Inslee to impose income tax on Washingoton State

Let's accept the reality before us:  Inslee has the votes to impose an income tax -- Democrats have super-majority control of the House and Senate and they're the most socialist, liberal, progressive, kamikaze crowd of Seattle Democrazies ever in charge of Olympia.  

We're talking Kshama Sawant - Bernie Sanders type socialists running the show.  How wacko are they?  They've forced out Frank Chopp as Speaker because he was too conservative for them!  When Frank Chopp moves to the conservative side of the spectrum in the Democrat caucus, it just shows how socialist they've gone.

Inslee's Income tax?  The fat lady is singing.  Put a fork in it.  It's a done deal.  Inslee's got the legislature's votes.  

We know we can rely on the voters:  9 times they've rejected an income tax at the ballot box.  They'll do it a 10th time with the "We Don't Want An Income Tax" Initiative like this:  https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/ballottitleletter_1503.pdf

Here's how it'll work:  we will collect the required signatures for the initiative from January through June and then voters will toss Inslee's Income Tax Scheme on November 5, 2019.  Because the initiative prohibits any kind of income tax by any government, voters will also be obliterating the Seattle City Council's income tax (which has been winding its way through the courts for years without final resolution) or any future state or local income tax.

Don't get me wrong:  I'm not saying it's gonna be easy.  Qualifying initiatives for a public vote is tough.  Look at our current $30 Tabs Initiative -- despite widespread public support, it took me and Karen selling off our family's retirement fund and loaning $500,000 to the signature drive to put us in a position to qualify it.

It won't be easy -- but it is the best way to toss Inslee's Income Tax Scheme.  And it's something we can start immediately.

So if you agree that this is the right approach, then please donate today to help toss Inslee's Income Tax Scheme:  VotersWantMoreChoices.com/Donate -- we've already filed the initiative that'll toss it.

After that, make sure to sign our online petition and help us veto Inslee's 20% salary bonus:  GiveThemNothing.com 

We need your help.  I implore you make a donation here: VotersWantMoreChoices.com/donate by PayPal, VISA, or M/C.  Or you can print this form, fill it out, and mail in your contribution. 

--- Tim Eyman

Effects of gun control

(If you voted for Initiative 1639's gun restrictions, anticipating unicorns and sugar fairies, sorry to disappoint. Your hope that background checks and categorical restrictions are magic is going to fail you.)

We have good news from a joint effort between the Violence Prevention Research Program at the UC Davis School of Medicine and the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins University.

Comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors had no effect on homicide rates in California.

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California's comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

We credit the researchers for publishing these findings that run contrary to their own established opinions regarding firearms. There are, naturally, some methodological questions. For instance, the violent crime index only had a low predictive value and so was not included in the final model. The variables that did make the cut included specific age groups, race, gender, poverty level, veteran population, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and the proxy for gun ownership rates. Violent crime is often associated with homicide rates in other studies, yet was not included here.

The general design of the synthetic control model also raises questions. In this methodology, other states were combined and weighted to match California before the new policies were implemented. Eleven states were used to create this “synthetic” California but the contributions each of these states made to the synthetic California are not presented in the paper. The donor pool of states was limited to those that did not have policies similar to the comprehensive background check or prohibiting violent misdemeanor at the start of the study period and did not enact major firearm policy changes during that period, but…the differences between California and Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin are not limited to the social and demographic variables included in the model.

But back to the findings. You will recall, from just a few short paragraphs ago, that the notable anti-gun researchers – at least one of whom joined the anti-gun march on Washington this past March – found the comprehensive background check and prohibiting violent misdemeanor policies had no effect on firearm homicides or suicides in California.

The article about the study on the UC Davis website presents that finding with some spin: “Study does not find population-level changes in firearm homicide or suicide rates…” Maybe our understanding of the anti-gun bias driving this research colors our perception, but “does not find” and “were not associated with” seem like two sides of two different coins.

The discussion section of the study itself is dedicated to explanations for the lack of an association.  The authors suggest that the problem may have been limited records in the background check system, a lack of enforcement, or maybe that there were just too few purchase denials.

Their first explanation is not enough gun control. The authors note their findings conflict with some of their own prior research on other states. They claim the difference is that the other states’ comprehensive background check policies included a permit to purchase component. That must be the key difference, right?

Ignore the fact that all three studies to which they point were reviewed by the Rand Corporation for The Science of Gun Policy. In fact, two of these three studies were the only studies considered in the section for the effect of licensing and permitting requirements on violent crime. Rand found, based on these two studies alone, that licensing and permitting requirements have uncertain effects on total homicides and firearms homicides because the evidence is inconclusive. The third study was focused exclusively on suicide rates, and was one of two studies included in that section in the Rand review. Rand also found that licensing and permitting requirement have uncertain effects on total suicides and firearm suicides, due to inconclusive evidence.

So, yes, ignore that and let’s get back to the point the authors make about permit to purchase. They fail to consider that California enacted a permit-to-purchase system, the Basic Firearms Safety Certificate, in 1994 – right in the middle of their study’s postintervention period.

Still, we credit the researchers for sharing these results and we look forward to sharing their evidence when anti-gun organizations demand further obstacles to law-abiding gun owners.

We’d like to thank the Joyce Foundation and, perhaps unwittingly, California taxpayers for making this study possible

Sanctuary from stupid gun law I-1639

The Left has been using "sanctuary" laws to make themselves immune from national immigration statutes.   Now a Washington State community is considering declaring itself a "sanctuary" against  the gun control Initiative 1639, in order to restore the legality of the civil right of self-defense.

~~~~~~~~

"REPUBLIC, Wash. -- The town of Republic may declare itself a sanctuary city from a newly passed gun measure.

"Republic is in northeastern Washington, about two-and-a-half hours from Spokane, near the Canadian border. About 1,000 people live there.

"The mayor there is considering an ordinance, proposed by the police chief to make Republic a sanctuary city for gun rights. This is in response to voters across the state passing Initiative 1639.

"That initiative puts more restrictions on buying and storing guns. But in Ferry County, where Republic is, nearly three out of four voters opposed it. The police chief, Loren Culp in Republic has already said he would not enforce the law."

“I felt that it was such a blatant disregard for constitutional rights that I felt like I had no choice but to stand up for the people that I serve," Culp said in an interview with Fox News.

“We are a society built on the rule of law,” said Renee Hopkins, CEO of Alliance for Gun Responsibility, which led the campaign for I-1639. “If we have leaders that are responsible for ensuring the laws are enforced, picking and choosing which laws they get to enforce, we have a huge problem.”

~~~~~~~~

 The Leftists insist this is a society of law.  If only they had thought of that when they enacted their own "sanctuary" statutes to avoid enforcing laws they don't like.  (By the way, the Left's "Sanctuary laws lead to brutal violence and death).  Apparently they want only the laws they like and everybody else can be oppressed.

NRA Challenges Constitutional Violations in Initiative 1639

Ruger 10/22, regulated "Assault Weapon" under I-1639

STEN SMG gun, not regulated under I-1639

Fairfax, Va. - The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)  today jointly filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington challenging the recently passed gun control measures in Washington ballot initiative I-1639.

