Back Door Gun Control

If the Mayor of Seattle, Jenny Durkin, and the City Council have their way those living within Seattle's city limits will be subjected to the mercy of the criminal element lurking their neighborhoods. After all, if they can get away with ignoring federal immigration laws to protect illegals, why should they  worry about the Constitution's 2nd amendment?

Here's what the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action has recently alerted 2nd amendment supporters about:

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and Councilmember M. Lorena González have announced their intention to introduce legislation to impose a one-size-fits-all method of storing firearms as well as punishing victims of theft by requiring reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours.

If they can't repeal the 2nd amendment, then they can try locking individual's firearms up so they essentially become useless for however much time it will take for the owner to access it, while hoping the intruder into their home doesn't already have the tactical advantage over them with the intruder's own weapon thrust in the face, or knife at their throat.

This move, I suspect, is a result of the pressure city council members and the Mayor are getting from their constituents who firmly believe that if you just talk nicely and smile, no one will have any malice, bad intentions, toward them. Knowing Khama Shawant and her extreme views on how to remedy issues, and for the radical socialist she is has proposed, I wouldn't be surprised if she decided to "one-up" the Mayor by initiating her own suggestion to pass a city ordinance requiring all guns within the city limits; believing that there would no longer be any "assault" weapons remaining with which to threaten anyone.

Why I Believe WA State Is The Next California

The state legislature shifts by one district seat, which is sufficient for the Democrat Party in the House in Olympia to shift the power to them, and what do they do? They pass laws which threaten to strip the state's constitution of the people's power to exercise petition rights and raid the state treasury's "rainy day fund"!

To anyone who understands the threat this action poses, it is clear that the Democrat Party in WA is making the very same moves, which have been and are, going on in California's state assembly. They're no longer interested in working within the confines of established government restrictions under the principle that "...all power resides in the people." No, they want to become the controlling elite and dictate from their positions of power and control.

The article recently posted from Tim Eyman - WA's single, most effective advocate for combating such measures of government tyranny in Olympia - it is clear that what I've described above is precisely what's happening after the first legislative session of their taking control of the legislative process. 

If they remain in power, I ask... what's next? Does WA become a sanctuary state? I pray the citizens of our lovely state don't wake up some day and discover it's too late to take back control of the direction the Democrat Party wants to take it.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Thursday, March 29, 2018

To: Our thousands of supporters throughout the state (cc'd to the media, house & senate members, and Governor, and other candidates for office)

From: Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, & Mike Fagan, Fighting for Taxpayers for 20 years, 425-493-9127, tim_eyman@comcast.net, www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com

A few weeks ago, I sued the Legislature because in the final days of the legislative session, they essentially repealed initiatives to the legislature. They established an extraordinarily dangerous precedent that if left unchallenged would seriously undermine the initiative process. Eyman v Wyman asks the Court to overturn their unconstitutional actions and let the voters vote on both Initiative 940 and the Legislature's alternative HB 3003 this November.

But that's not the only thing this Legislature did that deserves to be challenged.

Yesterday, I sued the Legislature a 2nd time because the Democrats also unconstitutionally diverted $700 million from the constitutionally-protected Rainy Day Fund. It's another horrible precedent that if left unchallenged will result in the destruction of the Rainy Day Fund. Eyman v Davidson asks the Court to find their actions constitutionally impermissible. It's important to remember that 67.7% of voters created the Rainy Day Fund in 2007 and 66.6% of voters strengthened the Rainy Day Fund in 2011.

To fully understand the issues involved, read it yourself:

http://www.VotersWantMoreChoices.com/pdf/Complaint.pdf

or

https://tinyurl.com/y7d2o44y

(Sorry, but I can't make either one of those addresses into a hyperlink -- very frustrating -- please cut and paste one of those web addresses into your search to read the brief).

Attorney General refuses to act

Shortly after the Governor signed this diversion of Rainy Day Funds into law on Tuesday, I sent a letter to the Attorney General asking him to initiate legal proceedings challenging the Legislature's unconstitutional actions.

His response? "I cannot conclude ... (that) the actions you request clearly serve the interests of the public in their capacity as taxpayers. I therefore decline to take the actions that you request."

Really? Upholding the state Constitution doesn't serve the taxpayers interests? Stopping $700 million from being diverted doesn't serve the public's interests? Ensuring the $700 million goes into the Rainy Day Fund doesn't serve the interests of the public in their capacity as taxpayers?

That doesn't make any sense.

