION of us armd aren't planning on "giving up any Liberties."

Newt, again:  "I am genuinely afraid that this political system will not react until WE LOSE A CITY" This isn't some head full of crap like Obama talking on a teleprompter, this is NEWT.

Watch "24." Like someone recently commented, "its only TV until it happens."

All at the time when TRAITORS in the WA LEGISLATURE want to disarm Citizens. 

When assault weapons are banned, only terrorists will have assault weapons.



Posted by Dave at 7:21 AM PST
Updated: Thursday, 28 January 2010 7:24 AM PST
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Census information and nonsense
Topic: General politics

 I recently read a media account that there was a $5000 fine for refusing to give Census information. Figuring that was the typical crock-o-crap from the Leftist media, I decided to digest Census law.

 NOT Census opinion.

So, without further ado- USC 18. Its the law, just read it.

1.) The Census is to take data (NOT STATISTICS) on how many Citizens are due Representatives (NOT SENATORS) for apportionment of representation on the Federal level.

The home of Census law is USC Title 13:





§ 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100. [so much for 5000]
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.
and what must be answered, else they cannot afford to prosecute you for <=$100 ?


" § 141. Population and other census information

(a) The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population as of the first day of April of such year, which date shall be known as the “decennial census date”, in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.
(b) The tabulation of total population by States under subsection (a) of this section as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States shall be completed within 9 months after the census date and reported by the Secretary to the President of the United States. "
[ tabulation of population, and that implies of voting age]
" (g) As used in this section, “census of population” means a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing. "
subpart (a) limits the Census to population to apportion Representation, so the size of your house doesnt mean diddley squat. Houses dont vote. 
CRITICAL POINT - the remaining Subsections (I,  IV, V) APPLY TO BUSINESSES. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RESPOND TO RELIGION QUESTIONS, although the Law provides for questions to religious ORGANIZATIONS (your church etc). Unless you are a church, no need to answer. The other Subsections deal with INTERIM census which 2010 is not.
The bulk of the Code relates to administration of the Census and Bureau, NOT YOU.
There is phone/internet to check identity of a Census taker:
BTW, you are NOT required to respond to a collection of information that does not bear a valid OMB Control Number:

§ 3512. Public protection

  (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if—
  (1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
[NOTICE it says "collection of information" NOT PAPER FORM. ANY collection...] 
such as:

"OMB 0596-0146

To: According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this collection is 0596-0146. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 4 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, and gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information"

 Also see:
See their scam at:
   The purpose of this information is to help you protect yourself from identity and financial fraud. Its good to answer Census data to apportion Representation, thats what our Constitutional system is about.
 IT IS NOT about people that think a badge gives them authority to ask anything they want.
Fun with Census workers.
1.) Take their photograph. If they have nothing to hide, they wont mind (where have you heard that reasoning before?). If they are scammers, they'll run away.
Photograph their ID if it looks suspect. If they get nervous when you photograph them, CALL THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY.
If they are scamming, and you have no photographic or tape evidence, theres not much the Police can do.
2.) tape record your conversations. I do. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST TAPE RECORDING AN OPEN CONVERSATION. The law is against "wiretapping" which is defined as a third-party INTERCEPTING a TELEPHONE conversation. That means tampering with a phone system to, without the first and second parties knowledge and consent, to record THEIR conversation.
3.)  THEY ARE REQUIRED BY USC 44 TO ADVISE YOU OF YOUR OMB CONTROL NUMBER RIGHTS. If they dont, send them packing and file a complaint with the Census Bureau.
3.) CLOSELY read any paper form or computer screen they want you to enter info on, or they want to enter info in. DEMAND to see the OMB control number, especially if they want to enter data into a computer. The form they enter it on MUST have an OMB control number or you DO NOT have to answer. Then verify the control number.
Its taken all day to crunch something around in my head, actually something I DIDNT see. Somethings missing.
I went searching on both the Census web site and the Internet for the OMB control number for the Census. Not only isnt there an obvious OMB number, but THERE IS NO OMB.
Recall recently that SOBama took the OMB away from DoC and put it under the White House:
 I went searching the internet for the OMB Control Number for the 2010 Census. Cant find one. The only relevant link I did find was this:
There doesnt appear to me to be anything since.
No Control Number on the Census web site.
Back on the WhiteHouse site, this link appears:
Theres appears to be an interesting contradiction there in Chapter 2, p. 9 - that the reason for the PRA is to minimize TIME burden on the Public- implying or stating the time needed to complete Federal paperwork.
Also, in Chapter 4, p. 18, Census is under DoC in 2008. It isnt now. What happened in between?
There appears to be a website for looking up OMB control numbers:
"The Paperwork Reduction Act requires that agency information collections minimize duplication and burden on the public, have practical utility, and support the proper performance of the agency's mission."
Theres no obvious place on the reginfo website to lookup control numbers.
This doesnt seem to be going anywhere does it? No, not unless we READ the PRA- go back up this Blog entry and follow the Cornell Law link and READ the PRA Code in USC Title 44 CHAPTER 35 SUBCHAPTER I § 3512

The purpose of the PRA is to PREVENT Agencies from inventing invasive paperwork that is not authorized by CONgress. IT has nothing to do with how much time is required to complete it (or internet site forms, the form isnt the question at the moment).
USC is law, from the US House of Representatives, it has authority (or should have) over ANY Federal Agency. Does it not appear to you that Obama is attempting to circumvent the PRA by attempting to bring Census around behind the system? Why?
Theres something much more troubling when we follow the link to Herr Klintons E.O. 12866, which states two extremely disturbing things:
"Section 1. Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles.
(a) The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal agencies should promulgate only
such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of the American people."
"(b) The Office of Management and Budget. Coordinated review of agency
rulemaking is necessary to ensure that regulations are consistent with applicable law, the President’s priorities, ..."
"(d) ‘‘Regulation’’ or ‘‘rule’’ means an agency statement of general applicability and future effect, which the agency intends to have the force and effect of law, that is designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency. It does not, however, include:..."
HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM- The Executive Branch has/intends to usurped the authority of both Congress and the Judicial.
Read back through the trail of E.Os, see what falls off the radar in 1985? See what Clinton repealed?
Links to EO 12866 
Repealed E.Os:
Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Order:

(a) "Regulation" or "rule" means an agency statement of general applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the procedure or practice requirements of an agency, but does not include:"
 Notice that in 21498, there is NO MENTION of making or interpreting LAW, the context is only of Agency regulation:
"Section 1. General Requirements. (a) There is hereby established a regulatory planning process by which the Administration will develop and publish a Regulatory Program for each year. To implement this process, each Executive agency subject to Executive Order No. 12291shall submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) each year, starting in 1985, a statement of its regulatory policies, goals, and objectives for the coming year and information concerning all significant regulatory actions underway or planned; however, the Director may exempt from this Order such agencies or activities as the Director may deem appropriate in order to achieve the effective implementation of this Order."
The phrase "agency subject to EO 12291" implies that only the Agencies are subject to the law making/interepreting process.
Klintons EO 12866 changes that context by throwing the previous EOs out:
"Section 1. Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles.
(a) The Regulatory Philosophy. Federal agencies should promulgate only
such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law,
or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material failures
of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public,
the environment, or the well-being of the American people."
"Sec. 5. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal government, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or any person."
See how the language is softened, the applicability only to Agencies is moderated to "its just an intent.."
Now they are going to decide the "well being of the Public?"
Must go think this over. 

Posted by Dave at 11:25 AM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 27 January 2010 9:24 PM PST
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


1325 Fourth Ave Suite 600
Seattle WA 98101-2539

                            10 January, 2010

Re: Grievance filing, attached statement thereto

  To whom it may concern,


  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

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:

  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.


                David R. Campbell


The Grievance form is at:


and is: 


Court Rules, including RPC (Rules of Professional Conduct)




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



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.


  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:



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.]




RCW 9.81.010



(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.]



 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. 



 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 :


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.
  "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: 
[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.
 "(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.
 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. 
.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:
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:
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:


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


    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

"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
"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
"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? 





 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. 



 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.


*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



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

Newer | Latest | Older