Clark GOP Puts Elected Officials on Notice – Our Rights Are Not Negotiable

by lewwaters

The Constitution of the United States of America is one of the most remarkable documents ever written. It clearly and in plain language lays out the foundation of our nation, the makeup of our government and establishes the rights of our citizens along with the limitations of government.

It has served our nation well in our short history and guided us into becoming the super power we have been known as, along with being the freest nation on the planet a long as we have abided by it and followed the basic tenets of it.

But government wishes to grow and assume powers our country was founded to get away from, putting the limits on citizens and granting more powers to government denied it when we adhere to our Constitution.

In my 64 years I have seen our Constitutional freedoms slowly removed from the citizens and taken by government, purportedly for the “common good” we are told by those who read what they wish into our constitution and twisting clearly laid out rights to mean something they are not.

Most recently we see this effort as presidential executive orders are being signed to place limits on the right o law-abiding citizens to “keep and bear arms” as laid out in our 2nd Amendment that states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Using the tragic and horrendous murder of school children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have launched an unprecedented attack on our Second Amendment Rights, calling for the return of the “Assault Weapons Ban” that failed to curb gun violence the 10 years it was in effect.

Also in play is limiting the capacity of magazines semi-automatic weapons may hold as well as promoting a registration system for every gun and owner, letting government know just where those guns are should they ever desire to move to a gun confiscation policy and disarm the public.

Along with this move to limit our ability to purchase ammunition for our guns by requiring background checks to purchase ammunition as well as calls for increasing taxes on it to discourage and impair ability to afford to purchase ammunition.

Democrats have launched a well orchestrated attack, likening efforts to strip the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun organization in our country, to defeating Germany’s Nazi’s in World War Two along with comparing to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

One email sent out by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has even twisted their attacks into us and the NRA attacking them.

NRA Attack

Most Democrats seem to be lining up behind these efforts to strip us of our Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms while a few Republicans seem to be leaning to cave to Democrats demands, hoping to retain their offices next election or not wanting to stand up for our rights.

While we are seeing County Sheriff’s stand up for our rights by publicly stating they will not enforce any unconstitutional measure that violates our right to keep and bear arms, elected officials are not coming out as strong or are remaining silent in the face of the Democrats assault.

It was very pleasing to receive a Press Release this evening from the Clark County Washington Republican Party that proposes a strong stand on protecting our constitutional right and putting elected officials on notice that if they side with the Democrats assault,

“The Clark County Republican Party may refuse to support and may condemn, and/or recruit opposition to any holder of public office and any candidate for public office who the Board finds has taken any action to infringe, impair or usurp our Natural and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, regardless of their party affiliation.”

A strong stand that I wholly support and believe will easily be passed into an official resolution at the next Central Committee Meeting in February.

A quick review of the Clark County Washington Democrat Party revealed no stand one way or the other on this assault, but I highly doubt they will stand against Obama and their party leaders to support citizens and our Constitutional Rights.

Knee Jerk reactions to tragic events are often not well thought out and end up hurting more than helping by focusing on the wrong area and ignoring the real problem. While the 23 executive orders signed by Obama do have a slight indication of “discussing mental health,” none of them address the over reliance our society has seen over the years on Psycho-therapeutic drugs and the ill effects of their use or withdrawing from not taking them as prescribed.

More often than not they seem to play a central role in these mass shootings and are not being addressed currently.

In the meantime, calls for arming teachers who would have a better chance of ending a maniacal shooter before they commit mass murder of children is scoffed at and ridiculed, primarily by Democrats and a few Republicans, some not even willing to look at the proposal as a potential solution.

Disarming more law-abiding citizens or limiting our ability to protect ourselves from either criminals or a future tyrannical government is not a viable solution, as seen in our larger cities that currently have strict gun regulations and gun bans, while also having the highest gun murder rates.

This stand by the CCGOP is what I got used to seeing from Republicans, taking a strong stand for citizens and our rights years ago.

Seeing it returning is what I have been hoping to see for some time now and I applaud the new party chair, Lynda Wilson for standing up for the people, not necessarily the politician.

We need to see more of this from conservatives, letting elected officials know that our rights are not negotiable.

43 Comments to “Clark GOP Puts Elected Officials on Notice – Our Rights Are Not Negotiable”

  1. Here’s the problem:

    First, few in the GOP here locally would even consider such a vote.

    Second, everyone in the 49th delegation, for example, would have no problem sending out the National Guard to confiscate our weapons.

    In short, while this is a threat, it’s of the empty, meaningless variety. Those most likely to vote to strip our rights are legislators for a bunch of non-thinking sheep… for example, the blithering idiots who voted for Moeller… and he could rape and axe murder a Girl Scout and they’d STILL vote for him.

    This kind of self flagellation may make a few people feel better, but in reality, it won’t make any difference except to enhance the perspective that the GOP here locally is ran, for good or ill, by a bunch of fringe right wing whack jobs.

    What if, for example, the democrats were to make a similar threat against the legislators in the 18th if they didn’t support the Nazi version of gun control? Think THAT would make any difference?

    Of course not.

    Sadly, then, this press release is a poorly thought out, knee jerk reaction to laws that don’t yet exist and have at this level, not yet even been attempted.

    Lew, you know you’re always supposed to check your backblast area BEFORE you pull the trigger.

    In fact, the only result from this is going to be to make the GOP around here look even more idiotic than they, all too often, already do.

  2. The Constitution is a flawed document written by flawed men – the result of democracy, and in order of importance, democracy comes BEFORE the Constitution. Shaking your fists and bellowing isn’t going to do any good. Conservatives would need to get votes but, of course, Conservatives don’t compromise, so you lose.

  3. And liberals do compromise? In any way except as a temporary move?

  4. Kelly, Don’t you mean “Boy Scout”? You are starting to argue in circles here. I love that a stand like this is being taken. This is not a far right nutjob issue. We have to stop trying to worrying about the left calling us crazy, they do no matter what. Martin, you can’t be that stupid. Democracy trumps the Constitution? I vote that you can’t speak anymore… mmmkay?

  5. Most Americans are raised here since childhood and have “liberty,” “accountability,” “firearms” & “work ethic” instilled into them as propaganda. (Good propaganda from my pov). Folks will live in poverty if they think their kids have a shot at the dream. It’s like the lottery, no matter what the odds are, folks will play and be satisfied if the game’s not rigged. Optimism is a fundamental evolutionary trait that works to America’s benefit.

    Conservatives have the advantage because they’re mostly preaching to these core beliefs BUT they lose that advantage with Tea Party antics, wacko conspiracy theories, and religious social issues. “Compromise” doesn’t mean giving in on the big issues – it means getting past the ignorance.

  6. David, Democracy DOES TRUMP the Constitution. Why don’t you know that? Did you skip Con Law in Law School?

  7. Martin, that is why we live and are governed by a republic, with its checks and balances as well as the last resort, a final self evident obligation that says peaceful debate and practical solutions are no longer valued as much as winning by those in power. The implied violent threat against a tyrannical government is the intent of the damn thing.

    What lecturer taught you Con Law? Or was it considered just a theoretical exercise?

  8. ‘Sane, I’m good with what you said.

    Interestingly, America wasn’t a democracy until the 19th Amendment in 1920, (women’s suffrage).

    Also, “democracy” includes all forms of popular voting, including representative government (Republics).

  9. Martin, I enjoy reading your posts because you’re usually thoughtful and rational. What happened to you today? You write “Democracy comes before the Constitution” Really? American democracy exists BECAUSE of the Constitution. You seem to have the typical leftist view of what a constitutional republic is.

  10. Martin, if democracy trumps the Constitution, then what happens if a majority of Washington — or even a majority of the entire US — votes that Martin Hash must move from the State of Washington to Lubbock, Texas. Then what happens?

  11. Kelly, I imagine you’re not too happy with some of the votes Jamie has taken lately. This 2nd amendment issue is coming to a head quickly. If a party would ever consider turning their back on one of their own for abandoning any given principle, I think it is important to at least telegraph to the office holders their intent ahead of time. This gives them the opportunity to choose their course, fully knowing the consequences. It is one step in a process. If it encourages an office holder to vote properly, then something has been accomplished. If they vote against, fully knowing the potential consequences, then something has also been accomplished. Do you ever grow weary of negatively criticizing everything that everyone else tries to do, even those who agree with you on most fundamental points of ideology?

  12. Craig & Christian, The Constitution is NOT the Ten Commandments. It specifically addresses how it can be changed, and has indeed been changed MANY times via democratic processes. Mostly The Constitution is changed for the better, but sometimes for the worse (18th Amendment – Prohibition). Luckily, it is a “living” document or it would have already been ash-canned by now.

    As for me moving to Lubbock – could be? Only takes 2/3rds of the States (read democracy) or 2/3rds of Congress (democracy again) to decide I got to go OR I could lose my Constitutional rights via Due Process and be sent to a prison in Lubbock, or an interment camp, or military induction.

    It’s important for 2nd Amendment people to know that it CAN be repealed via democracy. That’s why you MUST compromise.

  13. Martin, just what basic tenets of our constitution have been changed by Democracy?

    Or do you consider picking and choosing what is to be followed from it change by Democracy?

  14. Lew; slaves were freed, women got the right to vote, Equal Rights, I could go on…

  15. Martin, neither of those were specifically prohibited or mandated by the constitution. It was more of a clarification to counter attitudes of the time, in my estimation.

    As you know, slavery was a hot issue at the time of the writing of the constitution, many not wanting it allowed.

    The constitution did not mandate slavery as, I’m sure you realize, not every state had legal slavery nor did it specifically prohibit women from voting.

    And in case you missed it, we do not have “equal rights” today as we see government protecting themselves in fortified buildings and armed security while working to restrict our right of defense by actually changing, repealing a basic tenet in the Bill of Rights.

  16. Martin – maybe it’s the emphasis. Conservatives generally view the state as a republic governed by laws – which are in turn governed by the Constitution. Liberals appear to view the state in more fluid terms – that of a republic governed by the democratic process which is guided by the Constitution.

    I think both views are correct and it takes both views to bring balance to governance. And you’re right – the Constitution has been modified a number of times by the democratic process.

    But the process that makes changes to the Constitution is not a pure democratic process. It’s a process that’s guided by law (the Constitution) – and only a small number of people actually get to vote on changes to the constitution – the Congress and the State Legislatures. To me, that means the Constitution trumps “democracy” (in the loosey-goosey way liberals generally view the term).

  17. Lew, dude, the “Bill of Rights” are amendments too. Specifically, the 1st 10 Amendments.

  18. Craig, loosey-goosey or not, EVERYONE gets to vote on Amending the Constitution if it goes the State route. No other way to say it, democracy trumps The Constitution. However, I’m GLAD it’s a convoluted process and not just Majority Rules stuff. Raw democracy sucks.

  19. America is still not a democracy. While using some democratic processes, only overthrowing the electoral college and replacing it with winner takes all, regardless, would make it so, even without suffrage or the abolition of Slavery. Those merely defined who was eligible to participate not the form that participation takes.

  20. “EVERYONE gets to vote on Amending the Constitution if it goes the State route.”
    That is absolutely incorrect. My finding stands.

  21. I’ve got a new item to add to my “Conservative Values” list (in my forum). I’ve heard this from Conservatives enough times now that I think it qualifies:

    America is NOT a democracy.

    p.s. I keep the list so that Liberals can understand the pov that Conservatives are coming from. It is not intended to be insulting or derogatory.

  22. Congratulations Martin! You understand correctly.

  23. Craig, sometimes it takes a while. I’ve been adding to my “Conservative Values” list a little at a time as I come to recognize them. Things like “America is NOT a democracy,” even though your actions and words convey that message, do not jive with the propaganda we are taught in school. Liberals assume everybody thinks America is a democracy which makes many policy debates incomprehensible to us. I am doing my part to correct that misunderstanding.

  24. My last post may sound patronizing but it’s not intentional. Actually Martin, you do make a valid point, one that Conservatives would do well to heed. The Constitution can be changed. I think it a very long shot that you could get a majority of the States to ratify a recision of the 2nd Amendment, but you never know…who would have thought that the 18th amendment would be ratified?

  25. The 22nd Amendment (overturning the 18th Amendment) was the ONLY time that the State Constitutional Amendment process was used successfully. People WANTED to drink alcohol but they were blocked by Congress so they went around Congress.

    I agree, the 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere, thankfully, but I’m still not buying a gun.

  26. Martin, dude, I’m sure you realize efforts were made to write those rights into the constitution, but were rejected to be a part of the base constitution.

    “The framers, and notably James Madison, its principal architect, believed that the Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities. Delegates also probably feared that a debate over liberty guarantees might prolong or even threaten the fiercely-debated compromises that had been made over the long hot summer of 1787.”

    “In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress comes into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the Constitution’s hard-fought ratification.

    I see nothing in the Bill of Rights that negates the basic tenets of the constitution. Subsequent amendments seem to clarify matters when others come in and try to read into or deny those basic tenets, as far as I am concerned. And it requires a super majority of the states to adopt an amendment or repeal one by amendment.

