« March 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
28 29 30 31
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
Monday, 29 March 2010
Waco II- Storm Troopers arrest militia members in Michigan
Topic: General politics

  Theres been a post on the back burner a-waiting for a current relevant story as an illustration, and thats the one about Jack Booted Janet. Todays media Circus about the  oh so dangerous Militia in Michigan is just the story ive been waiting for. Or not waiting for, or waiting for and hoping to not happen...you get the drift.

 First some inside info on Waco you didn't know, but need to.  Notice the common element in Waco and this incident, the RELIGION link. Thats meaningful.

Michigan story in Detroit paper

Now, bear with me as we go back Memory Lane to BEFORE Waco, to the SETUP.  Its all about an internal battle in the Seventh Day Adventist Church you didnt hear about.

Years ago, there was a massive, more or less anti Roman Catholic religious movement in the early 1800s (see, I told you we were going way back) called the Advent Movement. It resurrected and attempted to expound on (with marginal success) the Protestant Reformers of the Dark Ages and their doctrine that the Church of Rome was the harlot of Revelation. Thats a whole 'nother story we cant get into here because of lack of bandwidth.

  Several religions denominations such as SDA, LDS, Jehovahs Witnesses sprang out of the prophecy movement that attended. The movement fizzled out by roughly 1900 and about the only remainder was theology in the SDA Church, and history books.

   Somewhere after the 1960s, the SDA church began to seriously crumble from within from doctrinal watering-down. The church left its "pillars" as they are called, which refers to fundamental beliefs.

 There was some generalized resistance against this breakdown until it became a movement around 1990 (I don't recall exactly when it happened, and there may not have been an "exactly when" date) known as the "Independent SDA" movement. The Independents returned to the founding beliefs and practices of the Church which were so reformist that they were becoming Judaistic.

 About the same time as the Roman Catholic Church started hemmoraging members from internal struggles, they also started to infiltrate the SDA Church which was more or less the only group still exposing the prophetic identity of the RC as the undesirable entity in Revelations (the book of the Bible. The claim of "infiltrate" is not mine, it was witnessed by Samuele Bacchiocchi, the esteemed SDA Theologian from Andrews University. Sam had pulled a 'fast one' on the RC Church by becoming the only outsider to ever get through their high powered University, and Sam wrote a Thesis on the Sabbath and it was approved by the Church, which they later regretted because it was a modern expose on the fact the Church has invented Sunday worship in place of the ancient (Judaistic) Sabbath. But thats another story.

Sam testified in person in Nevada, Iowa around 2000 that he had caught one of his instructors receiving mailed marching orders on how to teach from Georgetown U. Another story yet. This is just what happened, I'm not preaching here, its just history.

 Anyhoo,  theres a giant split in the SDA Church over/during this time/events and the split is BANKRUPTING the financially incompetent/increasingly insolvent SDA Church who was, at the time, bankrupting its Health System. The Catholics bought much of it and rescued it. Apparently good hospitals both before and after.

  The organized Conference Church HATED the Independent movement which had absolutely no hesitation in calling a spade a spade and tried to shut the Independent movement down. It didn't work.

  Now, the Waco tie in. Contrary to (or maybe in addition to) what the Media told you about Waco, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians WERE NOT KOOKS. I know EXACTLY what they believed, taught and lived, because I saw it in the Independent Movement- they were part of it that wanted to be left alone. I saw some of Koreshs videos, they were lock, stock and barrell Independent SDA. Nothing whacko, just the teachings of the early SDA Church. To the best of my knowledge, they did not participate in the broader movement to expose the Conference Church corruption (I have more than enough religion/SDA knowledge to use the term
"corruption" as an expert) and theres the problem, the CHURCH COULD NOT USE ANYTHING AGAINST THEM- they werent in the fray.

  I got information, from where I don't recall, and I wish I'd chased it further down) that the "info" that led to the assault on Waco came from SDA sources in Australia (theres an unhappy past with SDAs in Australia, another story yet). Shortly after that, one John (lfrom Florida, his ast name escapes me at the moment) warned his employees to keep the TV production vans locked to prevent weapons from being planted in them while they were out videoing Church services.

  There was eventually enough attack against much of the Independent movement that it somewhat fell apart. But not Koresh. Apparently they had their own little thing in TX and weren't bothering anyone. Or the Church had no leverage to attack them with.

   Realize the SDA Conference Church is HEMORRAGING MONEY at this point. Members are walking out and/or not paying Tithes. Were talking millions/billions, not chump change. I saw the Tithe income at an Ohio church TURN OFF LIKE A SPIGOT when they started introducing some nonsense or another for religious teachings.

  Then out of the blue, David Koresh is dangerous and attacked by the Feds with a flame throwing tank. You didnt see that on the TV reports, but I was fortunate to see the raw video feed that the Constitutional Lawyer Linda Thompson (or was it Tomlinson) from Indy, Indy was distributing. It showed the Jack Booted Thugs (the term borrowed from Nazi Germany and applied to the black clad Police SWAT teams members- there was a German imported sort of boot being sold then that was being worn) attacking the compound- with NO ATTACK IN RETURN. There was NO fire from insde the house, in fact, the Davidians had locked themselves in a cellar and burned to death when the Storm Troopers lit the place on fire. It showed a Thug shooting hmself in the right leg with his own gun while ascending a ladder. It showed five (best I recall the number) of JBTs on a roof top, 2 or 3 entered thru a window and the outsiders remaining IMMEDIATELY opened fire thru the wall, obviously killing or injuring those who just entered. It showed the ammo dump on fire/smoldering with JBTS walking near it. (ammo in a fire is not particularly dangerous, I've tried it, an unchambered round has no force) and showed a military tank punching through a wall in the building and when retreating, a flame thrower igniting and setting the building on fire.

Thats what the Media hid from you.

I'd talked with Linda shortly after that and she told me about the black helicopter (in Indy, I assume) that "bombed the wrong house"(attacking her house, so they thought). Thats not Internet lore, she told me that.

  The M.O. is the same here, organized RELIGIOUS group under attack from OVERWHELMING MILITARY FORCE. Does it take such force to apprehend a few gun toting religious folk? Of course, they trot out the MI leaders Ex wife who has an axe to grind against him. WHy didnt they infiltrate the group and take it down from the inside? Why dont they similarly take action agsint ILLEGAL ALIEN FELONS and DRUG DEALERS?

F ollow the money, honey. Theres the history, now watch the show. And watch the "evidence" gleaned from the Internet where any Chinese hacker can plant it. Theyre hacking the Pentagon...Thats what I call a reliable chain of evidence!

 Also watch to see any effect of publicity because the internet is so prolific whereas it was not in the Waco days.

And just take a wild guess as to how many more of these groups are in the Midwest. And notice the only valid complaint besides a possibly made up internet threat is that they were engaging in military style training. 

Posted by Dave at 12:32 PM PDT
Updated: Monday, 29 March 2010 12:36 PM PDT
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Topic: Constitutional

Dingell admits that Obama Care (insurance reform is NOT health care reform. thats red-herring) is about "controlling the People"


  And (part of) my letter to Doc Hastings predicting this:



1.) While searching for a valid OMB Control Number for the 2010 Census, which I cannot find, I noticed a troubling thing in several Executive Orders (EO’s).

Previous EOs repealed by Klinton contain limitations on Agency authority, with language such as:

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,...”


Sec. 9. 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. The determinations made by agencies under Section 4 of this Order, and any Regulatory Impact Analyses for any rule, shall be made part of the whole record of agency action in connection with the rule.”

Direct quotations from EO 12291

Notice a problem, the Executive is attempting to, or in fact, making and interpreting LAW, which are functions reserved to the Legislative and Judicial under the U.S. Constitution.

Klintons EO 12866 changes things- it starts off with a bunch of Un Constitutional philosophy:

The American people deserve a regulatory system that works for them, not against them: a regulatory system that protects and improves their health, safety, environment, and well-being and improves the performance of the economy without imposing unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society; regulatory policies that recognize that the private sector and private markets are the best engine for economic growth; regulatory approaches that respect

the role of State, local, and tribal governments; and regulations that are effective, consistent, sensible, and understandable. We do not have such a regulatory system today.”

We don’t have such a system because we should not have one. The President does not grant well being and performance of the economy...

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. 10. Judicial Review. Nothing in this Executive order shall affect any otherwise available judicial review of agency action. This Executive order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Federal Government and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.“

See how the language has been modified from previous similar EO’s from limits on what regulations may be made, to a ‘suggestion.’ In Sec. 10 of EO 12866, the requirement for Agency documentation requirement has been removed.

There are SERIOUS problems here, it concerns me that OMB is no longer under DoC but directly under the President. Why? Why is the Agency responsible for issuing Control Numbers itself not under the same requirement? Why is the Executive attempting to circumvent the Separation of Powers?

Theres a simple answer - A EXECUTIVE/MILITARY COUP. The Executive is also CIC of the Military. All it takes now is an EO or two to seize Legislative and Judicial authority in Agency rules binding as law, and when we attempt to ignore them, use military force to impose them.



Administrative rules apply to some Agency, as stated in the EO. NOT TO THE PEOPLE. Only laws that the People authorize via their CONGRESS are valid.


The Lead Hour is fast approaching. 


Posted by Dave at 10:06 AM PDT
Monday, 15 March 2010
Topic: General politics

I just received the 2010 Census form and as suspected, its illegal. Its in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act, USC 44:


 The Census are playing games with words, they have attempted to invent some "authorization number" which is an expired 2006 Census OMB Control number with a "-C" added to the end.

 There is no such thing as an OMB Authorization Number. "Authorization" is a process, a "Control Number" is a result.

 The 2010 form has no OMB CONTROL NUMBER.

 There is no vaild OMB Control Number listed as issued by DoC ESA listed on the GSA website:


[correction, there is a vaild number, it does not appear on the form, there was an expired 2006 number on the DoC ESA website, I cant find the .pdf at this moment] 

(select Department of Commerce" from the "Select Agency" dropdown box)

The required statement under the PRA that 'no one is required to respond...if no vaild OMB COntrol Number appears' is not  on the form.

Obama has apparently taken control of Census from DoC (it appears under the White House website) but the form claims that Census is under DoC. Which one is it? 

There are multiple addresses to send the form back to, the pre-printed form sends it to Arizona, while the forms instructions say to send forms without a pre-printed envelope to Indiana. Why not AZ for both? 

Notice two other interesting things:

1.) The Decennial census is a Census of ENUMERATION, to count people for apportionment of Representation, NOT TO COUNT WHAT ETHENIC ORIGIN THEY ARE. There is no legal basis for asking about race, religion, age, income... ITS A HEAD COUNT.

Notice the BOX around question # 1 which asks for head count, it sets that question apart from all the others. Its the only one legal

2.) The back of the form states:

"You may E-mail comments to <Paperwork@census.gov>; use "Paperwork Project 0607-0919-C" as the subject."

Thats the number that appears on the front of the form. There is no such thing, who is inventing it and WHY?

Simple. Considering the form is asking info as to how many Hispanics are in the Nation, and the fraud by ACORN in voting, its an attempt to get Hispanic voters to vote DEMOCRAT.

Give me another valid reason?

More false statements:

"The Census must count every person living in the United States on April 1, 2010"

NO, the law does not say "must count by April 1," it says "as of April 1" which means there is 9 months on and after April 1 to count all who WERE population as of April 1. Forms completed and counted BEFORE APRIL 1 ARE ILLEGAL. 

It's simple, find where the Hispanics live, target them with more political advertising.

It's called HOAX AND CHAINS.


Next question, if this form is a "-C" revision, then where and what are the zeroth through "-B" revisions and who is getting which one? 





 =============== what I just posted to a newsgroup =======


 I just received a 2010 Census form. I suspected it would be illegal since Obama took Census over from Dept of Commerce (DoC). Search for the Census Bureau and itll appear under the White House.

The form, and letter that preceeded it, appear to be from Census under DoC. There appear to be TWO Census - question divisions.

Heres a link to the form:


USC 44 contains the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which is Federal Law that requires that any collection of information be cleared thru the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and issued a "valid OMB Control Number" (direct quote) else no one is required to respond to it:

The PRA requires two things:

1.) A valid OMB Control Number
2.) A disclosure to the recipient of the collection (you and me) that we are not required to respond... read the title and notice the EXACT wording.

  Under USC 13, Census law, the 10-year Census is a Census of ENUMERATION, to count Citizens (****not illegal aliens****) for apportionment of Representation (in CONgress):


There has been false information floated as to what information is required to be given, and penalties for not giving it:

3.)The only info REQUIRED in a Census of Enumeration is HOW MANY at each address, NOT RACE, OR ETHNICITY

4.) The penalty for refusing to answer is a max of $100.00.

Think anyone gonna haul you into Federal Court for $100?

Just the opposite, read on...

The 2010 Census form is divided into two parts: (critical to notice)

5.) Question # 1 in a BOX BY ITSELF

6.) The rest of the questions about race, ethnicity, 'are you Hispanic'

Q #1 is the ONLY one thats required to be answered in a Census of Enumeration.

  At the bottom - left of the form, there is a PHONY statement that PRETENDS to be an OMB Control Number. It is an expired 2006 Census OMB Control Number with a "-C" suffix. It is referred to as an "approval number."


"Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), OMB assigns an eight-digit OMB Control Number to each the agency information collection."


There is no such thing under Title 44 as an "approval number." "Approval" is a process to ultimately issue a "Control Number." Approval is a process, the Control Number is the result.

Id found, but cant find now, a list of expired OMB Control Numbers on the DoC ESA Website, maybe one of you can stumble across it.

 Notice the phony number appears in the part of the form that asks irrelavent questions, it is separated from the required question about number.

There is a false statement on the form that pretends that the Census must be taken BY APRIL 1st. This is contrary to Census Law which states the Census is taken only between April 1 (of every 10th year) and only for nine - months duration.

I received the form BEFORE it is valid. IT is NOT legal to collect Census information in MARCH. [The Control number is only valid between April 1 and December]

An allegedly valid OMB Control Number appears to have been issued to Census as appears on this web site:


(select Dept of Commerce from the first drop-down list)


  IF there is a "-C" suffix, then this implies that there are at least, possibly more than, FOUR DIFFERENT CENSUS FORMS, such as "Rev 0" (the original with a valid OMB COntrol number) and THREE PHONY VERSIONS or more. If so, those in excess of Rev 0 are illegal.

(Im borrowing "Rev 0" from engineering documentation as an illustration, there is no Rev number on the form)

 One of the questions after Q # 1 asks if the respondant is HISPANIC.

I have contacted our Congressional Rep. twice on this, no response yet. I have contacted a half dozen media outlets, no response. There wont be any.

There is no such thing as a Control Number with an ALPHA SUFFIX.

Look at this site, who are PARTNERS? ACORN. Groups out to count HISPANICS to load the apportionment to the Democrat/Leftist side with Hispanic voters. Especially if they VOTE TWICE:


"Partners" are ACTIVISTS out to increase the count of Hispanics, Indians ("other than white") for the OBVIOUS reasons, to get more Democrat votes.

Critical question: If they are legal residents, why bother? Wont they respond and be counted?

It may not be about that, its about, IMO, targeting the AREAS in which they live with political advertising. Illegal, maybe not, deceptive and divisive, underhanded? Absolutely

Do you think theyll prosecute you, an objecting Conservative White (or any other conservative race)? NO. They want to UN COUNT you.

Posted by Dave at 2:15 PM PDT
Updated: Wednesday, 6 October 2010 11:23 AM PDT
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

Newer | Latest | Older