Battle Ground Forum Draws Small Audience

by lewwaters

Campaign for Liberty and We The People hosted an event they labeled a “debate” last evening in the auditorium at Battle Ground High School for candidates of the 3rd Congressional District hoping to replace retiring Democrat, Brian Baird.

In attendance where Democrat, Cheryl Crist, Independent Normal Jean Stevens, Republican and alleged Marine David W. Hedrick and proxy for Republican David Castillo who couldn’t attend due to a prior commitment Candice Jackson, a local attorney. Democrat Denny Heck also had a prior commitment and Republican Jaime Herrera could not attend, no reason given and their campaigns sent no proxy.

Maybe 60 people, many Hedrick devotees, attended to hear the candidates.

Although listed as an unbiased forum, it was clear from the start that the forum was expected to make alleged Marine David W. Hedrick a star. The questions asked were written and asked by Campaign for Liberty; a Ron Paul inspired group and We The People, both of whom are supporting Alleged Marine, David W. Hedrick.

I give credit to Katja Delavar and her husband Michael for trying to make it appear balanced and for excellent time keeping plus holding candidates to their time limits.

The format seemed a bit odd to me as a question was asked and whichever candidate wished to answer first raised their hand, with others offered a short amount of time to reply as well. Each was given ample opportunity to rebut.

I thought it also a bit odd to witness Hedrick during the Pledge of Allegiance, not holding his hand over his heart or doing a Military Salute, as Veterans and active duty Military are now allowed to do when wearing civilian clothes, but holding his right hand up as if reciting an oath. Maybe he has done that before and I just never paid attention, but that struck me as bit odd since proper pledge etiquette is the right hand over the heart or a salute.

The questions were often lengthy during the first half of the forum and each candidate was given scant time to reply, 60 seconds in some cases, 45 second later on.

I witnessed Hedrick often waiting until one or more of the others replied, then he would jump in to make his regular replies. Unfortunately for him, Castillo proxy, Candice Jackson, is a well educated and well versed attorney who knows Castillo very well and often schooled Hedrick.

Hedrick seemed to be getting nervous as he began taking subtle pot shots at Castillo, then a little later taking direct pot shots at him by name, saying “Enterprise Zones” were unconstitutional. He agreed with Ms. Jackson reply on free market would bring about green energy sources if actually needed, but had to add a slam that he doubts Mr. Castillo believes that.

Alleged Marine David Hedrick seemed quite comfortable slamming a candidate that was not present in such cowardly personal attacks.

After not being admonished for his personal slurs against Mr. Castillo, he took a shot at absent Democrat Denny Heck, claiming he once left Mr. Heck red-faced in a debate and the audience laughing at him.

At one point he took a shot at Cheryl Crist, saying how much he likes her personally, but doesn’t want her to “be elected to anything.” At this point, Michael Delavar, moderator from Campaign for Liberty, advised all of the candidates not to make such personal comments.

Hedrick supporters in the audience were their usual boisterous self, loudly clapping and cheering after each comment. When a request was made from the moderators to refrain from applauding and cheering after each comment, many yelled back “hell No, we’re here to support our candidate.”

Katja turned around requesting the same and telling them they will get to more questions if they refrain and was largely ignored by the Hedrick supporters, prompting other candidates supporters to act likewise.

Cheryl Crist was treated to groans a couple times for her views as a progressive and silence met much of Norma Jean Stevens comments, who had a much better stage presence this evening that before.

Ms. Stevens gave well thought out answers to most questions while looking out to the audience each time. I applaud both Ms Crist and Ms Stevens for their replies and for having the courage to face such an audience that at times must have seemed a slight bit hostile.

In all the star of the evening was Candice Jackson, prompting some supporters of alleged Marine Hedrick sitting near me to comment she was smarter than Castillo, not realizing her replies were Castillo’s, who she strongly supports.

A questionable comment from the alleged Marine was when asked about how they would vote in Congress, by the wishes of their constituents or by their principles, Hedrick replied that he would vote his principles, ignoring polls.

A couple minutes later, he boasted of a questionable poll he claims shows him neck and neck with Jaime Herrera, not commenting that Denny Heck placed higher on that same poll than both. He also took the opportunity to slap Mr. Castillo again saying his polling numbers were very low.

I guess his like of polls depends on where his ego places him.

Undoubtedly he will again brag about how he put everyone to shame, but it was obvious that Ms. Jackson, sitting in for Mr. Castillo amply schooled him on many subjects.

For all of you Hedrick supporters who will take exception to my labeling him as “alleged Marine,” as a Viet Nam Veteran myself with over 8 years active duty in the United States Army and since he makes his service central to his campaign, while not disclosing such basic information pertaining to his service, such as BPED, ETS, MOS, training, units served in, where deployed and 3 times now has replied as to the nature and place of the injury that grants him a disability being a “classified mission,” this Veteran will view him as only an “alleged Marine” until such time as such information is supplied by him and supported to voters.

While I am sure he did serve, he owes voters at least basic information.

I thank Campaign for Liberty and We The People for their efforts and hope the next time they will be less obvious.

UPDATE: Since several Hedrick supporters have expressed displeasure with my labeling Hedrick as “alleged Marine,” we are clamoring for a more “Open and Transparent” government. We desire more “Open and Transparent” elected officials.

How do we trust one who will not even be “Open and Transparent” about the very thing he bases his campaign on?

If seeking that very “open transparency” we say we want makes me a “hatchet man,” so be it.

42 Comments to “Battle Ground Forum Draws Small Audience”

  1. Thanks for reporting on this event co-hosted by We the People and WA Campaign for Liberty. I have to contend with one particular thing you’ve written here: “Castillo proxy, Candice Jackson… …who knows Castillo very well and often schooled Hedrick.”

    You have stated this but why then did Candice state that Castillo is fully behind the founder’s intent of the Constitution yet still advocate support for non-enumerated powers such as the federal economic safety net (Social security and Medicare) and a central governing agency for credit and interest rates (Federal Reserve)?

    The Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate (make regular/normalize) the value of money, not manipulate the supply of derivative debt currency.

    The Federal Reserve is owned by commercial banks in this country and has been given the monopoly authority to create (counterfeit) currency (debt) and manipulate interest on the creation of said currency/debt, in the form of Reserve Notes, without backing of an actual un-molested store of value.

    Through FED mis-management the currency is not even derived from actual money any more. Its worth is entirely dependent on the ability of the Federal government and the institutionalized cabal of commercial banks to continue extorting wealth from the people in the USA.

    The founders themselves spoke to this concern and would have never been okay with a central bank creating claim checks based on the theory that more claim checks would be made to redeem the old ones. This is the fundamental underlying root cause to all economic problems in this country and also the facilitator to our giant national debt and un-natural trade imbalance – the global dollar reserve standard setup by the banking cabal.