    Currently we see a concerted effort to circumvent those basic tenets “for the common good” we are told, centralizing more power to the executive branch.

    As much as you have stated you despise Marxism, you should be one of the loudest voices against what is happening from D.C., to include congressional actions and even a Supreme Court justice relying on foreign laws instead of our constitution to decide cases.

    Also find too many people who confuse “democratic process” with “Democracy.”

  27. That’s right Martin, and the 18th was ratified because it was pushed in every statehouse by a lot of well meaning but misguided (and sometimes hysterical, sometimes just plain nutty) women. In that sense it could happen again.

  28. Ok Martin, here is the deal. We live in a representative republic, where our representatives are democratically elected. To state that we are a democracy is factually incorrect in that we are not a direct democracy nor an absolute democracy as that statement implies. We do have instances of direct democracy in many of our states — it is called an initiative process, but it is not absolute. The people vote on an initiative and the majority rules. However, individuals still maintain certain sovereign rights over the tyranny of the majority, hence the example of a unanimous vote that an individual must leave the state being of no legal consequence to the person being told to leave. Even in our initiative processes there are courts that can trump the will of the majority if that will violates the rights of a minority. In the case of amending the constitution via the state route, that is still handled through a representative process. None of the states have referendums on the ratification, it is all done by the state legislatures.

    So I would kindly ask you to not belittle people who say that the US is not a democracy. It is a representative republic with democratically elected representatives. That is simply a fact. You are free to deny it, but you would be factually incorrect in so doing. Our country is not run by the concept of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. It just isn’t.

    Now, as to our rights being abolished via constitutional amendment (or repeal thereof).

    You might be interested to note that in the Bill of Rights there is only one right that is actually granted, and the rest are pre-existing rights which it declares the government has no power to usurp, and of which the Constitution is attempting to guarantee. The language is not an accident, “the right of the people…. shall not be”, “shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech….” etc. Only the 6th amendment actually ESTABLISHES a right not clearly existing prior to the Constitution, where it says “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial….” “Shall enjoy”. It is nice to have that for contrast. Here they actually created a right where one was not presumed to exist. And further backing up the concept of rights extant prior to the Constitution, as well as existing despite not being actually enumerated, is the 9th amendment itself:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    Clearly, the ninth amendment says “there are a whole bunch of rights the people have, and just because they are not listed, well, the people certainly have them.”

    The ninth amendment clearly enshrines in our Constitution the fact that its authors still believed that there are certain unalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator as they had stated on July 4, 1776. It doesn’t matter if the entire Bill of Rights is repealed. We still have the rights, including the right to overthrow those who would try to take them from us, by any means necessary, including the use of military style assault weapons with 30++ round magazines. In fact, especially with military style weapons, as they specifically stated things like “every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans” (Tench Coxe).

    I understand you don’t WANT it to be like this, but that doesn’t change the fact that, indeed it is.

  29. Christian, I actually did take Con Law I & II in Law School but it’s still nice to read a well presented argument like yours. However I don’t accept the mystical connotations you seem to be including. But, as you also imply, I do agree that Rights originate in the barrel of a gun. The South thought their Rights were violated and they took to the gun to defend them. You may also but I’m good with where we’re at.

  30. Sigh, Martin if you were to suggest as many would like to do, that democracy is rule of the people, by popular vote, Then our country is not a democracy. The more fadish descriptions include the notion of everyone having a vote, but even then it is limited to adult human citizens, who are not felons and have registered with the local Governing body in order to participate in the popular vote,

    Then the obligation we presume to place individual rights as expressed by the the bill of rights, above the intent of a mass or mob, and above the seasonal and passing aspirations of a bicameral legislature as well as our three branches of government sharing powers, none of which is rule by the people, is meant to provide a balanced representation of the the people. That it is not perfect is made clear by the Civil war, and the copious amounts of blood spilt to resolve the issue of Slavery, an action which could, by no mean jest, be said to be an actual expression of pure democracy.

    We live in a federation of sovereign states formed into a republic that grants legitimacy to the executive and the legislators by popular vote. That that form of government has come to be considered a democracy is at once a tribute to the founding fathers and a slap in Merriam-Websters faces.

  31. I’m not sure, but are you guys backing off the “America is NOT a democracy” thing?

  32. Just making sure the definitions are accurate. I was puzzled that you could confound so simple a notion as a republic with a democracy, so I googled them both and discovered in the various popular lexicons and other results, a vast array of many shades and colors and inclusions and even a couple of exclusions about what is and is not supposedly, a democracy.