"The NRA is committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding Washingtonian," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA¹s Institute for Legislative Action. "I-1639 violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and puts people at risk. This lawsuit is the first step in the fight to ensure that Washingtonians are free to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense."

"We are disappointed that too many voters were fooled into supporting this 30-page gun control scheme, despite overwhelming law enforcement opposition," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "This initiative is an affront to the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and the Washington state constitution. This measure will have a chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional rights of honest citizens while having no impact on criminals, and we will not let it go unchallenged."

Initiative 1639 classifies ordinary, recreational firearms in common use as “assault” weapons, denies young adults the right to self-protection, and bans the sale of firearms to out-of-state residents.

"The NRA will fight to overturn this unconstitutional initiative. We will not sit idly by while elitist anti-gun activists attempt to deny everyday Americans their fundamental right to self-defense," concluded Cox.

School districts promise more in salary than the state provides

So you thought your local school levies were only gong to be used for local improvements in the future?  You thought the school teachers were going to be paid by the state?  Ha.

The Washington Education Association used hard bargaining that ignored the laws prohibiting levy money from being used for wage enhancements. The union instigated multiple strikes, and elected school boards gave in to extraordinary wage demands including raises as high as 34 percent.

These increases in school districts’ payroll obligations massively exceeded the salary funds provided by the state, and now districts are going to cannibalize school services to fund the union’s wage increase demands.

Read more to learn how far into the red your local district budget will be in four years.

Dr Kim Schrier's smear campaign against Dino Rossi

Dr Kim Schrier's campaign has run several ads alleging that Dino Rossi's campaign is sold out to dark and mysterious forces.  Schrier's ads have been called  a lowlife smear.

You would expect the alleged financial oddities to show up in the campaign statements.

Since Rossi and Schrier are running for the Washington 8th district US Congressional seat recently held by Dave Reichert, federal election campaign laws prevail.  We can check how much impact mysterious forces are having by using the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) website data.  Here is a summary comparing the two 8th district candidates in the upcoming general election:

Rossi (R) FEC link	$4,098,669.12
Total receipts	$4,073,609.43
Total individual contributions	$3,651,459.43
Party committee contributions	$5,000.00
Other committee contributions	$416,850.00
Candidate contributions	$300.00
Transfers from other authorized committees	$5,000.00
--------	--------
Schrier (D) FEC link
Total receipts	$5,343,212.64
Total contributions     $4,920,643.48	$4,920,643.48
Total individual contributions	$4,650,628.61
Party committee contributions	$0.00
Other committee contributions	$264,614.87
Candidate contributions	$5,400.00
Transfers from other authorized committees	$421,603.22

Its pretty clear from the data that the two campaigns are about equal in financial resources, with Schrier somewhat ahead in the overall.  The question for Dr Schrier is, What mysterious forces operate in the Rossi campaign that do not also operate in the Schrier campaign?  Where are those dark forces the Schrier's campaign is smearing Rossi for?

~~~~~~~~

You can compare all the Washington State 8th district Congressional candidates at https://www.fec.gov/data/elections/house/WA/08/2018/

Impolite Voters' Guide

Initiative 1631 (also in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese) -  Addresses global warming by taxing energy use.  The advertised purpose is to tax fossil fuel and electricity use.   Section 8, subsection 1 states "[a] pollution fee is imposed on ... electricity generated within or imported for consumption in the state"; and Subsection 5 adds that electricity from an unknown generation source may be taxed at an unspecified rate.  This includes hydropower.

Despite being vague, the basic tax rate starts at `14¢ per gallon of gasoline, approximately 4%.  Overall, energy consumption will be the about 4%, in the first year.  By the fifth year, the energy tax will be double that.  Everything's cost will be affected, from gasoline to food to keeping warm this winter.

Although the advertising for 1631 claims there will be 40,000 environmental jobs added to the state's economy, the initiative doesn't provide for any hiring.  The jobs claim comes from thin air.

Impolite recommends a NO vote.  I-1631 is a bad initiative.

~~~~~~~~

Initiative 1634 (also in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese) - Addresses local authorities (mainly Seattle) imposing additional taxes and fees  on the sales of food and food related products by banning additional taxes and fees.  Taxes and fees in place already will not be affected.

Impolite believes strongly in the People's right to eat whatever they want to with being taxed, saddled with a fee, or assessed anything other than the cost of the substance.  The government's right to tax ends at the human mouth.

Impolite recommends a YES vote on I-1634

~~~~~~~~

Initiative 1639 (also in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese) - Restricts firearms storage, acquisition, fuzzily describes assault firearms and poorly describes the new crime of "unauthorized" use.  Apparently a firearm owner will be charged with a crime if someone steals his firearm.  See this Impolite post for a more.

The initiative seems to require firearms not be accessible for use in an  emergency  (The US Supreme Court already struck down this requirement in the Heller (also see Cornell) decision.)  The apparent purpose of the initiative is to make everyone who uses a firearm a criminal.

Impolite is vehemently in favor of the right of the People to keep and bear arms in defense of self and the free state.  I-1639 is a very bad idea.

Impolite strongly recommends a NO vote on I-1639.

~~~~~~~~

Initiative 940 (also in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese) - Part 1, Section 2 states the requirement for law enforcement to get and maintain proficiency in "violence de-escalation and mental health training" in order to make Washington communities safer.

Its Impolite's guess that if the police find themselves in a shooting situation, lives are on the line.  The act is skewed toward encounter type training, which may be practical for some aspects of police work.

Part 6, Section 7,  immunizes law enforcement from civil prosecution if they act "in good faith."

Part 5 requires law enforcement to get and maintain certification in first aid.  Application of first aid becomes the first duty of the police in a crime situation.  This idea is stupid if a shooting situation is occurring.  Part 5 (2)(c) requires the cop drop everything and render first aid even while the bullets fly. 

I 940 is not well thought out, but some basic ideas have merit.  A rework should be done and the initiative should then be re-submitted to the People.

But as it is now, I-940 is half-baked.  Impolite recommends a NO vote on I-940.

~~~~~~~~

Advisory Vote No. 19 - Repeal or maintain the taxes and fees on oil transportation in Washington State.  This is a $13 million tax.  Impolite cannot find any record of an oil transportation spill (see other kinds of spills here)  in Washington State in the last 10 years, so it seems the previous tax and fee structure is working properly.  Raising the tax is stupid, except to a greedy legislature.  Advisory Vote No. 19 should be repealed.

~~~~~~~~

Senator candidate review

Maria Cantwell is the three-term incumbent, Democrat, Senator from Washington State.  She was originally elected in 2000 in a largely self-financed campaign.  She borrowed her campaign funds in part from Washington Mutual (WaMu).  She secured the loan with stock in the RealNetworks company.  

Later, when RealNetworks stock price collapsed, she calmly defaulted on her loan payments, in part preciopitating the collapse of WaMu.  Thousands of WaMu depositors were not so lucky.  Cantwell does not answer Impolite's emails about this subject.

