« 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
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Funny- Katie Couric didnt tell us about this....
Topic: Economy, what's left of

"The Federal Reserve is purchasing $1,250bn in MBS through March. Mr Hoenig said that it must shrink its balance sheet as quickly as possible while being careful and systematic."


Neither did KEPR-TV, whose lead story last nite was BEDBUGS. Guess why I don't watch KEPR? With no national/world content, and nothing happening locally, theres nothing to report?

Is it coincidence that the same Fed is "draining $1T from the money market? Doesnt "drain" sound innocent? I think "steal" is more accurate.

 Fun with math:

$1,250 B is $1.25T. At $ 250K per house with an underwater mortage, that's five-million houses. At 2.5 persons per house, that's 12.5 MILLION people. Where are they living? Do they have money in money market funds that Timmy G is going to steal? Obamas dog has a nice warm house to live in, what about the dogs of these people? (pandering to the dogs who read this Blog)

Reuters reported on 5 Feb 2010 that 38.2 million people are on food stamps. That guarantees they can't pay a mortgage, above or below water.

So if theres any correlation among the figures, the number of underwater mortgages might DOUBLE. 

Hope? Change?  I hope I dont get any change.

I'm no world renown economist, I just read and tell about what I see. I keep looking at Obamanomics, trying to add 2 + 2 and keep getting 3.6.

It's sad that I have to read the papers in EUROPE to get the news about HERE. 

Posted by Dave at 8:39 AM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 17 February 2010 8:43 AM PST
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Im not the only one finding sadistic humor in the Economic crash...
Topic: Economy, what's left of

 Heck, I must be a professional investor - Im OUT. This article is too important to excerpt, so for EDUCATIONAL uses, Ill repost the entire thing, with the irresistable comments in [[brackets]].


Dead Cat

by Robert Kiyosaki riday, February 12, 2010

Dow 5,000 in 2010? [[Im holding my breath for it!]]

In my last column I predicted a “dead cat bounce” in the stock market and a possible Dow plunge to 5,000 this year. Obviously, many readers mocked my prediction.

But understanding the dead cat bounce is vital, especially in today's market.

Simply put, a dead cat bounce looks like Diagram 1 below:


The market crashes, rebounds, and runs out of steam, then crashes again…unfortunately, and possibly, to a lower low.

[[NOT a higher low. Through countless hours and days of watching stock charts, I've learned one thing, the "big investors" show their hands in profit taking, they tip their hands and show the highs and lows they are willing to get in and out at. No reason to get back in above the recent low, why not drive it down to lower-than-low? A friend recently got a memorable a** kicking after making 20K on a certain stock, then putting it all back in before the insiders had ridden it back down. He got back in high, they deflated it right back down to where they had taken it last time, and he lost big time.]]

When professional investors observe a dead cat forming, many will begin to sell. If their selling leads to a panic, the stock market goes even lower.

[[I did. I sold already except for a modest amount in share certs that Im holding for true long term on LVLT. They and ATT are Internet II. Im gonna be there when it happens, especially since I got the shares for FREE...]] 

Putting today’s numbers to the dead cat diagram gives this topic more meaning.

In 2002, the Dow hit a low of 7,286.

In 2007, the Dow hit a high of 14,164 


In 2009 the Dow fell and stopped at 6,547. 

Dow 6,547 is where the market stopped falling and the dead cat bounce began.  At 6,547 the market was oversold and buyers came rushing back in, looking for bargains. The Dow headed back up, and a bear market rally began.

[[But only a SMALL NUMBER of buyers. It is a HOLLOW recovery. Modulate the charts with the number of shares traded and youll get a surprise. There is no recovery, because while the numbers are up (the Dow is at 10,000) that only tells part of the story, how many SHARES are bought up to 10,000? Darn few. So, while the price level is up, the amount of money put back in is small, and itll not take a large withdrawal to crash it.]] 

On February 5, 2010 the Dow closed at 10,012.

On February 12, 2010 the Dow closed at 10,099.

What Does This Mean?

So the question is, “What do these numbers mean to me?” The answer to that question depends upon you. If you are a bullish person, you will be optimistic, reassured by these numbers, and looking forward to the Dow breaking 14,000 soon.
If you are bearish, you will be waiting for the dead cat to finally die and for a double dip recession to begin.

One of the theorists (and writers) I follow is Richard Russell, a wise sage who is in tune with markets and the madness of crowds. He has been in the business for about 50 years, so he has the wisdom and perspective of time. Lately, he has been writing about the ‘50% Rule’ of Dow Theory. I thought I would pass it on to you because it may assist you in seeing the future of the economy, even if --like me -- you do not trade in stocks.

The following is my interpretation of the ‘50% Rule’ using real numbers.

In 2002 the low of the Dow was 7,286.

In 2007 the Dow hit a high of 14,164.

The ‘50% Rule ‘number is 10,725…the halfway point between 7,286 and 14,164.

In 2007, when the market headed down and broke 10,725, professional traders who follow the Dow Theory ‘50% Rule’ knew what was going to happen next. On March 9, 2009, the crash stopped at Dow 6,547.

[[Hold a million shares of XYZ in 2002, it DOUBLES in price in '07. Doubles in 5 years. Per- annum return is? Wouldn't you sell compared to the pitiful "10% per year in the stock market" that most individual investors are advised to be satisfied with? All it takes is enough suckers to put their shillings in for the taking.]] 

On that day, what I believe is a ‘dead cat bounce’ began as the market moved up.

On January 19, 2010, the Dow stalled at 10,725 and headed down again. This is spooky. The 50% rule came true.

The next interesting point is 7,286, the low of 2002, when the rally began.  According to Russell, if the Dow holds at 7,286 and begins a rally, this might be a good time to buy. But if it fails to hold at 7,286 and slides past 6,547, then look out for dead cats dropping from the sky. Russell predicts that Dow 1,000, the number at which the Dow began its rally in the 1970s, may not be out of the question. If that happens, there will be millions of baby boomers joining the dead cats falling from the sky as their 401(k)s and IRAs implode.

[[People, if this doesnt bring you next to tears, I fear for you. I've predicted Dow 800. It's not worth arguing the extra 200 points. What people don't stop and think about re. gold (for example) in citing that "its gone up from $750 to 1100 and may go to 2500" is that it can just as easily go to its historical low, which is....  do you know? I do, which is why I LAUGHED (laughtd out loud at them on the phone) at Monex the last time they called - "you think Im stupid enough to fall for 30 % on the upside, when the down-side is $300 w-a-a-a-a-y back in 2001. Wait a minute, that's not "way back" - that's YESTERDAY" They took me seriously when I called the recent low in silver - to the week and nickel then didn't understand why I wouldn't buy.


Lest you be fooled by Monex' 10-year chart, go where I do for historical commodities data - USGS - they have no axe to grind:



There's much more to it than just price per ounce.]] 

Other Markets

This ‘50% Rule’ may apply to other markets such as gold, the hot commodity of this era. 

In 1971 gold was $35 an ounce. I began buying gold in 1972 when I was a pilot in Vietnam, watching the Vietnamese panic when they knew the U.S. was not going to win the war.

Gold hit a peak of $850 an ounce in January of 1980.

Gold dropped to a low of $252 in July of 1999. Obviously, I bought a lot of gold in 1999.  Gold was at an all-time low because Central Banks, such as the Fed and the Bank of England, were dumping gold in an attempt to protect the value of their counterfeit currencies.

[[Notice he waited till the "all time low" instead of following the herd mentality and buying on the uptick out of fear we'll be left behind. "Left behind" is just as fictional here as it is in religion. And dont fall for the "inflation adjusted price" - the price can fall to ZERO, and zero is zero.

And IMO, we are back at the "protect their counterfeit currencies." If so, welcome to the coming gold crash.]] 

According to the ‘50% Rule’ of Dow Theory, when the price of gold was passing $600 an ounce(halfway between $850 and $252), a rally in gold was on. When gold passed $600, mainstream financial experts began warning of a crash in the price of gold… stating that gold was in a bubble.

Today gold fluctuates between $1,000 and $1,200 an ounce.

[[I played a version of this in 2007 with LVLT and DOUBLED my money in 3 MONTHS by following someone (an insider, I assume) who was playing 5M shares regularly, up and down. I'd stay in for about 50% up, then 50% of that 50, then bail out, ride it down to before where "they" got in at, and I got back in. I was not placed well enough to know when "they" are going to buy and sell so I had to get in/out a bit before top/bottom. It worked. It DOES NOT work now because there is no rationale in stock trading. Stocks are wandering around like little lost sheep.]] 

Is Gold in a Bubble? 

When you factor in inflation and devaluation of the U.S. dollar, $850 gold in 1980 is $2,500 an ounce in today’s dollars. In other words, gold might be at 50% at $1,200, which is the highest of highs. Could there be a run to $2,500?

Your personal answer to that question will depend upon how confident you are in Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, President Obama, and Wall Street. If you have faith in our leaders of commerce, don’t buy gold. If you do not have faith in them, maybe you should buy gold or silver.

If the dead cat bounce dies and the Dow drops to 5,000 in 2010, as I predict, then the price of gold and silver may die with the dead cat of the Dow, as investors cling to cash. The next question you need to answer is, “If the Dow dies and the price of gold and silver drop, what should you invest in at the bottom…stocks, gold and silver, or cash?”

[[the answer in 1929 was cash, and Im there now, just waiting for hyper inflation....]] 

I know what I will do. I will buy more gold and silver. Why? The answer is because I trust gold and silver more than Central bankers, the Oval Office, and Wall Street. Gold and silver have been real money for thousands of years.

 [[Flawed logic many fall for, yes, gold and silver were money for thousands of years, but they aren't now - if but for their industrial uses, what are they good for? Ill keep as much as FDIC allows in cash, some in the platinum group metals, maybe some in silver but forget about gold, its not practical for trade.]]

The Lost Decade

The people I am most concerned about are the average investors who have bought their financial planner’s advice of “Invest for the long term in a well-diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.”

[[Long term is good for the planner, NOT FOR YOU. They advise what makes money for them. Yes, "long term" as long as prices are rising.]] 

Many investors are calling the past 10 years The Lost Decade. That means those who invested for the long term in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and cash are long-term losers. Japan has been in a Lost Two Decades.

A ‘lost decade’ means:

1.  Zero job creation.
2.  Zero economic gains for the typical family. Home values are down and   many families owe more on their home than the home is worth.
3.  Zero gains in the stock market.

Over the next few months, it is important to watch both the Dow and gold. As I write, the Dow is around 10,000 and gold is at $1,000. If the Dow breaks 7,286, the 2002 low, and continues down below 6,547, the 2009 low, watch out below. If 6,547 is broken and gold passes $2,500 an ounce, you'll have even more to worry about.

[[Problem - stock prices now have NOTHING to do with company fundamentals, just as gold has no real tie to the dollar. Gold isn't worth 'diddley squat' if industry is flat-lined, at least with stocks, the paper certificate is directly related to a corporation with tangible assets, which, I believe, is related to the dislike for bonds the Chinese have right now, US bonds are based on what besides a smoking hole full of debt?


And another thing to watch, the 10 A.M. EST price rises have ceased. Go pick a dozen stocks at random and look at their trends at 10 AM, then look at them a few months ago.]] 



Posted by Dave at 6:06 PM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 16 February 2010 6:18 PM PST
The Liquidity Trap -Trap
Now Playing: around with a theory
Topic: Economy, what's left of

 A thought has occurred to me, related to this mornings reading at Forex:


 " Reserves are generally defined to include total governmental holdings of gold, convertible foreign currencies, Special Drawing Rights, and net reserve positions in the International Monetary Fund. "

The "liquidity trap" is the concept, and now FACT, that liquidity is missing and the conditions for it's generation (escape from the trap) are missing and both are from the same cause, thus, an inescapable trap. Catch -22

And now -problem-squared:

Not only is there a liquidity trap (U.S. economy) and not only is it inescapable as Hamou teaches (not examining whether his positions are correct or not, its a theory) but SOBamas Simulus (sarcastic rendition of "stimulus") truly just that - simulated. He/they have produced no 'working capital.'

  What were looking at in SOBamas Simulated financial rescue is far worse than infinitely illogical (it didn't work the last time, proving insanity to try again) its infinitely FRAUDULENT.

Follow the Yellow Brick Road:

1.) the economy crashes, more exactly, banks lost huge sums of money on various risky investments such as betting on horses that werent in the race. This leaves a large hole in their reserves. Take something out, there's a hole left, simple logic. They want the hole filled with OPM.

2.) They made bets on something non-existant and must pay it off in something tangible. Money? Seashells? They sure CANNOT fill it with credit because credit does not exist. All credit is is the negative transfer of wealth.

3.)  Along comes SOBama and Timmy G. and "create a couple trillion dollars in liquidity" to throw into the bankers gaping maws (or pick another orifice). It does the predicted NO GOOD. Nothing happens. Is this because of the liquidity trap? Maybe not, since if you give me $1T, Im NO LONGER INSOLVENT. If Im insolvent and you give me credit, where am I?

To take no action is an action, but the result is also nothing. If Im broke, giving me credit does nothing but make me BROKER, because I now owe INTEREST.

Did anyone see SOBama and the Federal Reserve PRINTING $1T in PAPER MONEY? There wouldn't be any trees left if they printed that much paper. The largest US currency denomination is the $100 bill. How many trainloads of them are in $1T? Answer - ALL of them. How much LABOR would be required to distribute (loan) it?

  Just for fun, find out the capacity of the F.R. to print money and calculate how long it would take to print a "T."

No one printed anything- it was all a smoke and mirrors based ledger entry.

  But in an odd way, an intelligent risk, loan nothing towards an infinitely large risk, a guaranteed loss. The result is "no loss". But also, no positive effect, which is precisely what we've seen.

 And now, for something completely different- the largest financial scam in history- SOBama and Timmy are running their own Ponzi scheme. They are making Madoff look like a rookie.

SOB/Timmy G. loan nothing but a ledger entry(ies) to banks (oh, wait- a ledger requires paper, silly me), who do nothing with it- heck, they can't afford to put Management time towards it at a ROI of almost zero, the PAYROLL will eat them up. The first is evidenced by the second. They all claim that the money (which never existed, there was no paper, gold etc.) was somehow 'absorbed by the system' and now they have to "drain it from money market funds."

Ah-ha! The worlds largest fraud ever with the Donation of Pepin in second place. Now, they steal something tangible from the markets to, in pretense, fill an imaginary hole with non-existing funds and the net is theft of, oh, say $1T from some nebulous entity known as "money market fund" to replenish the loss, which was not a loss in the first place as it was never tangible to lose.

  But wait - who or what is "money market fund" to be raided for some non-threatening, P.C. - sounding action like 'drain?' If something is 'drained,' then there must BE something there TO DRAIN. Something tangible or, in financial terms, some real liquidity.

  Problem is that if the "drainers" don't own the tangibles and are not also the "drain-ees", SOMEONES GETTING SCREWED OVER BIG TIME, and worse if those someones are none of the parties above.

 Thats probably YOU. I got out of any money market linked account.

Create a crisis. Cause a debt, loan out something non-existent, wait a short time till the media cycle and Public forget what happened then call in an imaginary debt paid back in real funds.

Thats how I see an entry in the economic play-book, let's see if they run with it. 

Apologies ahead of time, just found this little jewel and its irresistable as it is absolutely correct: 

Posted by Dave at 9:21 AM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 16 February 2010 11:02 AM PST
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

Newer | Latest | Older