    Personally, I still use the 1963 version of Merriam-Webster’s seventh new collegiate dictionary. None better in my opinion. 🙂

  33. ‘Sane, I agree with that. I’m pulling the “NOT a democracy” value since you guys were just funnin’ me. Sometimes you Conservatives are such joksters.

  34. Actually Martin, it is the language that has become illiberal, I just don’t want my republic becoming an illiberal democracy. Personally, I think you should keep the value and clarify the meaning of the terms. But I can tell already the twists and distortions that would necessitate, would make it not a holy option, but a grand crusade. And the last thing you want to be known as is a Crusader? Not PC at all.

  35. As I explained with Standahl, he was arguing a philosophy that I agree with; I am arguing tactics.,

    Ideological agreement does not overcome tactical incompetence. I have yet to read any position that challenges my conceptualized outcomes: in short, had the local GOP limited their flame throwing to GOP candidates and elected, it may have had some impact (though highly unlikely: which GOP’er in Clark County do you think would vote against these principles?)… although doing it so publicly was nothing more nor less than childish grandstanding.

    Further, Christian, I have heard from more than one source that you have already notified Herrera that your people or people involved with you WILL be challenging her in the primary. Additionally, what I pointed out is that this idiocy isn’t going to keep anyone from doing anything. You’re just not that significant.

    Since you, apparently, tipped your hand so foolishly so far in advance, then why should that simpering idiot of a Congresswoman do ANYTHING you people want?

    I am all about making statements of principle when those principles make sense. Political threats against those who disagree with you that you cannot successfully pull off are less than worthless… and go directly to the credibility of the message… which has precisely zero.

    And one of the things that motivates me the most, Christian, is your unbridled arrogance, second only to Jim Moeller’s.

    You don’t like what I write? Stop fucking reading it.

    You and your sort are dangerous political adolescents who view any other perspective than yours much the same way you’ve responded to me… and dude, you are not the smartest guy in the room. And I will be spending the next two years pointing out where you and your posse screw up.

    After that, it won’t be necessary. And everyone in office now will be in office then, because your threats are worthless.

    Since you asked… ideology notwithstanding.

  36. You know, one of the problems I don’t have is requiring anyone to restate anything I write.

    When I see political idiocy like this press release, I have had, and for the next several years, will have no problem calling attention to that idiocy. That’s what I have done, both here and on my blog. I’ve been smacking that waste of skin sellout of a congresswoman for the last 5 years… and when she screws up, as she so frequently does, I’ve got no problem smacking her again.

    For example, that recent abortion of a letter as worthless as this press release that she had published in the democratian about the CRC.

    I decoded it and declared at the time it was meaningless, smoke and mirrors idiocy; designed to make people actually believe she is doing something about the theft that is the CRC when, in fact, she continues to aid and abet that scam.

    There’s a great deal more required in politics then having the right position on issues. In this case, since the threat is entirely empty and will not impact ANY election happening in Clark County, then it’s worthless and a drain of what little political capital the local GOP has… which ain’t much.

    Just ask Julie Olsen.

    Delivering empty threats make’s one look like an ignorant bully. It reduces the marketability of the product as much as Te’o. And these threats are absolutely empty.

    Since I’ve heard from multiple sources already that Christian has personally contacted Jaime Herrera’s people to tell them she will be facing a contested primary from another Republican, I’ve got to wonder: what’s in it for that moron to do what Christian wants?


    Adding stupidity to stupidity doesn’t get anyone back to zero. It’s like adding two negative numbers…,. you only wind up with a bigger negative.

    That there may be some commonality in ideology, although that was also there during the PCO elections, which made no difference to Christian… Odd, isn’t it, how that “ideological commonality” is supposed to work now, but didn’t back then?

    Besides, when we have the off year elections and everybody except one current officeholder is in office, it will become clear:

    Meaningless threats like this presser are just that: meaningless, “watch the shiny object” crap that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

    Because I’ve got to tell you, Christian, were I in office, you would be the last person I would fold to. You just ain’t all that.

    Ideological commonalities notwithstanding.

  37. I sometimes imagine Kelly saying, “You don’t like what I write? Don’t read it” to a judge in a libel case. Kelly injects himself into conversations all over the internet, tells lies about people, and then tells them not to read what he is saying when they object. He has performed this schtick so many times now that people have taken his advice and don’t regard anything that he says, except as some kind of macabre theater.
    I doubt highly that Christian ever threatened Jaime even as much as Kelly has done in this thread (‘smacking’, Kelly? Really?) Christian, or anyone else, has the right to be displeased with Jaime’s performance, and the right to invoke some measure of accountability in response. The funniest part of Kelly’s stupidity is that he himself, as well as Lew Waters, have suggested primarying her many times on their blogs. So why would he object to Christian doing it? The answer is, because Christian has already proven that unlike two guys in their pajamas, he can actually get things done. That’s why he is the Executive Director, and…well…you aren’t. I suspect that if Christian ever did tell Jaime’s people that he intended to primary her, she would listen a lot sooner than she would pay attention to Dumb and Dumber with their blogs.
    I find the ‘Ideological commonalities notwithstanding.’ thing to be especially rich. Kelly bases his right to lie about Christian on his amazing knowledge of political strategy, in spite of the apparently insignificant fact that he basically agrees with Christian on every political issue. Tell me Kelly, how did you apply your political genius to your own PCO race? How about your career in Olympia? How did that work out? Read a few too many emails, did you? Was that all part of the strategy?
    It’s hard for me to tell if people actually ever listened to Kelly, or if he always exaggerrated his influence, as he does now. What is clear is that the number of people who actually heed his rants now is few, and the number who respect him as a person is even fewer. Eventually, he will just dry up and blow away. There is no place in any kind of leadership for people like him.

  38. Kelly, for the record, just as your myriad of prognostications over the last eight months have proven inaccurate and unreliable, your “sources” are apparently equally worthless.

  39. And Kelly, having read your second post now about your “sources”, let me state in unequivocal terms: I have NOT contacted Hererra’s office nor have I contacted anyone else to send a message about any decision or plan to contest her in the primary. I did make a statement at a recent Clark Republican Women’s event in the context of people asking what can we do to get our representatives to stop the fiscal insanity, that “we have to be willing to challenge them in the primary if they do not represent our interests” or something to that effect. And, I stand by that. The idea that we sit around and say nothing, let them vote against our interests, and THEN challenge them I find to be an exercise in stupidity. I would rather say “hey, if you continue to vote us down a fiscal rat hole AND/OR compromise our constitutional rights, then we are willing to primary you” and do that in an effort to incentivise them into become a better representative. Even if it is ineffectual, it is the right thing to do. Don’t entrap someone — put them on notice that as a constituent you want them to represent you a certain way, and if they don’t then you are going to attempt to find someone who will. Then they can make their decision whether or not to ignore you with full knowledge of your intentions, and their decision is an overt and conscious one. I can tell you that I contacted someone close to Hererra and from a perspective of trying to begin a productive dialogue by speaking in ADVANCE of important votes said “I think it is far easier to avoid a train wreck than clean up after one”.

    So Kelly, your “sources” are 100% wrong on this matter and were I you, I would question either their veracity, sincerity, or rationality. If your “sources” are basing their “knowledge” on what I said at that CCRW meeting, they are daft. If they are basing it on something else, then it is fabricated. Your so-called sources apparently offer nothing better than cackling gossip or their own fabricated fantasies. The fact that you vouch for them as an authority speaks for itself.

  40. Mr Pat, or should I say calleduntoliberty, just how many assumed names and throwaway email addresses do you use to keep hiding who you are? As I said to you before, that seriously hampers any semblance of credibility to imagine you have.

    Like or hate what Kelly says, he doesn’t hide behind anonymous names.

    That being said, there is a disagreement over tactics. Get used to it, life, especially in politics is filled with disagreements. Paulbots do not have a corner on knowing everything and judging by the outcome of elections, they have even less than they imagine.

    If you think you coming in with your insults directed at me and my blog endears your ability to comment here, think again. You want to boast of what someone has attained as their worthiness? Need I remind that this blog was chosen by an independent firm out of Virginia as “the best local politics blog” alongside the Seattle Times and Tacoma Tribune?

    Need I inquire what your little hole in the wall has accomplished?

    This is your last anonymous, insulting comment here. The next one gets your IP banned.

    Comment if you wish, but come out of hiding, choose your words wiser or go away.

  41. deleted

    You were warned, Lew

  42. Lefties always manage to come across as goofy America-hating loons, Martin.that’s because the Left hates America and everything it stands for.

  43. Wow this post has legs.
    My personal thoughts: I guess the question one should ask is would we have seen such a strong statement on the 2nd Amendment from a different group? Will that statement translate to action? I guess we’ll all have to wait and see, but what do we have to loose?

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 )

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: