What Really Was M.L.K.'s Message? - 50 Years Later

The marches, protests and rallies held by today's youth and the media claim they're carrying on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. of the '50s and '60s when I was in school, but they are deceiving the public today who are no longer aware of the truth regarding his movement.

Alveta King was recently interviewed about her Uncle on this 50th anniversary of his assassination and clarifies what his cause was really focused on. I urge readers to use the link provided here below, read it, and share it with others who could benefit from knowing what that real purpose was, who might not today. It's apparent to me that public schools and colleges don't, and have good reason not to!

I believe Alveta's daddy was accurate when he corrected her as she wept in his arms over the news of her Uncle being murdered.

5 Questions For Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Niece, 50 Years After His Murder

Tax Payer Dollars Support Socialist Foreign Government?

Mr. Handsome himself... George Soros

Yes, this has now been revealed as a fact by Judicial Watch's FOIA request of State Department documents during the Obama administration.

Tucker Carlson covered this topic recently here.  

and...

G. Edward Griffin's "Need to Know" site covered it here as well.

Question: How long will we have to wait for the DOJ to open an investigation into this? Don't hold your breath!

How Ignorance Is Usually Dangerous

The title in the image above may seem confusing to most readers because they disagree with the concept totally. What if there was more to this concept than, pardon the pun, meets the eye. Consider this point... Today we are witnessing many examples of how the younger generations are espousing ideas or concepts which claim to be correcting past injustices. But what if such things are based on a lack of knowledge about the perceived injustice?

Ignorance has been the common theme throughout history. However, if we rationally and honestly examine the various ideas of misguided ideas, notions, or concepts, it becomes apparent that they were, or are, misguided and deceptive.

Case in point, as this latest Prager U video points out, the concept of "An eye for an eye" was not some ancient law that actually meant we should injure anyone who committed an injustice to someone else, but that every person was of equal value rather than the older law established by kings of previous civilizations - like Babylon - that nobility's value was more important than commoners.

This changes one's understanding of the motive, or reasoning, behind such maxims of evolving civilization's concepts significantly. So, if today's youth are demanding a past perceived immorality justifies tearing down a statue of someone from a prior era because it doesn't deserve to stand, now that we are "enlightened" and won't tolerate any such public reminders of that past, then ignorance in many cases is most likely acting on misunderstood, or incorrect premises, and not on the real educated reason why something existed in the past. If this is difficult to follow, watching the video should make it more clear.

Is Mexico Our Border Enemy?

You be the judge of that. 

To those who think the United States should no longer have any sovereignty, or borders, and will suffer not consequences to it culture if we allow just anyone to come to our country because we're virtue signaling how wonderfully compassionate we are, then this article will not concern you. Move on, there's nothing to be concerned about here.

However, if you believe our nation is still a sovereign one, with a Constitution which protects those who were legally born here and thereby have rights such as voting legally, and that controlling our borders and protecting our rights is critically important to our culture of law and order, then you might want to read this article to understand why I've used such a question for the title of this post. Here's further information on this topic.

That this religious weekend is being used to bolster the compassion of those who consider themselves pious and compassionate by allowing foreigners into our country with disregard to our nation's immigration laws, is despicable and wholly illegal. Any nation who does so is inviting trouble - we're already clearly seeing this in such states as California - will impose chaos and lament on the land in years to come.

Personally, I'm convinced that there is an organized conspiracy by the leftist/socialists to use this issue of considering foreigners as deserving to be part of our communities without respect of the federal laws is a means to achieve their objective of regaining their position of power at the national level - increasing their voter rolls - to further their socialist agenda of shredding the Constitution and turning this blessed nation away from its traditional heritage of God, family and country as the last, best place on earth for freedom and liberty.

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.