I asked the AG to do that to earn taxpayer standing in the case (I have standing to challenge their actions for several other reasons, but taxpayer standing is one of them). And all he had to write was: "I am the Legislature's lawyer, not the taxpayers' lawyer, I will defend any action by this Legislature, no matter what." But he didn't say that. He said that defending the state Constitution's provisions related to the Rainy Day Fund does not "serve the interests of the public in their capacity as taxpayers." That's just bizarre.

Why are you suing Duane?

It is incredibly ironic that the lead Defendant in this case is State Treasurer Duane Davidson. Why? Because he was the elected official most vehemently opposed to the Democrats' raid on the Rainy Day Fund. He said it imperiled bond ratings, he said it set a dangerous precedent, he warned of recessions and inadequate reserves, and he said it was irresponsible and self-inflicted wound.

So why is he named in the case? He oversees the state treasury, which includes the Rainy Day Fund, as serves as the state's Chief Financial Officer. From the Complaint: "Plaintiff (Eyman) asks the court to declare the diversion of revenues in SB 6614 unconstitutional, enjoin Defendants (the Legislature) from spending those diverted revenues, and order the State Treasurer (Duane Davidson) to fulfill his constitutional obligation to ensure the integrity of the Rainy Day Fund by ensuring the transfer of extraordinary revenue growth into the Rainy Day Fund as required by Article 7, section 12 of the Constitution."

Why am I suing the Legislature in Eyman v Wyman? To protect the initiative process.

Why am I suing the Legislature in Eyman v Davidson? To protect the Rainy Day Fund.

How Bad Does It Have To Get?

I've most likely asked this question before in previous posts. And what I'm about to write most likely - given the current censorship climate which exists in these "Titans of the Internet" - will lead to this blog site shutting me down. We'll see.

I work at a sport venue in downtown Seattle during the season which is about to begin tomorrow. I've done it for two-and-a-half years now. Previously, I worked at the other sports venue across the street for another team doing essentially the same thing; providing security services for five years during events. So, over the total of eight years I've personally witnessed the transformation of the northern area of the SODO district - an area of diverse businesses from fast food franchises to large companies like FILSON. The transformation has been depressing and incomprehensible to me.

In 2009, when I first began working at these sporting venues the streets were reasonably decent in that one could get about without concern of being approached by some stranger and not being sure what to expect if an exchange of some type occurred. Now, as I walk two blocks from stepping off the bus to the gate entrance to the stadium, I see mini-tent cities in almost every vacant patch of land I go by. When city police try to get them gone, they only pop up a few days later with someone else living there. Panhandling is difficult to avoid now. Some unfortunate individuals who've left events at either of these sporting venues have been killed by them as they've walked to their favorite bar or just their car to go home.

The homeless occupation, as I call it, has grown over those years because of Seattle city council's policies which have not only invited these people, but they have continually increased funding over that same time period. And it doesn't appear they will change course.

Only blocks to the east is what's been called "The Jungle". During this same period of time the population of tent dwellers - this is the dominant mode of dwelling for the homeless - increased in a stretch of state owned land underneath the raised Interstate freeway which skirts along the eastern hillside of the SODO district as the freeway approaches downtown Seattle where Interstate 90 intersects with I-5. Within this "Jungle" was a combination of drug addicts and prostitution with some children living with their parents. It was a huge issue for a few years and finally was shut down and purged by the city's police after a shooting death occurred.

However, that problem merely shifted over the time since then to one of a run down RVs or other types of vehicles parked on the curbs of certain neighborhoods. Occasional news reports have revealed that the drug use and sex trafficking has merely moved into these "squatters on wheels". A judge in Seattle recently ruled that a man living in his pickup truck could not have it towed away because it was his house.

With all of these developments happening which defend, if not protect, homeless people and illegals working in the city - Seattle is a sanctuary city - I wonder just how much worse things will get. To get an idea of what the future conditions might be, I invite you to read an article by a highly respected columnist about what was going on in the region of California he lives in back in 2010; about the same time I started working in Seattle. 

Then too, there's another aspect of this growing problem our nation is facing which some may find even more offensive... the threat of foreigners coming into our country demanding we change to their laws and customs. If you believe that this statement is not true, then I invite you to watch this video of what's been happening in Europe that much of our mainstream news has chosen to not shared with its viewers. WARNING, the content is horrific in some instances, but if we are to be fully aware of what threat is coming our way, we can not hide our heads in the sand and hope it will go away. There have been similar instances of these kinds of assaults and rioting in certain enclaves of the U.S. We just haven't been exposed to them in the news under the sanitized "feel good" type news most outlets feed the public today.

Thank God for the advent of the Internet when it comes to having alternative news sources; especially from outside the U.S.

It's Illegal to Require Illegals to Admit They're Illegal?

So, how exactly, does that work? I smell a week old dead fish here.

In yet another weird twist of "legal obfuscation and miss-direction" the California state's A.G. has filed a law suit against the Trump Administration to include in the 2020 Census a question requiring illegal aliens to declare whether they're in the country illegally, or not.

This type of mental gymnastics is revealing a pattern for liberal/socialists. Over the last administration's two terms, the liberal/socialists have apparently established sufficient numbers of liberal/socialist leaning judges in courts all across the country to use as their legal "stop gap go to" for countering any actions by the unexpected win by conservatives in the last election.

If you'll recall, it started with the judge in Hawaii ruling that  putting a halt on allowing foreigners in to the country by Pres. Trump was illegal. And there have been a series of such similar type rulings on various other attempts for the new conservative administration to implement changes to policies deemed potentially threatening to American citizens.

This fits perfectly with the ideology of blurring the lines of black & white when it comes to long established legal issues which have been clear for centuries in America. It's obvious to me that this is yet another strategy by leftist/socialists to use key wording and concept manipulation to slowly, but steadily, blur the lines of today's youth who know very little to nothing about the country's history or concept regarding civics because it's not been taught in public schools for decades now.

If this trend continues for much longer, we will, I believe, see the country break out into civil war as I've been saying for years now. Remember, my favorite saying is this... "If there's no rule of law, there's no rules at all!"

The Failure of Public School Discipline Policies

As a former public school teacher, who, for the last six years of his 30 year career teaching middle-school Science, I experienced first hand the frustration of having any and all control taken away from my classroom when it came to disruptive student behavior.

All we were allowed to do was send them to the office for being dealt with by the Vice Principle most of the time. Because the trend of removing any form of corporal punishment was stripped from the discipline policies of public schools starting around the time I entered to profession in the late '70s, the behavior noticeably worsened over the years.

What was the new policy? It started out with detention; students sitting in a designated room at the end of the school day for a specific period of time. I, on occasion, was the teacher serving duty in such rooms, as much of the staff were required to do. In essence, this was merely a delay in being able, for those incorrigible students who most likely never had a father figure in their upbringing, to hang out with their friends after school.

Many of them were repeat offenders. Over time this policy was dropped because it failed to reduce the frequency and quantity of disruptions by those students who, because they were smart enough to understand there really were no consequences to the actions, knew they were in control and that misbehavior was not actually a threat to them. If they ever were suspended, or expelled, they considered it a release from the place where they were basically a prisoner from being able to spend time being productive; dealing drugs with their friends, extorting someone for money, stealing cars, etc.

Now, details are coming out about the Parkland, FL high school student who was one of these types; orphaned, fostered into another home, tossed around by the school district and his behavior record disguised to "hopefully" rehabilitate him with "restorative justice" policies rather than some tough love he needed along with the kind of counseling services he obviously needed. Then too, he may, at that point, have been beyond help. But, it ended in the loss of 17 innocent lives - three being staff members of the school - and the students and media go after the tool he used to commit the atrocity. 

Yea, that'll solve the problem of these type students amidst our youth. His defense lawyer says he's a broken human being... Nooooooo, ya think? Here we go with the bleeding liberal heart angle that created the problem in the first place.

Have Blacks Benefited With Elected Black Leaders?

Watch and decided for yourself...

Proof Leftists Are Striving to Sabotage America

The cartoon above makes a statement which is more true than many who saw it a few months ago realized. Institutions of higher learning have now become dominantly centers for liberalism. No doubt readers have seen example after example recently of how this is so. But this story takes the cake!

In an unprecedented move for any former President, Barrack Huessain O. not only has established the Organizing for Action group to recruit and train acolytes of Saul Alynski, he's also now teaching a class on how to impeach the man who has replaced him... President Trump!

You read that right. Don't believe me? Use this link to get the details here. (BTW... you might find what Ben Shapiro told Congress for 25 minutes recently about this very issue. A bit long for today's average attention span, but very informative.)

Still doubt it? Watch David Hogg - the new face of the anti-gun movement - in these two videos. It's clear he's speaking about a "pure democracy", not a democratic republic we have. I predict we're going to eventually learn that the leftists have been giving this kid "new king" treatment to help him promote their agenda.

If the leftists succeed, we may, sometime in the future, end up like Venezuela. After all, the tradition of Latin American revolution has been the tradition of fixing the problem of inflation; just overthrow the old form of government.