    Candice stated this is a legitimate function of the federal government.

    David Castillo obviously doesn’t have actual solutions because he doesn’t appear to grasp the root causes of the issues he wishes to address.

    David Hedrick spoke with conviction on these matters with Constitutional answers that WERE based on founder’s intent. So actually the schooling was the other way around, and I am proud that Mr. Hedrick is standing up, without compromise, for the foundational ideas that make this country such an exceptional example to the rest of the world.


  2. Lew, it’s obvious you are jealous of Hedrick.


  3. I was there last night and this is NOT the way it went. Not sure who the guy is that wrote this but it’s not what happened at all. Makes me think he’s getting paid by the Castillo camp for trashing everyone else. In that case, keep it up whoever you are. You’re doing wonders for the democrats!


  4. Corey, there is nothing wrong with a TEMPORARY safety net to help people for a short while. We have grown and expanded massively beyond the days our founders gave us that wonderful constitution.

    The wise men that gave us that also knew that as time moved on, we would grow and advance and times would change in ways they could not even imagine.

    Hence, Article V of the constitution.

    Strangely enough, for “strict constitutionalists,” it seems to be forgotten that many of the points ya’ll stand up for are not in the constitution itself, but in the original 10 amendments that we call “The Bill of Rights,” which were added after the constitution was written and proposed as amendments in order to gain ratification of the constitution.

    While the so called “safety net” is neither in the constitution nor is it an amendment, we are given a process to pass laws, whether we agree with those laws or not.

    An argument can be made and has been made that Hedrick himself, by claiming to be a “disabled Marine” is taking advantage of that very ‘safety net” he condemns if he accepts a check from the government or Veteran’s Health Care.

    Even the Bible tells us words to the effect that the love of many will cool, which we all too often see in the “don’t want to get involved” attitude.

    Hedrick, last evening, made a point that our constitution was inspired by the Holy Bible. If he really believes that, then he must also know the Bible lays out leaving a portion of crops in the field for the poor to harvest.

    An ancient “safety net?”

    The Bible is replete with admonitions on helping the poor, but it also lays out where they should help too by working for what they receive, which is the real problem, not that there is a “safety net,” but we have allowed it to get out of hand and create a class of “professional poor” that are not poor at all.

    Such “temporary” help is not counter to the words of Horatio Bunce spoken to Davey Crockett in my view.

    If Hedrick really believed our constitution to be inspired by God, wouldn’t he agree with Biblical principle?

    I agree there needs to be changes to the Fed, but it is already being audited and not as secret as claimed. Have you not seen the many times Fed Chair Bernake is called before Congress to testify?

    That is not in secret but public testimony.

    A big problem with outright ending the Fed and turning full control of our money back over to Congress falls back to a majority party using that power to repay supporters and manipulate our money to retain power.

    As corrupt as we have seen elected officials, do we want that?

    Candice made the point last night that the Fed has failed in what it was designed to do. That is why I say it needs many changes and more openness. The last thing we need is partisan politics ruling our economy any more than it has already. (My words and view)

    David Castillo, unlike Hedrick, does give specific ideas while Hedrick often speaks in platitudes and contradicts himself on stage with vague comments, not very well thought out.

    Just because you don’t like Castillo doesn’t mean he isn’t giving ideas and his ideas of solutions.

    Standing up and saying “we only need to get back to the constitution” without stating exactly what or how is merely selling snake oil to a weary audience.

    And, just remember, each amendment, whether you and I agree wit hthem or not, that is passed and ratified IS now part of the constitution, just as the ten Bill of Rights.

    Laws passed by Congress, whether we like them or not, are legal until such time as they are repealed or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which has happened numerous times.

    Hedricks bombastic, in your face type of speaking would alienate others in Congress, leaving him standing alone and ineffective.

    He can blow all the smoke he wishes today, but if he were in Congress, 434 others he would have to convince don’t all fall for such smoke screens


  5. “Lew, it’s obvious you are jealous of Hedrick.”


    Hedrick could only dream he has walked down the roads I have.

    “I was there last night and this is NOT the way it went.”

    Spoken like a true Hedrick follower.

    Face it, he could be passed on the table drunk (not accusing him of being a drunk) and you devotees would still claim he gave the best presentation.

    I spoke to a few after wards and it is exactly how it went.

    And no, I do not receive any pay or promises of anything from any candidate and I cover several.

    I make no money off of the blog either.

    Better luck next time.

    I needn’t do wonders for the Democrats. Braggarts like Hedrick help them much more than I ever could.


  6. Lew Waters, the man that writes this blog, is a very angry, desperate, jealous man. He just can’t stand the fact that Hedrick is gaining more and more supporters and rising in the polls, leaving his man (Castillo) behind.
    Lew says this forum was made to look Hedrick look good? How Lew, by aking constitutional questions?? Good thing Castillo chose to send a proxy, lol, instead of coming himself as he would not of been able to answer many of these questions knowledgeably. We all know how Castillo has said repeatedly thats he “is not a Constitutionalist, but his wife is”…haha. Unbeliveable!
    Lew you say the proxy “schooled” Hedrick yet you fail to give examples…typical Lew. And regarding Hedrick’s answer saying he would vote on principle, which he CLEARLY stated that his principles are all based on THE CONSTITUTION, which is OUR LAW was an excellent answer…you left that one out too didnt you Lew..
    The audience clearly loved David last night. Its funny Lew, how you say Hedrick supporters ignored the request to refrain from clapping, yet you were clapping at alomost every answer the proxy gave, even yelling out “Yeah” and couple times…oops, you left that little one out too….This is the reason Lew your blogs are disreputable. You always fail to give the whole truth!..I just read them for a good laugh!


  7. Nancy supplies another prime example of how some people react when their delusions are challenged. There is a psychological term for it, but it escapes me at the moment.

    Yes, the Hedrick devotees in the audience did “love” him last night, just as they do when he makes an ass out of himself anywhere.

    I suggest you read the comments above yours, Nancy and see just how contradictory Hedrick comes across.

    But, thank your stopping by. Regardless of your reason for reading, you do add to my reader count.

    Yes, I did yell out “yeah” a couple times, just as the Hedrick people constantly did after being requested to refrain. Maybe you missed “Katja turned around requesting the same and telling them they will get to more questions if they refrain and was largely ignored by the Hedrick supporters, prompting other candidates supporters to act likewise,” like many other things you choose to ignore.

    You really should read before commenting, Nancy.

    Oh, and for the support alleged Marine Hedrick continues to build, isn’t it odd that he did not receive the endorsement of National Defense PAC instead of US Navy Veteran, David Castillo?

    Take off the rose colored glasses, Nancy. Snake oil doesn’t help anyone.


  8. Alright, I would appreciate it it folks debating Lew in his blog comments didn’t personally attack him because of his ideas or what he says. It doesn’t make anybody look good and only inhibits honest debate on ideas/issues that Lew has graciously allowed on his blog by leaving the comment section available to anybody that can type. Especially in supporting Hedrick, don’t leave angry, mean remarks all over the internet that don’t further or advance any ideas except hate.


  9. Thank you, Corey.

    But, such comments are to be expected from some and they do happen from supporters of all candidates.

    Honest debate is better, but it comes with the territory.

    BTW, I never had the chance to say so, but I did enjoy meeting you face to face at the Fort July 4.


  10. Lew,
    The Bible advocates for charity and individuals and organizations have in the past done wonderful things for those in need, as the Bible advocates. Does the Bible also advocate the force of government to require charity to whichever cause the majority decide should be championed? There is a fine line between charity and socialism and that line is government.

    If you like your safety net so much than get the state legislature to enact such legislation. Government closest to the people serves those people best, and has much harder time imposing draconian laws.

    Article V hasn’t been forgotten, but it definitely is a requirement to follow its guidelines if it’s wished to increase the scale/scope of the federal government. Just because the majority of representatives want something doesn’t make it an excuse to usurp the supreme national social contract. It was wisely laid out that it would take a lot more than a majority in Congress to impose democratic tyranny.

    Concerning the Fed, the topic is too large to properly elaborate why it’s all wrong for so many reasons in a blog comment; however the founders recognized gold/silver as money. The dollar was a term that was defined long before the constitution as the Spanish dollar, which was the popular coin in the country at the time. All the Constitution allows Congress to do is set the weights and balances of commodity money. In 1792, they defined the dollar to the same weight in silver grains as the Spanish dollar that made up the majority of coinage in circulation. Thsi power doesn’t allow partisan bickering to control the supply of money or the issuance of a debt-based currency… To go further, the FED itself is purely political (its chairman/board of governors appointed by the Prez.) and many of its decisions are based on political folly in cahoots with the Congress and to the whims of those in power.

    As always, thanks for writing this blog.


  11. I read the post up to “alleged Marine David W. Hedrick” and I stopped.

    You are a disgrace to the people that serve our country. Clearly this site has become an attack the Castillo opponents based on lies and now it’s gone to the point where you put our a lie that Hedrick is an alleged Marine.

    It’s people like you draw people away from David Castillo. I thought Castillo was the issue but upon thinking about it you and a few others are the ones hurting Castillo.


  12. Cory, there is and will continue to be honest disagreement over this subject. My point was that Hedrick brings in the constitution is inspired by God, yet he does not agree with Biblical admonition for people.

    I doubt too many would object to lending a helping hand if not for the “professional poor” that has taken advantage of the safety net. But, that is also why I included the comment on the greater love of many cooling off.

    The safety net, as I see it, would only supply the very basic needs to get by and then only temporarily. It would be better if individuals did follow the Bibles admonition to help, but all too many don’t and even many so called preachers misuse it to grow their own personal gain instead of lending that helping hand.

    What we are currently experiencing is what I see Horatio Bunce as alluding too, total care instead of temporary help.

    I would also expect those capable to help themselves more than today in some sort of real workfare, also following the Biblical admonition to harvest the crops mandated to be left behind in Leviticus.

    You are right about the fine line and our government has passed it today. It has moved well beyond the safety net into nanny state.

    A problem I see in making it state governed is the difference between a wealthier state and more impoverished states, as was seen during the dust bowl days of the Great Depression as many Oklahomans fled their state to head to California, which created many problems.

    And remember I am not talking a nanny state as has happened, but a very basic and temporary safety net. Of course, measures would have to be in place to prevent it from growing again beyond basics.

    As for Article V, it has been followed, except for one provision, “the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” That I know of, state legislators have never taken advantage of this provision.

    And again, I agree. The Fed is a very complicated subject. I was in full agreement on Paul’s notion, until I began researching it more. One place I found what I think is a reasoned and balanced discussion on both sides is Audit The Fed? Pros and Cons. . .


  13. Biased, too bad you did not continue reading and see why it is you that should be questioning.

    Is there a reason someone’s claims should not be questioned when running for office?

    At least I am willing to openly show my Military record showing my over 8 years active duty, including 18 months boots on the ground in Viet Nam. I don’t hide behind claims of “classified.”

    If anybody is a disgrace to those of us who have served it is someone who makes claims of Military service central to their campaign and then not disclose such service, expecting instead of to be taken on blind faith.

    Nice try.


  14. Cory, no one is attacking Lew because of his ideas. He is outright lying and attacking everyone who is not a Castillo supporter. That is wrong.


  15. Quite a bit less than accurate, Nancy.

    By the way, the Longview daily News has issued their endorsements in this race, Castillo and Heck.

    Advance Heck, Castillo in 3rd District race

    Let’s see, that makes the count Castillo 3, Heck 2, Herrera 1, Hedrick 0, when you add in the Seattle Times nd the Columbian.

    Is there a pattern there?

    The Daily News said, “The Daily News editorial board recommends that voters advance Denny Heck and David Castillo to the November general election. Heck and Castillo impressed us as the most capable candidates in this crowded field, and they would offer voters in a district that trends both red and blue an excellent choice come November. Both hold fast to the principles of their respective parties, but they have the maturity and experience required to understand the practical value of moderation and cooperation.”

    I guess they are attacking Hedrick and his supporters too?


  16. Of course Liberal Longview would endorse the weakest Republican. They want Heck to win and need Castillo to run against him in order for that to happen. Common Sense. Hedrick would beat Heck!


  17. Oh Nancy, I gave you credit for being smarter than that.

    I guess that makes the National Defense PAC liberal that want Heck to win the election too?

    David Castillo Endorsed by National Defense PAC

    Then again, the Columbian endorsed Castillo and Herrera. Do they want Herrera to win?


  18. Mr. Waters,

    In your initial response to Cory Barnes, you attempt to justify the massive discrepancy between Candidate Castillo’s faux Constitutionalism and his very real affection for a Federal “safety net”. This effort is deficient in the following ways:

    1. You make much of the propriety of a temporary safety net, ignoring the fundamental point — nowhere in the US Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to perform that function. Castillo’s surrogate, Ms. Jackson, was asked about this during the debate, and failed to cite any such provision. Nor have you here. This is to the credit of you both, because it’s just not there. Because it’s not there, the Federal Government should not be providing such assistance — regardless of its duration.