Cantwell was "the other woman" (or perhaps "creditor") in a lobbyist's divorce in 2006.  

According to Ballotpedia, Cantwell is worth$3,771,505.50, which is lower than the average net worth of Democratic Senate members in 2012 of $13,566,333.90.
Cantwell can't say anything good about how her 18 years in The Swamp have actually helped Washington families.

Impolite suggests its time for Cantwell to make way for a fresh face.
 

********

Susan Hutchison is a former television news journalist, running as a Republican, for Senator against Maria Cantwell.  Hutchison ran the Charles & Lisa Simonyi Fund for Arts & Sciences philanthropy organization since its inception.  She has real experience doing what is good while minding the resources she has to do the job.

Wikipedia gives Hutchinson's background:

"Hutchison serves as an officer of the following boards: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Washington, DC), Finance Chair (present) of Young Life International, Vice Chair (present) All-Star Orchestra, Vice President (present) and Chair (2006-2009) Seattle Symphony, and on the following boards: Smithsonian Institution National Air and Space Museum, Seattle Art Museum, Seattle Children's Hospital Foundation, Discovery Institute, and Salvation Army.

"She also has been a spokesperson for the American Leprosy Mission, Northwest Medical Teams, Job Corps, and March of Dimes, and has emceed charitable auctions, fundraising events and dinners.

"Her civic involvement includes the Governor’s A+ Commission on Education, National Collegiate Athletic Association Committee on Compliance, the King County Independent Task Force on Elections, and the Chancellor’s Advisory Council for Seattle Community Colleges."

Ballotpedia has additional information here.

Impolite plans to vote for Susan Hutchison for a change.

Too easy to vote? -- again and again?

Go ahead, register to vote.  Several times.  No hurry.  You have until the day before the election, in case  polling shows things aren't going the "correct" way.

See how easy it is to register? See this scan of the new offer to register the state of Washington is sending out.

Click on the image to see a larger image.

In the words of the post card, "Register online.  Its quick and easy."

Washington State is going to have a bumper crop of voter fraud this time around.

Gun Control Initiative1639.org -- the facts about I-1639

The Initiative1639.org website reveals how I-1639 will hamper your ability to use weapons to defend yourself against criminals. (It must annoy the gun haters/gun grabbers to wonder how they forgot to register this domain name.) The site furnishes facts on how this gun-control initiative will infringe on the law-abiding citizens’ constitutional rights, and make it more difficult for you to protect your family.

Highlights of the extreme gun-control provisions in I-1639 include:

• Classifying ordinary, recreational rifles in common use as "assault" weapons;
• Imposing age-based gun purchase and possession bans on law-abiding adults, including a prohibition on adults aged 18-20 acquiring or purchasing semi-automatic rifles classified as "assault" weapons;
• Introducing new storage requirements that impede the use of guns for lawful self-defense and punish gun owners for the acts of criminals;
• Imposing a new $25 fee on sales and transfers of all guns that fall within the new definition of "assault" weapons;
• Allowing the government to establish a “verification” process to enforce compliance and authorize confiscation of firearms, based on the mandatory disclosure of information from gun retailers and gun owners.

Initiative1639.org makes it easy for voters to stay informed, register to vote, volunteer their time, and download material that highlights their opposition to this latest Seattle-elitist inspired gun grab.

Vote NO on I-1639.  It is the billionaires' initiative, not the peoples'

If you like a complete exposition of the dry facts --  https://www.i1639.org/ 

Gun control initative 1639 back on ballot

The Washington state Supreme Court has ruled that the proposed gun-restriction measure, Initiative 1639, will appear on November’s election ballot.  The Thurston Superior Court had ruled that the initiative did not conform to rules for initiatives.

But a four-page order released Friday and signed by Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst reversed the lower court’s ruling.

State law “does not allow for pre-election judicial review of the form, process, substance, or constitutionality of an initiative petition,” according to the order.

Secretary of State Kim Wyman had expressed concerns about the formatting of the petitions, but said she had no legal authority to block it from the ballot. The justices on Friday noted that in their decision.

The gun restriction initiative campaign relied on lavish contributions from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg's personal gun-ban front group, "Everytown for Gun Safety," donated $250,000.

If enacted, I-1639 will

• raises the purchase age to 21 for semi-auto rifles
• mandate training
• enhanced background checks
• waiting periods
• require owners to keep firearms secured
• leave lawful gun owners to face criminal charges if someone prohibited from possessing a weapon takes a lawfully owned firearm. 

If enacted, I'm sure I-1639 will save zero lives -- but the rich will never let the People's right to self-defense get in the way of nervous authoritarian control.

Source https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-supreme-court-puts-gun-regulations-measure-i-1639-back-on-november-ballot/ 

~~~~~~~~

Impolite is against restrictions on the People's rights.

I-1639 strongly resembles the bills the legislature was bandying about last session, primarily Substitute Senate Bill 5444.  Also see Impolite's articles on Gun Control Washington follow up,  Civilian gun restriction plans in Washington State, and Attorney General Bob Ferguson calls for Gun Bans.

Its clear that if  I-1639 ballots a yes, then even though the Washington State Supreme Court must overturn it for the same reasons Thurston County did, the authoritarian left in the legislature will be emboldened to enact similar bans. 

~~~~~~~~

Washington State Constitution, Article 1, Section 24: RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. 

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."  [A citizen has the right to be armed, but not to form a private army].

Kent teachers union demands big money

The situation parents in Kent face is just one of many like it around the state. Schools there are scheduled to start Aug. 30, but the teachers union in Kent is prepared to strike if its salary demands aren't met – even though teacher strikes are illegal.

Keep in mind, the current Kent contract runs through this upcoming school year. The union is threatening to strike and disrupt the school year despite being under a current contract. Other teacher unions under contract might do the same.

Why? Because the state this year approved more money for teacher salaries, and local unions want to lock in big raises now. They want the large raises now so legislators feel obligated to spend more next year, when local property tax rates are lowered (which was part of the McCleary compromise approved by the state Supreme Court).

It's a "get while the getting is good" position, with no regard to what districts can afford going forward. The Seattle Times says school districts need to "need to show some backbone" and mustn't "bargain away money you don't have."

This whole high-pressure situation shows the absurdity of setting pay in 295 separate contract negotiations. The state pays for the bulk of school costs and salaries, so it's time to make the rational move to statewide bargaining.

-Rob McKenna

King County proposes ban on common firearms

The King County clowncil unveiled their plan to ban “Semi-automatic, High Velocity Weapons.”  They call disarming the innocent public "common sense."

In a July 23rd op-ed, Joe McDermott, the Council Chair of King County, Washington, introduced a multi-prong “King County Gun Safety Action Plan” aimed at reducing gun violence.

The plan requires that warning signs be posted at gun shops, as well as any place a firearm is sold or discharged, to advise about “the very real and significant risk to health and life inherent with firearm ownership.” (The language of these signs is to be approved by the local board of health.) Second, gun owners will be required to securely store firearms and ammunition at all times and in all places. And, citing recent school tragedies, the third proposal instructs the County to collaborate with local youth to identify “youth-informed solutions” for reducing gun crime. According to one source, a failure to post the warning signage would expose violators to civil penalties of up to $100 per day; a violation of the storage mandate would be a criminal misdemeanor punishable by jail time of up to 90 days and a fine of up to $1,000.

Additional proposals put forward include an ordinance to compel the King County Sheriff’s Office to destroy forfeited weapons in working condition and those that have been turned in by gun owners, and a demand that Washington State lawmakers repeal the current firearm preemption law. This would clear the way for even more drastic “solutions.” Upon repeal of the state preemption law, the King County Gun Safety Action Plan will immediately impose a ban on the sale and possession of “semi-automatic, high velocity weapons” and “high capacity magazines,” and raise the minimum age for possession or purchase of a firearm to 21 years of age.

Apart from the preemption issue, the Action Plan’s requirement that every gun owner securely store firearms and ammunition “at all times, on all premises” would mean that firearms cannot legally be kept available for immediate use by police and corrections officers, those being victimized by a domestic abuser or stalker, operators of businesses in high-crime areas, ordinary homeowners, and other law-abiding residents of the state. According to a 2015 report on crime by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC), a crime against the person occurs every 6.8 minutes in the state, including a violation of a no-contact or protection order every 40.4 minutes. Property crimes are even more frequent and take place at the rate of one every 1.8 minutes, with a robbery every two hours and a burglary every 13.2 minutes (the report lists robbery and burglary as property, not person, crimes because the primary object is the taking of something of value from the victim).

~~~~~~~~

A Seattle and King County Public Health analysis on firearms and crime statistics dated the same year is equally informative. Three out of four firearm hospitalizations in King County were due to unspecified “assaults.” The great majority of firearm deaths were suicides rather than homicides (68% and 29%, respectively), although for children 18 years and under, firearm suicides occurred at about half the rate of homicides. Accidental shootings made up a very small part of firearm homicides – between one and four percent. Motives for homicides include robbery, and gang and drug crimes. For victims aged between 18 and 29, for example, 21% of homicides were gang-related and 15% were drug-related; “robbery” accounted for a further five percent, and “revenge” was listed for eight percent.

The same document notes the absence of information tying these homicides to “risk factors” like “firearm ownership.” A statistical analysis in 2014 on King County gun homicides is more explicit: “Firearm ownership history (e.g. stolen, legally obtained) not collected.” In addition, information on criminal history was “missing” for three out of five suspects (58%), although out of the remaining group, almost ten percent had a prior conviction, more than five percent were on parole or probation, and almost six percent were wanted on warrants or other charges or were out on bail or bond at the time of the offense.

~~~~~~~~

Regardless of how King County residents keep their firearms, “firearm ownership” or storage practices have not been associated in any way with these crimes. To the extent information is available, the data indicate a sizable proportion of gun homicides involved criminals who were likely already precluded from lawfully possessing a firearm under state or federal law. (It follows, too, that gang bangers, robbers, and the other perpetrators of gun crimes will comply with the proposed “safe storage” mandate in the same manner as they obey existing laws on legal weapon possession and use.)

The most peculiar part of the King County Action Plan is the comprehensive ban on the possession and sale of “semi-automatic, high velocity weapons.” Without more, the language is ridiculously overbroad and will encompass most modern firearms, air guns, BB guns, and flare guns. Besides making other parts of the plan redundant, this would certainly run afoul of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the Washington State Constitution (the “right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired…”).

Overall, it is hard to tell how the components of the Action Plan will accomplish any meaningful change in public safety or the behavior of violent criminals, apart from making honest citizens more vulnerable by impeding their ability to defend themselves. What is obvious, though, is the credibility gap: anti-gun activists who roll out purported “common sense” gun laws, together with the oft-raised assertion that they aren’t going to take anyone’s guns away, shouldn’t be surprised at how few people are willing to take them at their word.



National Rifle Association, Institute for Legislative Action

Gun control Initiative 1639 is 'fake and switch'

Proving that money can’t buy everything, Washington State’s most recent anti-gun ballot initiative may end up being derailed over a failure to comply with mandatory legal requirements, despite seven-figure funding through hefty donations from local billionaires and other big donors. 
Under state law, the sponsors of a ballot initiative must collect signatures using a prescribed petition format and process.

The State constitution requires that every petition must “include the full text of the measure so proposed,” which is echoed in a state law that mandates all petitions circulated for signatures must have “a readable, full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the petition.” This guarantees that every voter being asked to sign the petition has an opportunity, beforehand, to review the complete text of the measure, so as to reduce misinformation, deception, or fraud regarding what is actually being proposed and supported by the signer.

The Secretary of State’s Handbook on initiative laws confirms that the “Office of the Secretary of State must ascertain that the signer, at the time of signing the petition, had the opportunity to read the complete text of the measure. Otherwise, the Office of the Secretary of State cannot verify the signatures on that petition.”

The group behind Initiative I-1639, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility (AGR), has turned gun-control initiatives in Washington State into a cottage industry, with two previous ballot initiative campaigns. According to the AGR, I-1639 represents its “most comprehensive” initiative in Washington State to date.

The Initiative document itself consists of 30 pages of wide-ranging and extensive changes to the state’s firearms laws on rifle sales and transfers, “assault rifles,” training requirements, gun dealer compliance, age to purchase or possess restrictions, new purchase and transfer fees, new firearm storage crimes, and more. This shows changes to the existing law in the traditional legislative manner, with underlining for additions and strikeouts for deletions. 

Each petition sheet circulated to the signing public reads that the “undersigned citizens and legal voters…direct that the proposed measure known as Initiative Measure No. 1639… a full, true, and correct copy of which is printed on the reverse side of this petition, be submitted to the legal voters…” Not only were 30 pages of changes (now reduced to teeny-tiny text) crammed onto the back of each petition page but – unlike the original Initiative document – the petition pages lacked any indications, by way of strikeout or underlined text, to show the actual amendments being proposed to existing state law.

Concerned citizens initially raised these compliance issues in June. In their application seeking a court injunction to prohibit Washington’s Secretary of State from accepting the signed petition, the court declined to intervene, concluding that court review was “authorized only if the Secretary [of State] refuses to file the petition.” In the meantime, I-1639’s sponsor continued to use the same petition pages to collect signatures.

The Secretary of State acknowledged that “significant” constitutional concerns had been raised regarding I-1639’s petition format and confirmed that the “petition sheets presented a text of the measure that lacked underlining and strikethroughs to explain its changes to existing law,” but Initiative 1639 was, regardless, certified for inclusion on the November 2018 ballot.

Early this month, the NRA and Alan Gottleib of the Second Amendment Foundation filed two separate lawsuits against the Secretary of State, seeking to enjoin the certification under state law.  By incorrectly labeling the petition information as the actual text of I-1639, the Initiative sponsor violated the explicit, mandatory statutory direction that a “readable, full, true, and correct” copy of the Initiative be included with the petition pages. More significantly, this was also false, misleading, and unfair to voters.

Under this “I-1639 bait-and-switch,” not only were voters asked to sign a petition containing a copy of the proposed measure that was almost impossible to read, the text made it impossible to distinguish between current law and the changes being proposed. “None of the voters who signed the Submitted Petition had a copy of the actual text of I-1639 on the petition that they signed, and there is no proof that any of the voters who signed the Submitted Petition had an opportunity to review the text of the initiative to be placed on the ballot.”

These failures, according to the lawsuits, invalidate the petition and the signatures, and the Secretary of State should have rejected the signatures and withheld certification. The lawsuits ask the court to apply the constitutional and statutory requirements and suspend or deny certification.

In addition to the defective, incorrect text and print so voluminous and small that voters could scarcely be expected to read it, the lawsuit also raises claims of “misleading signage [and] untruthful signature gatherers” – one source contends that “paid signature gatherers were caught on film telling voters the initiative had nothing to do with gun control.”

A hearing date has been set for August 17.

The National Rifle Association is the source of this article.

Update, August 17, 2018

Thurston County Superior Court today ruled against the AGR and ordered a writ of mandamus to prevent I-1639 from appearing on the ballot. The judge agreed the signature sheets did not comply with state law – the font size was far too small to be readable and didn't include required strikethroughs (which show what existing laws are repealed or modified).

Health care scams

Most people realize that the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, is a money laundering scam.  It turns out that ObamaCare isn't the Left's only medical care racket.

A new report released this week by the Freedom Foundation documents for the first time the history and scope of the unionization of state-paid home care workers around the country and the resulting diversion of hundreds of millions of Medicaid dollars to government unions.

In 2017, at least eight states — including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont and Washington — skimmed nearly $150 million in union dues out of state payments to more than 350,000 home caregivers serving Medicaid-eligible disabled and elderly clients.

All told, states have deducted more than $1.4 billion in union dues and fees from caregivers’ wages from 2000-17.

In most cases, caregivers are related to the clients they serve.

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) last month issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to rescind a regulation adopted in 2014 by HHS during President Obama’s administration that gave some legal cover for states to deduct union dues from caregivers’ pay.

Dues skimming from Medicaid started long before that, beginning in California in 1992, and appears to violate federal statutes requiring payments for services to be made directly to providers.

CMS estimated in the NPRM that states siphoned about $71 million in Medicaid funds to unions per year, but based its estimate only on a handful of news reports discussing the subject. The Freedom Foundation’s state-by-state analysis relies primarily on state payroll data and financial reports unions have filed with the U.S. Department of Labor and is the first attempt to quantify the scope of the practice.

"It is very heartening to see this administration taking the first practical steps to stop states and unions from deducting money from the Medicaid checks of home caregivers serving our society’s disabled and elderly," said Freedom Foundation director of labor policy Maxford Nelsen.

"This illegal and exploitative practice has victimized hundreds of thousands of caregivers. It has only been allowed to persist because it generated significant funds for a politically connected special interest group. Hopefully the administration follows through with meaningful action and does the right thing for caregivers."

Some states have already taken the initiative to end union dues skimming from Medicaid, including Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. An attempt to unionize home caregivers in Pennsylvania is on hold pending a state Supreme Court ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the unionization of home caregivers in 2014 when it ruled in Harris v. Quinn that “partial-public employees” like Medicaid-paid caregivers could not be forced to pay union dues or fees against their will.

Nevertheless, unions and their political allies in state governments have since devised a number of coercive countermeasures designed to keep skimming funds from caregivers’ Medicaid payments, like collecting dues automatically and forcing caregivers to opt out, only permitting resignations during narrow annual periods as short as 10 days, and pressuring caregivers to sign up for union membership in captive-audience meetings with union organizers.

"States’ role as dues collectors has enabled many of [the] unions' most coercive practices,” Nelsen said. "Taking states out of the union dues collection business would help put power back in the hands of the caregivers,” he said. “It wouldn’t prevent anyone from choosing to join and pay dues to a union if they wish, but it go a long way towards ending some of unions’ worst practices."

~~~~~~~~

The Freedom Foundation’s report, "Getting Organized at Home: Why Allowing States to Siphon Medicaid Funds to Unions Harms Caregivers and Compromises Program Integrity," is available here.

Guide explains how unions indoctrinate employees into joining

The Freedom Foundation explains

A report released last year by the union-backed nonprofit Jobs with Justice explained in detail how unions can use new hire orientations to indoctrinate employees into signing up for union membership and becoming union activists.

The nearly 30-page guide, “Making the Case for Union Membership: The Strategic Value of New Hire Orientations,” is not specific to public or private-sector unions, but takes on added significance for government unions because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending decision in Janus v. AFSCME, in which the Court is generally anticipated to strike down state laws requiring public employees to financially support a union as a condition of employment.

Nervous unions and their political allies in state governments have been hard at work for years to preemptively blunt the impact of the decision and make sure the cycle of government-facilitated union dues collection helping to elect union-friendly politicians continues unabated.

One of the more common methods government unions are implementing involves requiring newly-hired public employees to participate in captive-audience meetings with union organizers. Sometimes these requirements are negotiated with favorable government employers, as was the case when SEIU 775 and Gov. Jay Inslee agreed to allow union organizers access to newly hired home care workers in not one, but two captive audience settings.

In other cases, the requirements are simply written into state law, as occurred when the Washington State Legislature, under Democratic control, this year adopted SB 6229 and required all public employers in the state to give unions at least 30 minutes access to new hires.

These tactics, and similar efforts underway in other states, largely mimic the recommendations of the Jobs with Justice report issued in September 2016 and revised in October 2017.

Describing the orientations as “a strategic tool for building union power,” the guide explains in detail best practices to pressure, coerce and indoctrinate employees with the goal of persuading them to join the union at minimum and, if possible, become activists.

The report encourages unions to think of the orientations as “formal socialization” — a “structured and organized experience, typically occurring in a group setting” — the purpose of which is to “instill in new members… loyalty to the union, willingness to volunteer on behalf of the union, and sense of responsibility to the union.”

Throughout, the focus of the report is on overcoming “anti-union stigmas and political biases” and getting employees to view the union favorably through messaging and manipulation, not by providing a better product or service. It is, at its core, an indoctrination how-to guide.
To summarize some of the report’s key points:

• Unions are advised to conduct orientations “as close to a new hire’s start date as possible,” since “(w)aiting to orient new hires on the union and its value to them allows others, like an employer or friend with anti-union views, time to have more influence over a new hire’s perception of the union.”
• If possible, the report strongly encourages unions to conduct their membership pitches during the employer’s regular orientation program:
  • “Employer orientations are typically mandatory, on the clock, and during new employees’ first few days on the job. If a union’s own orientation is part of a formal workplace orientation program, the union has the means to interact with every new employee in person. Participation in an employer’s new hire orientation can also validate the union’s role in the workplace, giving it legitimacy in the eyes of new hires.”
• Lengthy orientations are strongly promoted: “The longer the orientation, the better.” The report notes, “If your local union’s orientation is 15 minutes in length, increase it to 30 minutes. If you typically hold a 30-minute orientation, increase it to 60 minutes. If there is a way to make it three hours, then do so…”
• Ever mindful of progressive identity politics, unions are encouraged to send organizers, called “facilitators,” who share the same “race, age, gender, language preferences and other characteristics” of the employees they are seeking to persuade.
• Defending unions’ high levels of political activity is emphasized throughout: “Don’t assume people will know why unions choose to participate in politics or engage in community service. And when it comes to politics, do not shy away from the role of unions…”
• One of unions’ biggest peeves is being described as third-party entities separate from the employees which is, of course, precisely what they are. Standard union messaging involves telling employees that they are the union. This point is driven home ad nauseum in the report, which notes, for example:
  • “Facilitators should also find ways to talk about the union as ‘we’ to develop a sense of identity, rather than talking about the union as a third-party institution that is separate and apart from bargaining unit members.”
  • “Referring to the union in the third person (‘they’ rather than ‘we’) should also be avoided, as it can create a sense of separation between the union and the members and new hires present at the orientation.”
  • “…(R)esisting the inclination to describe ‘the union’ as a third party that acts for people, and instead using terms that give members agency, such as ‘joining together’; replacing terms that people don’t identify with, like ‘worker,’ in favor of humanizing terms such as ‘working people…’”
• Another means of suggested subtle coercion involves having organizers present union membership forms as though signing up is normal, expected and, implicitly, required:
  • “Unions should present the cards and related forms with confidence. Assume the new hires want to join the union.”
    “…(P)resent the union application as matter-of-factly as any other paperwork.”
• The use of peer pressure and group-think is strongly encouraged:
  • “Telling new hires that many members participate in one union activity or another can encourage participation since people tend to do what is popular. Explaining to new hires that members are expected to participate can also encourage follow-through, by establishing a norm.”
• Conflict should be downplayed, even if it exists in the workplace and the union is part of it:
  • “Facilitators should also remain upbeat and positive, even if the union has an antagonistic relationship with management. New hires must associate joining and forming unions with a move toward something positive. This is an important time to demonstrate that unions are a source of solutions, and not a source of problems. New hires do not know any past bad history with management and do not want management to view them as troublemakers.”
• Bribe workers with trivial giveaways:
  • “Unions should also hand out branded freebies at their formal orientations. People like free stuff, and they like to show that they are a part of something… Giving new hires free union gear and goodies can build an identity with the union inside and outside the workplace…”
• Apply a little extra pressure to employees who are reluctant to join up:
  • “Unions should also clarify that certain benefits are only available to full, dues-paying members. Providing a calm, matter-of-fact explanation can help win over new hires who are ‘on the fence’ about joining, and don’t realize all that union membership has to offer.”
  • If that doesn’t work, “There are still opportunities for unions to educate members about the benefits of union membership with individuals who initially decide against joining. The Michigan Education Association developed a useful approach to sign up new members in a right-to-work environment. When new hires indicate that they do not want to join the MEA, a facilitator asks them to complete a ‘non-member informed consent form.’ This document lists all the rights and opportunities the new hires are choosing to decline by not joining the union. The facilitator walks them through every item, creating the opportunity to explain one more time the value and benefits of union membership. The MEA reports that many new hires who initially decline to join the union eventually decide to sign up after reviewing the non-consent form.”
• Use “rituals” to make people feel like they just joined a cult and can’t get out:
  • “Celebrate a new hire’s decision to join the union.”
  • “The unions should play up the fact that it is now a part of a new member’s life. If unions already have initiation ceremonies or rituals to recognize new members, they should maintain and improve them as necessary. Unions that lack initiation ceremonies or welcoming rituals should create them. Rituals can include:
    • Recognizing new members at their first union meeting, including providing a round of applause from other members and the presentation of a small token of appreciation.
    • Written recognition of new members in the union’s newsletter or other member communications.
  • “Actors’ Equity, the union for stage actors and stage managers, exemplifies this practice. Equity members celebrate the moment they join the union. The union takes photos of new Equity Members with their union cards at their orientation session. Soon after, the union posts these pictures on social media channels, and encourages the new members to do the same on their social media accounts. A public celebration of a person’s induction into the union helps develop commitment and a positive attitude toward the union, while also creating free, positive public relations exposure for the union.”

While some legislative advocates of these captive-audience meetings attempt to defend them as merely educational opportunities for employees to learn about their new job, the report is clear about the ultimate goal of these meetings: “Encourage new hires to become active union members”; “sign up new members”; and make sure the union “does not lose out on dues money and the potential participation of new active members.”
As bad as the fairly sanitized report may sound when read by a detached observer, the reality on the ground is far worse.

For example, public records obtained by the Freedom Foundation from the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) indicate the captive audience meetings state-paid home care aides sit through with SEIU 775 organizers are highly coercive. In the documents, DSHS staff describe SEIU 775 organizers presenting at the IP contracting appointments as, “aggressive,” “forceful,” “rude,” “unprofessional,” “coercive,” “demanding,” and “bullying.” These same staff report caregivers feeling, “pressured,” “misled,” “tricked,” “coerced,” “intimidated” and “forced” into signing SEIU membership forms. In at least one case, DSHS staff report a caregiver being reduced to tears by the high-pressure tactics of two SEIU organizers.

Due to the Legislature’s passage of SB 6229 earlier this year (a bill sponsored by Sen. Kevin Van De Wege, a union-represented fire fighter from Sequim), all public employees in the state will soon be subjected to similar treatment.

--- Maxford Nelsen

The rich man's gun control is only for the masses --- Initiative 1639

Washington State’s would-be oligarchs are attempting to buy Evergreen Staters’ rights again. Four years after West Coast elites dumped $10 million into the campaign for Initiative 594, which criminalized the private transfer of firearms, some of the same plutocrats are spending big bucks to back I-1639, an even more restrictive anti-gun ballot measure.

Gun control advocates and their media lapdogs are mischaracterizing I-1639 as a measure that would merely prohibit the sale of so-called “assault rifles” to those ages 18 to 21. In reality, I-1639 is a wide-ranging initiative that would impose new burdens on all Washington gun owners and severely curtail access to some of America’s most popular firearms.

Stretching the already prevalent misuse of the term “assault rifle” to new extremes, I-1639 defines “semiautomatic assault rifle” as, “any rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.” This means that any semiautomatic rifle whatsoever, from an AR-15 to your grandfather’s tube-fed .22 squirrel gun would be considered an “assault rifle” and subject to severe restriction.

As for those restrictions, all prospective semiautomatic rifle purchasers, regardless of age, would be required to submit to a gun dealer certification that they have completed a firearms training course. In order for the certification to be valid, the course must have been completed within the previous five years. This means that gun owners would be forced to repeatedly take firearms training courses in order to remain eligible to purchase any semiautomatic rifle.

Further, I-1639 would impose a 10 business day waiting period on the purchase of all semiautomatic rifles, extend the Washington State Department of Licensing’s handgun registry to cover all semiautomatic rifles, and authorize a $25 fee to be assessed to semiautomatic rifle purchasers.

I-1639 would also impose criminal liability on otherwise law-abiding gun owners who do not store their firearms to state standards.

For more on I-1639, click here.

According to articles from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Associated Press, at a May 21 luncheon hosted by the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility, the group received two $1 million dollar donations to support I-1639.

Billionaire Microsoft co-founder and Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trailblazers owner Paul Allen was one of the $1 million donors. The other was tech venture capitalist Nick Hanauer. Some have labelled Hanauer a hypocrite for his massive contribution, given his purported support for campaign finance reforms.

Reports indicate that mere millionaires were also in attendance. The Post-Intelligencer reported, 

[The Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s] annual luncheon has become a kind of bidding competition of who can donate the most money… The event yielded three donations of $100,000, two givers of $50,000, three people donating $25,000, seven gifts of $10,000, plus 13 givers coming in at $5,000.

The identities of these big money donors have yet to be made available on the Washington Public Disclosure Commission’s website.

If history is any guide, even more cash is forthcoming. Billionaire gun control patron Michael Bloomberg personally bankrolled I-594 to the tune of $285,000, while funneling another $2.3 million to the cause through his front group Everytown for Gun Safety. Hanauer dumped $1.3 million into the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility to support the measure, while Allen contributed $500,000. Former Microsoft CEO and current Los Angeles Clippers Owner Steve Ballmer and his wife Connie together spent more than $1 million to strip Washingtonians of their rights and were joined by fellow Microsoft Billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates, who gave more than $1 million combined. Rounding out the mega-contributors was Ann P. Wyckoff, widow of lumber magnate T. Evans Wyckoff.

With this deluge of billionaire cash, gun control advocates were able to outspend gun rights supporters by a margin of more than 10 to 1.

Despite the lopsided financial support that gun control initiatives receive from anti-gun tycoons, gun rights supporters should not lose hope. In the face of massive anti-gun spending in a series of background check initiatives, grassroots efforts by gun rights supporters have been able to shift public opinion on the topic, with the pro-gun position faring far better in election day results than the opinion polling touted by gun control supporters.
Facing another “avalanche of money” Washington gun owners will need to muster the same sort of grassroots enthusiasm that carried Maine gun rights supporters to victory and has repeatedly shocked pollsters.

To find out what you can do to preserve firearms freedom in the Evergreen State, please visit https://www.nraila.org/grassroots/.

... perceptions of Seattle

The three H’s – heroin, homelessness, and the head tax – hurting Seattle’s reputation.  Has Seattle’s leadership lost its collective mind?

Many are wondering lately. A glance at the headlines shows a city government that is of activist groups, by activist groups, and for activist groups.

Because let’s be honest, it not average everyday voters who are pushing a head tax that will reduce jobs in the city. They’re not the ones hoping for heroin injection sites, or asking for even more lax attitudes toward tent camping, garbage, and open-air drug dealing.

More than anything, it’s the three H’s – heroin, homelessness, and the head tax – driving perceptions of Seattle today. And the perception is: The city will look the other way on certain destructive behaviors while taxing jobs out of the city.

That Seattle’s lax policies look like an invitation to move here should be no surprise. Some in social services are concerned about that perception of a “magnet effect,” clearly. And you can’t help but wonder if some of the data about where Seattle’s homeless are originally from is kept intentionally vague.

They don’t want the case laid out too starkly, after all. No doubt some of these worriers cringed when a newly-arrived homeless couple told KIRO 7 they moved here because “we appreciate Seattle’s liberal vibe.”

Is that what “the Seattle Way” means now? A reputation for permissiveness inevitably attracts some to move here. That same couple, by the way, rejected help from a city navigation team because “we don’t want to change our lifestyle to fit their requirements.”

Seattle city government works at lightning speed when taxes are involved
Speaking of the famed Seattle Way – the interminable hearings, meetings, surveys, and process, process, process – it’s being tossed aside for the head tax. After passing out of committee yesterday on a 5-4 vote (the only debate was how big of a head tax to impose), the council signaled its willingness to work through the weekend to pass a final bill Monday.

For Seattle this is lightning speed. The public is just keying into the debate. Maybe councilmembers figure it’s best to pass it quickly, lest the many doubting voices gain steam.

Or perhaps they realize that more protests like the iron workers’ demonstration are a threat because they highlight the many people whose jobs are put at risk by the head tax. The problem extends far beyond tech workers. For Kshama Sawant, having the evening news show actual union laborers protesting her policies was a worst-case scenario.

Where is Mayor Durkan in all this? She sought a lower head tax than Sawant, but still favored one – even as local Democrats such as Dow Constantine are recognizing the foolishness of a direct tax on jobs. Durkan said she “can’t support” the current head tax legislation, so the council is working to strike a deal that can gain six votes and override a veto. Talk of how to effectively spend the money to actually help the homeless is practically an afterthought.

If you tax jobs, you’ll get fewer ______?
It’s fascinating to watch a city council that fully embraces a soda tax, in part because soda consumption will decline, not seem to realize that a head tax – a direct tax on jobs – will result in fewer jobs.

Or do they realize it but figure that the Seattle job market is so hot that, hey, who cares?
Well, the iron workers do. They know that job growth in Seattle means construction, and construction means job security and strong wages. Sawant tried to appeal to them as “my brothers in the labor movement” but they weren’t buying it.

They realize that, when push comes to shove, Kshama Sawant is not on their side. Right now we’re finding out who else in Seattle city government is choosing the other side of that line in the sand.
-Rob McKenna

Seattle's Liberalhole

BobQatOne files a complaint from the frontlines

Seattle is very rapidly becoming, to paraphrase the president, a liberalhole.  Tents and trash and worse just about anywhere and everywhere, frequent fires in "homeless" camps, along with other crimes.  And the "Mayor" and "City Clowncil" are doing everything they can to do nothing, or make it worse.

Yeah, there are folks who have been screwed over by their own or other's faults that end up without a place to live.  And there are private and public programs in place to help those that ask for it.   And I have talked to a few folks at the weekly church dinner who seem to be decent enough folks who have just chosen to not have a place to live.  Then there are the "street people", who for whatever reasons, revel in being in the city's face as annoyingly as possible, and who have no intention of taking help from anyone to get their act together.  Help trashing the place and making it easier to get drugs and freebies, sure.

(A link to a Facebook page dedicated Seattle's present appearance)

The Clowncil's head tax push, lead by socialist Sawant and Moonbat O'Brien, ~may~ at last be faltering - a couple weeks back, Sawant stacked the audience at a council meeting with tax supporters and loud chanters, and raised holy hell when the chanters were finally removed by the council leader.  Sawant whined about how the peaceful chanters were expressing their first amendment rights by shouting down opposing opinions.

Last week, Sawant was out in front of Amazon pushing hard for her tax, and got chanted down by iron workers that had just found out Amazon was putting a hold on their big construction project.  Sawant couldn't understand why her "union brothers and sisters" weren't licking her hand...

Also last week, O'Brien had a town hall in Ballard about "homeless" encampments, and was overwhelmingly condemned by residents against his schemes.  Just perhaps, the sleepy voters here are finally catching on to their stupidity electing these twits, he said, wishfully.  We could use some candidates that aren't just leftestest and leftesrer, however.

Queen Anne Hill still not too bad, but did notice some new gangsta tagging on the Ave this evening.  And what with the Space Noodle renovation, it looks like a huge baby rattle anyway.

I usually brave the potholes to get over to the west side of the hill to watch the sunsets, and even that far too infrequently.  Life is a lot more tired and boring of late....

~~~~~~~~

Provoked by two items:

> King County prosecutor’s corruption goes national
> https://www.freedomfoundation.com/labor/story-of-king-co-prosecutors-corruption-goes-national/

> Seattle’s head tax
> https://www.freedomfoundation.com/labor/seattles-head-tax-look-carefully-at-whos-behind-it/

"Alliance for Gun Responsibility" new moves in Washingnton State

On April 23^rd, Michael Bloomberg’s front group, the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, filed a ballot initiative in Washington to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.  This egregious attack on your freedoms comes just months after failing to enact their gun ban agenda in Olympia.  Proponents of the so-called “Gun Violence Prevention” initiative will have until July 6th to get 259,622 valid signatures to place the initiative on the November ballot.

Please spread the word to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners about this latest attack on self-defense rights in the Evergreen State!  Help protect Second Amendment rights in Washington and decline to sign this initiative petition.  

The proposed initiative, if passed, would do the following:

• Require a 10 Day Waiting Period for Commonly Owned Rifles.  All semi-automatic rifle purchases and transfers would be subjected to a waiting period of 10 business days.

• Establish a Government Registry of Firearms.  Current law states the Washington Department of Licensing (DOL) “may” keep copies of pistol purchase applications.  The proposed initiative would instead require the DOL to keep copies of these purchase applications, and would expand this government registry to include semi-automatic rifle purchases.

• Require Completion of a Training Course to Purchase Rifles.  This initiative would also require all purchasers of semi-automatic rifles to show they have completed a firearm safety training course within the last five years in order to proceed with the sale.

• Impose up to a $25 Purchase Fee (GUN TAX) for Semi-Automatic Rifles.  The Washington Department of Licensing would be allowed to charge up to a $25 fee for each semi-automatic rifle purchase.  

• Require Gun Owners to Lock Up their Firearms or Face Criminal Charges.  Individuals would be required to lock up their firearms or potentially face a criminal charge of “Community Endangerment Due to Unsafe Storage of a Firearm” if the firearm is accessed by a prohibited person or minor.  This intrusive proposal invades people’s homes and forces them to render their firearms useless in a self-defense situation by locking them up.

• Restricts Adults Aged 18-20 from Acquiring Modern Rifles.  Adults aged 18-20 would be prohibited from purchasing semi-automatic rifles and would not be allowed to receive them through a transfer or loan.  The proposed initiative would deny a segment of law-abiding adults from access to the most modern and effective firearms for self-defense, thus depriving them of their constitutional rights. 

Require “Warnings” for Firearm Purchases.  All firearm purchases would come with a notification about the “inherent risks” of firearm ownership as an attempt to further stigmatize firearm ownership

Union creep raids Freedom Foundation lobby

It’s been a while since we last ridiculed the juvenile antics of the Northwest Accountability Project (NAP), a union-backed 501(c)(4) nonprofit devoted to, “shining a light on extremism and the moneyed special interests that attempt to bring an agenda of hate and division to Washington and Oregon.” It accomplishes these lofty goals largely by writing “mean tweets” about the Freedom Foundation.

This week, however, NAP really kicked it up a notch.

In the middle of the afternoon, NAP’s executive director/sole employee Peter Starzynski, (whose Twitter handle is, no joke, @Starz_InThe_Sky) decided to pay a visit to the Freedom Foundation’s Olympia office.

Casting furtive glances over his shoulder, Starzynski darted into the lobby, grabbed a bunch of publications from a display table and quickly made his escape, leaving Freedom Foundation staff dumbfounded as to why anyone in their right mind would make the four-hour-plus roundtrip drive from Portland to Olympia and back to steal the top-secret material we have sitting out for anyone to take.

The best part is that the whole episode was captured on film by the Freedom Foundation’s security system.

For verification purposes, here’s a photo of Starzynski wearing his trademark jeans and sport coat combo.

It’s too bad @Starz_InThe_Sky was too hurried to smile for the camera, but at least there’s #oneless dangerous Freedom Foundation publication out there to pollute the minds of the innocent.

Among other things, Starzinsky made off with a stack of flyers entitled, “10 Things to Ask SEIU,” which includes penetrating questions like:

• “Why hasn’t the union informed IPs of their right to choose for themselves whether to pay union dues under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. Quinn?”
• “Why have union reps been caught on tape lying to IPs about their rights?”
• “Why are SEIU 775 dues higher than any other SEIU union in the Pacific northwest and twice as high as dues for state employees?”
• “Why did the union illegally conceal $1.4 million in political campaign contributions, leading to a $44,000 fine after it was sued by the state Attorney General?”

Perhaps, now that Starzynski has a copy of the flyer (available online here for literally anyone on earth), he can “shine a light” on the answers for us.

Starzynski also seemed especially interested in the Freedom Foundation donation envelopes. Of course we’d be happy to have his support but, for those wondering, it is possible to donate through our website; you don’t have to drive to Olympia and sneak envelopes from the lobby.
Stunts like this are pretty much par for the course with NAP.

Earlier this year, Spokesman-Review columnist Sue Lani Madsen wrote a blistering takedown of NAP, explaining:

In the eyes of the Northwest Accountability Project, those supporting a conservative worldview are extremists threatening ‘the middle class, our environment, our education, and personal freedom.’ Their website demands the ‘Freedom Foundation must reveal their true agenda and stop lying to the public.’
Here’s the irony. The Freedom Foundation is upfront about its true agenda to ‘reverse the stranglehold public-sector unions have on our government.’ It’s not hidden. You can find photos and contact information for all staff members on the organization’s website. They answer their phone. And they used to proudly post a list of trustees and major donors, until groups like the Northwest Accountability Project used it as a hit list…
It’s the ultimate irony. Finding anyone to hold accountable for the Northwest Accountability Project required digging into corporate registration records with the secretary of state. Only two names appear: Kevin Rudiger, research coordinator for the Service Employees International Union, and Andrew Biviano, an attorney who recently resigned as chairman of the Spokane County Democratic Party. The physical address matches Biviano’s work address.
Biviano was surprised to hear he was still listed, saying he has not been associated with the group since mid-2017. Phone calls to Rudiger and to the contact number for the Northwest Accountability Project were not returned, nor were emails.

Maybe next time Starzynski visits he’ll stick around for a chat. I’m sure we’d have a lot to talk about.

-- Maxford Nelsen, for the Freedom Foundation