    2. You cite Article V, describing the process by which the Constitution can be changed, again ignoring the fundamental point — To date the Constitution has not yet been amended to grant the Federal Government the power to perform this function. The fact that the Feds has taken this function on is a usurpation of power (one of many) — not a legitimate Constitutional function.

    3. Apropos of nothing relevant to this topic, you complain that “strict constitutionalists” often cite items from the Bill of Rights, ignoring the fact that these ten amendments are legitimately a part of the Constitution as a consequence having been adopted through the process described in Article V.

    4. You complain that David Hedrick is a hypocrite for partaking of veterans benefits, implicitly asserting these are not Constitutionally legitimate. Hardly. The US Constitution does authorize military expenditures as one of the legitimate functions of the Federal Government. Providing retirement pay and/or benefits for soldiers who leave the military is a part of their compensation, and comfortably fits the definition of “necessary and proper” with respect to that function. Care to quibble?

    5. You then cite the Bible, with its admonishments to provide charity. Again, this is irrelevant. The “safety net” is not private, voluntary, religiously-motivated charity. It is a system of governmentally-coerced secularly-motivated transfer payments. Charity — be it Christian or otherwise — is not the same as the “safety net”.

    6. You assert that believing the Constitution to be divinely inspired somehow legitimates a Federal “safety net”. Please!!! If The Deity inspired the Constitution, said Deity inspired the Constitution as written. And, as previously stated (and restated), the Constitution as written does not authorize the Federal Government to provide a “safety net”. Consequently, a believer can oppose Federal involvement in this area and still be obedient to and respectful of not only to the Constitution, but also to the will of The Divinity.

    7. Strangely (in light of item 3 above), you ask Cory to remember that ratified amendments are part of the Constitution, ignoring the fundamental point (need it be stated again?) — the Constitution has not been amended to authorize a Federal “safety net”. Laws passed pursuant to this end are likewise illegitimate usurpations, since they lack any proper Constitutional basis. The Supreme Court’s judgments on these matters are very much open to dispute — unless you happen to believe that the Constitution is whatever a majority of justices on that body says it is. If you believe that, your credentials as a Conservative are highly suspect.

    As for David Hedrick being a bombastic smoke-blower (Indeed so much so that he wouldn’t be tolerated in the body he aspires to join)? Any reasonable observer would regard this as a bizarre inversion of the truth about both Mr. Hedrick’s conduct as well as the standards for same set by many of his prospective colleagues (many of whom earn and deserve the moniker “Congresscritters”).

    Oh, BTW…

    During the debate, Ms. Jackson applied the epithet “anarchist” to slur strict Constitutionalists — as if the opposition to abuse of government power through its usurpation of Constitutionally-unauthorized functions is somehow the same thing as an opposition to government itself. It isn’t, and it’s silly and stupid to think so. Should you be inclined to resort to such a stratagem, please spare me, and anyone else who might read this, from having to waste our time with such nonsense.


  19. Thank you John, for instructing me on how and what to write on my blog.

    Is there where I should insert Hedrick’s “STAY AWAY FROM BLOG” cry?

    You assign your thoughts to others words eloquently John, but they are still your thoughts.

    I supplied my thoughts to Cory. I am not David Castillo’s proxy.

    My mention of the Bible was due to Hedrick’s citing the constitution was inspired from God.

    I did not accuse him of hypocrisy, but said the argument could be and has been made concerning his disability claim. Brian Baird left him with egg on his face at the second town hall he tried his little ambush tactic at last year.

    Be careful with your claims that the Constitution as written does not authorize certain things you disapprove of.

    As such a learned person as yourself must know, the constitution was arrived at through much heated debate and compromise.

    While I do not believe the constitution to be a “living breathing” document, meaning ever changing, Article V does provide for additions as need be as the country grew.

    Some laws and bills that even I disagree with have been passed and gone through constitutional muster. That I disagree with them is immaterial as others agreed enough to pass them. We cannot and should not “pick and choose” what we wish to follow.

    I do not approve of the nanny State, as explained in comments above. However, and much like the Electoral College, placing a minimal basic safety net for temporary help would spread it a bit more evenly and prevent a flood of people as was seen during the Great Depression to states like California, which made matters worse.

    Is it exactly constitutional? That is a matter of opinion and apparently a majority thought so.

    However, I do think there should have been some very strict measure in place to prevent the net from growing into a Nanny State and I think recipients of the safety net should be willing to return the favor.

    So tell us, since you desire strict constitutionalism according to your views, just which of the 27 amendments need be repealed?

    And what of those on the left that would undoubtedly use the “repeal fever” to push for repeal of amendments we desire to keep and they dislike?


  20. Hello Lew,

    I read your blog post. I did not read any other comments here but I did wish to clarify to all that care to read your blog, Campaign for Liberty is a 501c4 organization. It neither opposes nor endorses any candidate. If there are supporters for David Hedrick in Campaign for Liberty, it should not be mistaken for a Campaign for Liberty endorsement.

    It means much to me to clarify that. Also, you said “Battle Ground Forum Draws Small Audience” I was surprised at the numbers we got for the small amount of advertising and the short notice for this event. It was around a 100 or so and if I had done radio and newspaper ads, we would have had a larger turnout. For an organization just starting out, I think we did really well.

    You said: “Republican Jaime Herrera could not attend, no reason given and their campaigns sent no proxy” and in the forum it was mentioned within an audience question that Jaime will only debate Heck. She has turned down numerous debates for the reason that she does not want to cause problems between the candidates of her own party. I think that was a mistake for Candice did real well. I wonder how many converts she had.

    I have no clue what you mean by this: I thank Campaign for Liberty and We The People for their efforts and hope the next time they will be less obvious.

    Are you suggesting that we call people to get them out for a certain candidate? I assure you I have no time for that. I do encourage each and every candidate to bring their supporters out to my forums and debates to cheer on their candidate. This is campaigning 101. (That is if cheering is not taking up valuable time.) I am happy that the two organizations see a good candidate and agree on him, but that does not mean that it was orchestrated that way by the organizations. The people that turn out are the people you need to talk to about why they showed up at this debate.

    Thank you for attending our debate. If you have any suggestions for a better debate format in the future, I would ask that you email me at



  21. Katja, I understand the clarification, but it is sort of like saying the Clark GOP does not endorse Jaime Herrera when the vast majority of board does and some have used their board position to promote her.

    I do not know if you personally support Hedrick and if you do, that is your business and of course, your privilege.

    Several people I spoke to after wards also noticed there seemed to somewhat of an advantage in some questions, seeming to slant towards what some feel is Hedrick’s strong suit.

    As for Jaime, I did not hear that announcement, maybe I was distracted.

    I do have to disagree with your estimate, though. I physically counted heads at the Vancouver City Council Town Hall last week, about the same size auditorium and there were many more heads.

    Still, for a small group, they were spirited and supported their candidate.

    And no, I am not suggesting you call and get people out of bed. Maybe try to organize events further in advance and draw more people and hopefully, more candidates.

    As for being orchestrated, that is not exactly what I meant. But, when all the principles organizing and moderating such an event favor one candidate, it takes on that appearance, even if the actual organization has not yet issued an official endorsement.

    There is also the subconsciousness of everyone’s mind when they have a favorite. For example, my blog. Do you ever look in expecting anything pro-Hedrick or Herrera?

    If I tried, would you not look it over intensely to see what hidden message there might be?

    As for Hedrick, he is passionate about what he says, even though I feel he is not as well versed as he wants others to think.

    And of course, my main problem remains his lack of clarity on the very foundation of his campaign. Since we demand an open and transparent government and open and transparent elected officials, how do we trust a candidate that is not open and transparent about the Military Service he uses as the very basis for his campaign?

    Is it that we only want open and transparent only from some and not all?

    You may not understand the red flag such claims of “classified” raises, but we Veterans do and we are a very small minority that does understand it.


  22. Lew Waters supports Castillo and Ann Rivers, The RINO just flows off Lews behind.


  23. Oh Mikey, did you think you would hurt my feelings?

    I cannot vote for Ann Rivers as I don’t live in the 18th, sorry. But yes, I support her.

    I thought we still lived in America?

    But, RINO?

    Wouldn’t a RINO be one who is not willing to be open and transparent about the basic foundation of their campaign?

    I thought all along you people wanted open and transparent?

    I guess not, huh?

    Nice try, son.


  24. Gotta correct Lew here.

    David Hedrick is basing his campaign off of the U.S. Constitution. That is all, and everyone that hears him speak knows this. He mentions that he is a Marine, but it is not central to his campaign platform. If he chooses to keep parts of his personal life private, including his experience(s) in the military, it has no effect on his integrity and is not directly affiliated with whether he will support and defend his platform, the Constitution, when elected. This is a red herring argument against Hedrick.


  25. Sorry Cory, but his constant claim of “Marine Corporal” everywhere he goes and his initial comment to Baird of being a “disabled United States Marine,” he is making his Marine service central to his campaign.

    If not, he would not constantly make sure everyone knows he served in the Marines.

    He continues the claim, yet will not disclose anything other than, “classified mission,” which raises red flags.

    No red herring at all, just a candidate not willing to be open and transparent and throwing up a smokescreen.

    Larry Smith doesn’t run as an Army Veteran. Pat Campbell doesn’t run as an Army Veteran. Craig Pridemore did not run as an Army Veteran. David Castillo doesn’t run as a Navy Veteran.

    But, ask any of them and they will discuss their service openly.


  26. Mr. Waters.

    I’m not instructing you on what to say. I only pointing out the gross deficiencies in what you said. If it had been more sensible — and if you weren’t so incorrigible — I’d have been quite happy to “stay away from [your] blog” (or — better still — look to it as a reliable source of information for matters of concern to Clark County Conservatives).

    Nor did I assign my thoughts to others words. I only observe the obvious:

    (1) David Castillo has tried to pass himself off as a Constitutionalist, with his surrogate at the July 28th Battleground Debate speaking to the reverence that Castillo has for the document. However,
    (2) Candidate Castillo also speaks to the importance of the Federal Government providing the myriad transfer payments euphemistically referred to as “the safety net”, yet,
    (3) Nowhere in the text of The U.S. Constitution is the Federal Government empowered to provide these transfer payments (BTW, “promote the general welfare” does NOT authorize the Feds using taxpayer money to provide welfare payments to specific individuals). Hence the failure of Castillo’s surrogate to answer the question asking for such (Her failure was somewhat noble. She could have just lied, or resorted to the last refuge of the Constitutional scoundrel — “The Supreme Court says so”. She did neither. She merely evaded.). Therefore,
    (4) Candidate Castillo cannot be the Constitutionalist he claims to be.
    While you are stubborn in your defense of Castillo, the facts on this matter are more stubborn still.

    I don’t quite see the source of your complaint that I’m reading my own preferences into the Constitution. Hardly. There’s plenty of things in The Constitution I don’t like — both as originally written (To be trite, the implicit legitimization of slavery), and as subsequently amended (the 16th and 17th Amendments, of course). I’d like to see the repeal of both the Federal Income Tax and the direct election of Senators via easily-manipulated democratic majorities. But, until the amendments authorizing those things are repealed, they are Constitutional.

    My point is not that The Constitution is perfect — nor that it is accord with my own preferences. It is only that the meaning of the text — with respect to the unconstitutionality of the so-called “safety net”, and most other matters — is plain, and must be obeyed.

    I don’t dispute that private, or even some public relief should happen. Disaster and folly are inescapable facts of life, and need to be alleviated. I do dispute how this should happen. Private charity is preferable. Public assistance by state and local governments is tolerable — if minimal (i.e., not used in the service of a leftist project of punitive redistribution), effective, and in accord with the constitutions and/or charters and laws of those governments. But until the Federal Constitution is amended to allow for this, coercing “safety net” transfer payments is not a power which the Federal Government can legitimately claim — that is, if we take the text and meaning of The Constitution seriously.

    David Hedrick takes The Constitution seriously. The fact that he aligns his religious faith with his Constitutional fidelity might be intellectually disputable, but it is politically and morally commendable. Does David Castillo show the same level of seriousness with respect to The Constitution? Not so much….


  27. Spare me your platitudes, John.

    Your defense is resembling that we saw for Barack Obama, blinders over rose colored glasses.

    Instead of adding to your verbiage, though, I will leave you with the one question, how can you trust him to open and transparent when he is not open and transparent about the very basis for his candidacy?

    Why the obfuscation on the very Marine Service he boasts about?

    And again, you and Hedrick are not the only ones entitled to interpret the constitution.

    A big problem ignored by you is that should we suddenly jump backwards to the 1800’s, chaos would ensue. It crept in gradually and it will have to be undone gradually.

    You also forget groups like the ACLU and as much as I despise them too, moves towards undoing what they advocate will result in long drawn out and expensive battles.

    No one is thinking of any of that.

    Hedrick is running headlong into something way over his head. I might sound good at campaign, but practicality says it has to be dismantled one thing at a time.

    Sometimes, thinking must favor knee-jerk.

    Hedrick is nothing but knee-jerk.


  28. Lew,

    I read what you wrote back to me and only that. So, I am sorry if you have heard what I am about to say. The reason that Didier or Hedrick or any such person may be supported by C4L members is because they most resemble the values of the principles we all hold dear.

    That is why they show up and pay attention at C4L forums. I was thinking that next time I will have them hold their applause totally. Could it be trampling on their personal liberties if I put that rule in place? Yes. I am going to ponder on that.


  29. Katja, I think you have every right to state hold the applause and cheering for all the candidates. As you said there that evening, it does take away valuable time when candidates could be answering questions.

    My point though, was a gentleman to you left and a row or two behind you flatly stated no after you turned around and asked for applause to be held, stating he was there to cheer on his candidate.

    I heard some others also saying similar words.

    I know you are a stickler for order and that’s good. But, an audience could also get out of order by competing supporters trying to out yell each other.

    As you said, you are a young group and still growing and learning. That you and I have political disagreements is meaningless for the group.

    Perhaps the appearance would have been a little better had a more neutral person moderated and asked questions.

    Just my opinion and as always, you have the freedom to do as you and the group decide.


  30. Mr. Waters,

    No, I’m not the only one entitled to interpret the Constitution. I merely point out that neither Castillo’s chosen surrogate, nor you, have cited anything in that document which empowers the Federal Government to undertake “safety net” transfer payments — of whatever duration. As Castillo tries to pass himself off as a Constitutionalist and — more importantly — the oath of office for the position he seeks obligates him to uphold The Constitution, this omission is not simply one of intellectual integrity but of political integrity.

    Hedrick takes the content of the Constitution and his oath to uphold it seriously, and — by doing so — is the only worthy candidate. That he should be unique in this regard just shows how corrupted our politics have become.

    You note that such reform should take place gradually and that we cannot “jump backwards to the 1800s”. Not to worry. Under our system as designed, radical change is difficult. Under the degraded system which has devolved from that design, efforts to restrain the growth of government — much less prune its size and power back toward its Constitutional limits — are even more difficult.

    What matters is having the having understanding and the desire to persevere at this task. For the past 30 years, Republicans have talked about smaller government. The facts are that — under Republican as well as Democrat Administrations and Congresses — Government keeps getting bigger. Clearly Republicans have demonstrated a failure of mind and of will in making reality conform to their rhetoric.

    Hedrick has the mind and the will to persist at the work of making smaller government a reality. Castillo — with his reverence for the “safety net” which gave him succor — clearly does not.

    If you regard this as mere platitude and verbiage, please remember — you are not the only one entitled to determine such things.


  31. John, I continue to chuckle seeing you, Hedrick and others who consider themselves “strict constitutionalists” seem to pick and choose what they accept as “implied” in the constitution and what isn’t specifically written into it.

    Pretty selective, I’d say.

    Federal control of immigration is not mentioned in the constitution or any of the amendments either, but we all step up and demand the feds do their job by curbing illegal immigration, saying it is a federal matter and not a state matter.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that it is “implied” in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, which grants congress the power to regulate naturalization. I don’t believe you, nor I nor Hedrick has an argument that combating illegal immigration is a federal issue over an state issue.

    But, it too isn’t written into the constitution and had to later found to be implied.

    So, and I have asked others who consider themselves “strict constitutionalists,” just how do you “strict constitutionalists” pick and choose what you accept as “implied” and what you reject as “implied” that was not specifically written into the constitution?

    I have yet to see any so called “safety net” ruled unconstitutional, just people like you and Hedrick who think it a great campaign issue.

    As to the gradual turning it around, Castillo very much as both the knowledge and the desire to work for that.

    Hedrick, as shown with his second attempt at Baird, rushes in without thinking and just runs off at the mouth and ended up with his ass in his hands.

    Perhaps that is why the endorsement from our larger newspapers in the district remains Castillo 4, Heck 3, Herrera 1 and Hedrick 0.

    And yes, I realize you few think the rest of us are ignorant buffoons because we don’t follow your lead.

    But, do come back and explain just how it is you “strict constitutionalists” so easily pick and choose what you accept as constitutional that isn’t specifically written into constitution.


  32. You really need to have some leniency on us poor Hedrick supporters. Most of us feel betrayed by Scott Brown. And when Castillo (sp?) sends a professional attorney to make his case, instead of showing up himself, some of us get worried that he is trying to hide his true intentions.


  33. Well, husk, I didn’t realize Brown represented us out here. Thanks for the education on one man covering so much.

    Oh, and as for Candice, is there another type of attorney besides a professional one?

    When you figure out how for people to be in two places at one time, fill in the rest of us.

    Then again, if the event had been scheduled a bit earlier, maybe some would have had time to appear.

    Then again, what for? Ya’ll had your minds made up and were just there to cheer on the on with a mouth and no chance.

    Candice must have really rattled you all deeply.

    tsk, tsk, can’t handle a woman besting your boy, huh?


  34. You know, if Castillo were really of no importance to anyone, this thread would not have attracted the Ron Paul kooks like it has.

    I am happy to know who is funding Hedrick, I will have nothing to do with “We The People” or “Campaign for Liberty”….ever.

    As for the rest of all of this Bull Shit, you that back Hedrick can eat it. I have never seen anything this vile in my life. Why the GOP is not telling Hedrick to drop out, is beyond me. The GOP is at fault here, now all these emboldened, and enabled idiots are on the rampage. Your fault GOP.

    I no longer want anything to do with a Party that does not have sense enough to keep someone like this Hedrick person out of the race, and likewise people like this out of the Party. Shows just how corrupt the GOP has become. Nasty, filthy, vile. Smacks not of the Constitution, but of Cultism. CULT


  35. Mr. Waters,

    Regarding your posting of August 1st @ 4:05 PM:

    I don’t “pick and chose”. I strive to honestly and correctly observe, reason, and judge. What follows is an example of such an effort, so that you might be instructed by it.

    You properly observe The Constitution’s text as not empowering the Federal Government to regulate immigration. Indeed, up until 1875, the Federal Government had no laws at all restricting immigration. The regime of immigration restrictions that has grown up since then is as much a usurpation of power as any other Federal enactment lacking Constitutional grounding.

    However, your unstated premise — a Constitutionalist approach to immigration leaves us bereft of remedies for dealing with its problems — is mistaken and emotionally exploitive. We don’t have to rely upon the Supreme Court to find pretend “implied” powers which really aren’t in the text. Instead, we can look to Constitutional correctives such as these:

    — State Legislation: The Constitution does not restrict the States from dealing with immigration. In this matter — and so many other controversial issues — each State can craft legislation suited to their specific needs. Can you say “Arizona”?

    — No Federal Welfare: Returning yet again to a topic that you and your chosen candidate (David Castillo) seem to have trouble dealing with… The Constitution doesn’t empower the Federal Government to provide “safety net” transfer payments of any duration to anyone — native-born or otherwise. Since so much of the rhetoric on the immigration issue involves concerns about potential welfare abuse by immigrants passing themselves off as natives, the surest way to stop this would be to end Federal welfare for everyone (As in…If we dismantle it, they will either be self-supporting, or else they will leave.).

    — No Federal Mandates: The Federal Government usurps authority by compelling and/or bribing States and localities to adopt policies and laws (e.g., required access to hospital emergency rooms, publicly-funded schools, ect.) allowing and encouraging both natives and the foreign born to live at the expense of others. End these mandates — End that problem (Again, If they dismantle it…ya-da-ya-da-ya).

    — Focus on Terrorists and Naturalization: The Federal Government is Constitutionally-empowered to “repel invasions”. Border security matters directed toward stopping terrorist infiltrations are — of course — Constitutionally permissible. Likewise, the Federal Government is Constitutionally-enabled to set the conditions under which immigrants become citizens — and voters — and to forbid non-citizens from voting.

    — Amendment: If the Constitutional remedies cited above strike you as insufficient for dealing with immigration problems, then why not just amend the Constitution to really make it a Federal responsibility rather than distorting that text’s plain meaning to suit your desires? The problem with a “results-based” approach to Constitutional interpretation is that it can — and has — been used to justify almost anything. I already know you can say “Safety Net”. Can you also say “ObamaCare”? If you wish to forbid the latter on Constitutional grounds (as the States Attorney’s General’s lawsuit seeks to do — which you have endorsed), then, for consistency’s sake, you should also forbid the former — since in neither instance does the Constitution empower involvement by the Federal Government.

    Is David Hedrick a perfect Constitutionalist regarding immigration? Nope. On the issue you’ve raised, very few are. I’ve been aware of that the Federal government’s immigration regime is an unconstitutional usurpation for at least 10 years, and have, on occasion, pointed it out to advocates of a more restrictive Federal laws on the issue. Then, or now, I’ve never got a convincing argument supporting the Constitutionality of Federal involvement in this area. If Hedrick is in error on this matter, he got a lot of company.

    I do contend that David Hedrick is a serious Constitutionalist. He regards his oath of office to uphold the Constitution as sacred and binding. To the extent that he is in error, he can be appealed to on a Constitutional basis.

    And Hedrick’s Constitutionalism serves him very well on Immigration. He supports what has come to be known as “The Arizona Law” which — regardless of what you might think of its policy objectives — is at the very least Constitutionally sound. Hedrick opposes unconstitutional Federal “safety net” transfer payments and mandates attracting to at least some illegal immigrants to seek a better life at taxpayer expense. Hedrick is adamant on fulfilling the Constitutionally legitimate responsibilities of the Federal government with respect to foreigners seeking to reside within our borders — stopping terrorist “invasion” and enforcement of naturalization laws to insure that only citizens can vote. On this (and other matters), if additional Federal powers are truly required, Hedrick supports securing these the old fashioned way — by amending the Constitution rather than pretending it says things it clearly doesn’t.

    As for David Castillo? His thoroughly opportunistic Constitutionalism and gradualistic approach (which always devolves into “I want to [fill in the blank] — only not just yet”.) is all just more “same-old, same-old” from yet another political careerist trying to make yet another move up the ladder of power.

    You cite Castillo’s lead in newspaper endorsements — and the lack of same for Hedrick — as if this is proof of your candidates superior merit. Pleeeease! Since when should any Conservative — Clark County or otherwise — be swayed by such things? Can you say “MSM” — and do you know what it means? And, if you really are taken by such things, perhaps you should sign up for membership with the Mainstream Republicans of Washington State. I’m sure they’d love to have you.

    Oh, and keep on chuckling….I know I do.


  36. John, that’s an awful lot of verbiage to avoid answering a simple question.

    As you note too, federal control of illegal immigration is not in the constitution. No amendment has been passed to grant the federal government such power.

    Yet, we all accept it and you “strict constitutionalists” oppose others such federal matters also implements in the same manner.

    Not perfect consitutionalsists? Seems more like pick and choose and every one must accept your view only because you say so!

    You can’t have it both ways, John. We are not under a dictatorship yet, although close. A dictatorship under Republicans would be just as bad.

    It isn’t just newspaper endorsements that appeal to me, they are but one. But they do show that others can clearly see the quality of candidates missed by others and see through charlatans.

    As far as Republicans go, I am a life long conservative, been one way before it was considered cool. I’d likely vote Democrat again if I found an ounce of conservatism in them.

    But, real conservative, not the bigoted racist sort you Ron Paulies are foisting off on the party.

    As for Hedrick, I have to laugh as you all buy into his rhetoric, not realizing the very things he says he will do are already on the table.

    Then again, you people count on others not knowing very much of what is going on, much like the liberals do.

    You won’t find sheeple here, John. Look elsewhere.

    Oh yes, on Hedrick “Keeping his oath,” just how was that managed? By what little he has said, he bailed sometime after 9/11. So please do explain just how he has “kept his oath.”

    Or, is it too much for him to stand behind his words?


  37. Mr. Waters,

    It’s instructive that you are capable of discerning what The Constitution says — or doesn’t say — about immigration, and that you just don’t give a damn. While Hedrick’s error on this matter is almost surely one of oversight, you stance reveals something entirely different.

    It demonstrates that your so-called “Conservatism” is strangely-ungrounded. You sneer at The Constitution whenever it fails to validate what you want to do. You ignore the fact that every office-holder — great and small — swears and oath to uphold it, and that this document’s content is the basis upon which the legitimacy of all law is supposed to be judged.

    You offer as an alternative the supposedly superior authority of “what we all accept”. I guess by your lights we are a government of Men — and rather intellectually dishonest Men — rather than Laws.

    You can call this “Conservatism”. But — in the American sense — it really isn’t.

    Your so-called Conservatism in fact conserves nothing, for it holds nothing sacred — except Will and Power, which are forces of corruption, not preservation. This is a pseudo-Conservatism. These days, it is often characterized as neo-Conservatism. Some even call it Fascism (though in America, we lack both the honest ruthlessness, and the reverence for operatic ceremonials, to quite pull that off.).

    But put simply, it’s just opportunism. Or, to give it a philosophical gloss, Pragmatism…whatever “works”.

    So who is this accepting “we” you reference? It’s a politically manipulative clique, substituting its own supposedly superior judgement for the plain meanings of fact and law — full of Will, seeking Power, pursuing whatever “works”.

    This was the regime the so-called “Progressives” foisted upon America a little over a century ago in their pursuit of technocratic power, justified with social democratic platitudes, all taken to be superior to the Constitution’s plain meaning. Whatever “works”.

    As an alternative, pseudo-Conservative opportunists seek to use the same techniques and attitudes with differing platitudes — “Security”, “Freedom”, “Tradition” — with their own Will and Power again being held superior to what the Constitution clearly says. Whatever ”works”.

    What insisting upon real Conservatism — Constitutional fidelity — has to do with bigotry, or racism, or being a “sheeple” I cannot rationally fathom. But, of course, reason or fact as nothing to do with it.

    Just throw out the charge, and see if it sticks. And if it doesn’t stick, throw out another. And if anyone calls you to account, just dismiss what they say as mere verbiage. Whatever “works”.


  38. And again John, you throw out a ton of verbiage to avoid the original question. That being, how is it that you “strict constitutionalists” so readily accept some things as federal not written in the original constitution or any amendments, but cry so much about others also not written in the original constitution or amendments.

    The questions is not about immigration itself, that is only the example chosen.

    And don’t forget, I agree that immigration is a federal matter, but I’m not running around acting like I am the sole arbiter of the constitution, you people are.

    The great strength of America has been that people with varying thoughts could come together and compromise to what’s best for all. Not everybody liked it, but over all, it worked the best.

    For now, we have a left-winged takeover that must be stopped. They brought it on very gradually over a few decades and are near imposing a dictatorship of on party rule.

    Then, here comes you people who call yourselves “strict constitutionalists” demanding adherence to the original document, according to your interpretation. In effect, you wish to set up a far right dictatorship of one party rule that will end up being just as bad as the left-winged.

    You all have let the cat out of the bag on your selective calls of what must be adhered to and what must not.

    It is now incumbent upon you all to say what makes your interpretation and selective adherence better than others who rip the document apart.

    You all throw out the word “conservative” as if once again, you are the sole arbiters of it. You lay claim to the legacy of Reagan, but ignore that even he compromised for the good of all, not just your select group.

    Many from your camp are not even old enough to remember the man, but act as if you are his adopted love children.

    You are now beginning to look like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car as you ramble on with whatever comes to mind, except actually answering the original question.

    I am left to believe now that you just pick and choose upon your personal whims and have no real understanding of the constitution or the process empowered by it.


  39. It would be very fun to respond with biting sarcasm as you do, but I decided that since you are acting my age, I will act yours. So before I insult you further, I will switch to serious mode.

    “Well, husk, I didn’t realize Brown represented us out here. Thanks for the education on one man covering so much.”

    He doesn’t, but he did claim to represent some of our beliefs.

    “Oh, and as for Candice, is there another type of attorney besides a professional one?”

    No, unless you count retired. If you are offended by my use of adjectives please say it straight out. But know that I am not trying to confuse people by using too long of sentences. Nor was I trying to sound extra intelligent, it is simply what rolled off my fingertips.

    “When you figure out how for people to be in two places at one time, fill in the rest of us.”

    I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it that way, I was only trying to let you know how the public usually reacts such happenings.

    “Then again, if the event had been scheduled a bit earlier, maybe some would have had time to appear.”

    I’m sure that is true. I will cede this point, and the fact that he probably had a legitimate reason to not be there, but as I said, it is not a good way to win votes.

    “Then again, what for? Ya’ll had your minds made up and were just there to cheer on the on with a mouth and no chance.”

    Wrong, I didn’t go to cheer a certain person, I went to cheer certain things that were said. And there were a few times when I cheered for Candice’s answer more than Hedrick’s.

    I know that Hedrick might sound a bit haughty when he announced the poll results, but to say he has no chance and Castillo does is ludicrous. I believe the latest poll said Castillo 5% and Hedrick 24%

    As I said earlier, it would be great fun to get into a sarcasm/wit fight with you, but let us save that for less serious discussions.


  40. If this were a legitimate poll, husk, I might grant you a little credibility. But apparently, I am not the only one who questions this method of polling. From Washington’s 7th Congressional District, SNOOKERED

    Relying on defective polling methods rarely benefits a poor candidate.


  41. Mr. Waters,

    Forgive my not responding to your last posting directed toward me sooner. I’ve had other — more important — matters to attend to.

    Since you’ve dismissively characterized what I say as mere “verbiage” and “platitudes”, it seems you’ve not paid much heed to what I’ve written. I haven’t concerned myself with how it is that so many “strict constitutionalists” (as you call them) — including David Hedrick — can be so concerned about extending Federal powers over immigration when The Constitution’s text provides no support because…

    1. I take it to be obvious that their zeal for wanting to combat “illegal” immigration has overcome their interpretive capacities. In this area, they see what they want to see in The Constitution, not what’s actually there, and.

    2. I don’t see this as especially important, since the powers accorded — and denied — to the various States and to the Federal Government under The Constitution’s text are already sufficient to combat potential problems caused by immigration (See the items mentioned in my first posting on August 3rd under these titles: State legislation; No Federal Welfare; No Federal Mandates; Focus on Terrorists and Naturalization; Amendment).

    The differences between us are these:

    — I argue for following the plain meaning of The Constitution, and persuading others to do the same. You argue that The Constitution’s plain meaning (which — in the case of immigration — you admit to having recognized) can be ignored whenever it conflicts with “what we all accept”.

    — My stance is Conservative: I seek to keep government accountable to its fundamental law and fact. Your stance is Opportunistic: You seek to make consensus reality and pragmatic manipulation of public opinion — whatever can be foisted upon the public as “Constitutional” and “factual” — as the determinate of what government can and cannot do…Whatever “works”.

    Your posture is fundamentally the same as all modern tyrants (be these American Progressives and Neo-Cons or Euro-Fascist): Whatever the public is made to believe is true becomes The Truth. That you attempt to pass this off under the rubric of “compromise” is merely a testament to your casual acceptance of public relations manipulation and The Big Lie.

    Indeed, you seem to think that if you just repeat your inanities insistently enough, they will be taken to be true. Not by me. Nor do I hope by any strong and fair minded reader of our exchanges.

    As for the others? I guess they’re what’s called your “target audience”. May that cohort diminish.


  42. Johnnie, you are beginning to sound like a broken record.

    Whine all you want, I was conservative before being conservative was cool.

    The problem is, just like with your view of what is and is not authorized by the constitution, you seem to think you are the sole authority on both the constitution and conservatism.

    You are now sounding like little more than a well-versed Ron Paulie cult member.

    We’ve seen your type before. They helped usher in World War Two and just renaming the policy isn’t enough to hide it.

    As for any “target audience,” sorry, I don’t have one.

    I just post what I feel like when I feel like.

    So, puff out your chest, talk big to the rest of the boys on the playground, doesn’t matter. Then, go sip some more of that Ron Paul kool-aid.


Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: