It's been around before and has received over 30,000,000 views on YouTube. But, as we settle down for our Thanksgiving Dinners, let's pause and remember those far away who protect our freedom to enjoy the day.
The author of the video, Lizzie Palmer was but 15 years old when she created it.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
It's been around before and has received over 30,000,000 views on YouTube. But, as we settle down for our Thanksgiving Dinners, let's pause and remember those far away who protect our freedom to enjoy the day.
Posted by Lew Waters at 5:54 PM
I can't understand a word she says, but the gesture as the name Barack Obama is mentioned crosses all language barriers and explains a lot
According to the UK Telegraph, "The channel, which goes out to 120 million people across Russia, has declined to comment. But sources close to it have tried to defuse the row by claiming that the newsreader had believed she was off camera at the time and merely providing a voice-over for a report. According to the same storyline, the rude gesture was intended for studio technicians who had been trying to put her off her stride."
Posted by Lew Waters at 5:04 PM
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
We've all seen the short video presentation of the Cop slowly walking up and down in front of protesters steadily spraying them with pepper spray and heard the outrage from all corners over the incident.
But, were the Cops set up by protesters? A much longer video posted at Gateway Pundit claims the leader of the group "agreed to be pepper-sprayed!"
I can't say I condone the action, but others can be heard issuing cautions on keeping your eyes closed and protesters can be seen covering their mouths and faces prior to the spraying beginning. Officers can also be seen trying to remove protesters who were sitting, arms linked and not cuffed as they were being sprayed.
Were the Cops set up by protesters who now use a short clip of the video to show Police Brutality?
Could they have removed the protesters who refused to unblock the way any differently?
Posted by Lew Waters at 12:41 PM
Monday, November 21, 2011
We saw her recommend and the legislature pass some pretty deep cuts last year, but now see and hear they didn’t do much good; they didn’t help our ongoing struggles in this deeply recessed economy.
We all know that it is government spending that is the real problem and not the lack of revenue so much, as Democrats always claim in their desire to rape the taxpayers’ wallet even more, but what of those “deep obscene cuts” from last year? Why didn’t they help out as expected?
Asking myself that question, the answer seemed to come from a November 19, 2011 Seattle Times article, As state makes cuts, lawsuits are flying.
From public unions to illegal aliens, all used to being handed our money in entitlement programs, when the legislature made needed cuts to get the overspending under control, each found some slip and fall attorney to go before an activist judge to overturn cuts made by the legislature as we have demanded. We read:
“This month, a Thurston County judge overruled state plans to limit Medicaid clients’ nonemergency visits to emergency rooms, a decision that could cost the state $32 million between now and June 2013.And of course, we cannot forget how unions and Democrats fight nearly every single budget reform measure put forth and voted in by the people.
In October, a federal judge said the state could not kick 11,000 people off a subsidized insurance program because of their immigration status. That allows thousands to re-enroll at a projected cost of $17 million.
And in March, a federal judge ruled the state also could not reduce food assistance to people because of their immigration status. Potential cost: $16.5 million.
Overall, the state has been sued more than a dozen times because of cuts lawmakers made in recent years to curtail state spending and balance the budget.
“Everyone who gets cut off benefits is going to sue,” said House Ways and Means Chairman Ross Hunter, D-Medina. “What we’re doing in the budget now is like full employment for lawyers.”
As entitlement programs were greatly expanded, with no consideration given to cyclical economic downturns, people have gotten used to receiving our tax dollars and apparently believe they are now owed our tax dollars as a “right.”
Through activist judges, the teachers union in Washington State sees some 70% of our state budget, much of it destined for education as ‘off-limits’ to budget cuts. Students are doing no better and tuition is increasing in higher education, but teachers and administrators paychecks are well protected, having seen minimal cuts if any.
And amazingly our governor is now proposing what she calls a “temporary” sales tax increase with much of it slated to go back into education!
The most indicative comment of why we remain deep in recession comes from an SEIU spokesman, Adam Glickman who says,
“The courts have been used throughout history to advocate for the rights of vulnerable populations, whether it’s civil rights or the rights of people with disabilities. Government can’t take away people's rights just because they don’t want to raise revenue.”In what is probably one of the most arrogant statements I’ve heard from a union, Glickman adds,
“So if states don’t want to be sued for violating people’s rights, then they should stop violating people’s rights and instead raise revenue so that they don’t have to do that.”Let’s set a few things straight. First, no one has a “right” to someone else’s money! None, nada, zip.
I don’t care if you are handicapped, injured on the job, poor as a church mouse or what race you might be, you do not have a “right” to receive someone else’s money!
Social programs to help these people are not a “right,” but are a privilege. A privilege that has been abused by far too many for far too long. An abused privilege that has effectively stolen available funds from those who truly deserve and need help.
We do not have a “right” to a job, a paycheck or employer benefits. Those too are privileges extended from the employer and that you may receive provided you perform your job adequately so long as you remain employed.
Second, unions, especially public unions do not have a “right” to collective bargain with the very politicians they donate campaign funds to in order to elect favorable people who will grant the unions ever increasing wages and benefits.
Collective bargaining too is a privilege that has long been abused and taken for granted as we see public unions continually balk at making minor sacrifices along with the rest of us in these severe times.
Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, considered the father or modern socialism cautioned on public unions in 1937 when he wrote in part,
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.”FDR did not speak of finding an activist judge to overrule the will of millions of taxpaying citizens.
Indicating the severity of the sue happy attitude displayed by the Service Employees International Union spokesman, Governor Gregoire also informs us that her staff attorney now sits in on the budget meetings.
Third, raising taxes beyond a reasonable level hurts everybody, primarily the middle class. Taxes placed upon the wealthy business owners increases their cost of business which must either be passed along or employees cut to continue to be profitable.
In the case of public unions, we taxpayers take it on the chin as more and more taxes and fees are raised to pay the greedy union bosses.
So long as this particular segment of our society feels they are owed other people’s money as a “right,” we continue to flounder economically, spending our way into economic collapse.
As Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher so famously said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
That’s other people’s money that you have no right to in the first place.
Posted by Lew Waters at 9:21 PM
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Besides the obvious thought of if they feel their taxes aren't high enough, why don't they just write a check to pay what they think they should, I have to wonder why Millionaires wanting their taxes raised also seek DONATIONS from the public?
If you look just above the 'N' and the 'A' in 'Millionaires' you will note "DONATE TODAY."
Do Millionaires really need us to fund their demand to pay higher taxes? Or, are they playing the public as was revealed in Warren Buffet's call to raise his taxes?
If they really believe raising their taxes is "the right thing to do," as they claim on their website and they truly feel they don't pay enough now, shouldn't they be able to fund their own campaign, given that they are Millionaires?
UPDATE: See how these "Patriotic Millionaires" react when asked if they would donate some of their own money to the treasury at the Daily Caller
I thought they felt they weren't paying enough?
Posted by Lew Waters at 6:52 PM
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
If Democrats like Ms. Waters (no relation) get their way, the middle class will cease to exist. There would only be the socialist elite rulers and the poor.
For more, please visit CNS News.com
Posted by Lew Waters at 9:16 PM
The Iowa Supreme Court legalized same Sex Marriage in April 2009.
Did they also invalidate the First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Is it really a civil rights violation if you, a private business owner, decline to do business with someone based upon your religious convictions?
With the issue once again being pushed in Washington State, does 10% of the population have a right to dictate to 90% of the population that their private businesses will do business with them, regardless of personal convictions?
Christian Baker Faces Boycott For Refusing to Make Lesbian Cake
Posted by Lew Waters at 4:08 PM
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
This ongoing “Great Recession” government keeps us locked in shows no signs of relenting and apparently, no one in government knows or has the guts to do what is actually needed to get us back out.
Instead, we see more money poured into the Columbia River Crossing Project, hopes of an admissions tax to bring a marginal class A baseball team to town complete with a sparkling new stadium, paid in part with more of our tax dollars all while we had to beg to the federal government for a temporary grant to reopen an staff Fire Station 6, recently closed because there is no money to keep it open.
If you want to know why we keep going broke and why I have long called on ousting Democrats at all levels, we need look no further than a recent action taken by the Vancouver city council, Vancouver approves $600K contract to build waterfront park, especially to comments made below the article by current city council member, Jack Burkman.
Many commenters complain about the city having enough money to pitch in for this new park to be located on the old Boise Cascade property down near the Columbia River, but not enough to adequately fund basic services for the city.
Burkman made a comment correctly pointing out that the $250,000 Vancouver is putting into this effort from the city parks impact fees “can only be used for capital projects” and “can't be used for operations such as police, fire, and such” due to state law.
But, when asked couldn’t the cities portion be better put to use to maintain and repair some of the 107 current city parks in existence, Burkman comments,
“Yes, depending on what was done to an existing park, refurbishing current parks may have met the legal requirement for the REET money. They wouldn’t have met the requirements for the state funds.”
“This is a good example where we get state money because we brought some of our money to the table – partnership investment that gets us more for our local money than if we did it alone.”
Even though we have 107 current parks, many falling into disrepair due to no funds available to maintain them, the city will come up with a quarter of a million dollars in order to receive tax dollars from the state so we can have 108 city parks?
First and foremost, what money the state adds into this, if they do, comes from us too. Various fees and taxes are collected to fund such projects, so we are receiving our own money back, with s little from the rest of the state.
But, the idea that this is a good project solely because the state will add money to what money we contribute is ludicrous. Why build something we really do not need just so we can get state money in order to build it?
It reminds me of the excuses often given for why Portland’s Loot Rail MUST be included with a new bridge so that the feds will hopefully add money to the project to help pay for the Loot Rail. If we eliminated Loot Rail all together, would we not lower the cost of the bridge and proposed freeway interchange improvements?
But, let’s drive the price sky high just so we can receive a portion from someone else to help pay for the reason the price goes sky high?
It is completely outrageous that while we have a citizen catching grief from the city for taking the initiative and at his own expense maintaining a park in his neighborhood, a park the city says they are unable to maintain due to no funds, that the city council will cough a quarter of a million dollars in seeking funding from the state to build yet another park that there obviously will not be enough money to maintain in a barren area by the river where the city hopes to one day have a major development of high density living and shopping.
It’s little wonder that our city, county, state and country remains locked in a deep recession when we continue to elect people that think along these lines and do not know how to set priorities on what city residents need the most.
Pie in the sky plans might be nice when times are good, but when we continue to see double digit unemployment throughout the county over the last few years and continually hear the cry of we struggling middle class taxpayers must cough up more revenue to pay for unneeded projects, they only drive us further into bankruptcy.
Let’s take care of what we have before spending on things we don’t need to climb out of the “Great Recession.”
Posted by Lew Waters at 6:33 PM
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Sunday, November 06, 2011
From a 1979 Donahue Show, economist Milton Friedman sets a liberal woman straight on the same argument fronted today by the Occupy Anything But a Bar of Soap crowd envious of other peoples success.
Isn't odd to see the same arguments and desperation people had under Jimmy Carter coming back up under Barack Obama?
Ronald Reagan led us out of the last mess. Who is there to do it today?
Posted by Lew Waters at 7:20 PM
Like many other people, I am one who doesn’t appreciate being manipulated, not by anybody, especially government or agencies set up and maintained by government. What with the recent release of an independent audit of C-Tran Finances pertaining to Proposition 1, another demand for more tax dollars and copied emails between the auditor and certain elected officials in Clark County, all I see is pure manipulation on the part of C-Tran Board of Directors.
We’ve seen the article in the Columbian here of forensic auditor Tiffany Couch’s independent audit that leans heavily on C-Tran’s refuting her work and the Columbians refusal to post Ms. Couch’s point by point rebuttal of their assertions here, but the email exchange between Ms. Couch and County Commissioner Steve Stuart is a real eye opener.
Beyond the Columbians efforts to discredit her analysis due to her being hired by David Madore to independently audit CRC finances to see where over $140 Million of our tax dollars has gone, a task completely separate of C-Tran finances, commissioner Stuart, who ran for reelection with the promise of we would be given a vote this year on light rail operations and maintenance that he promptly joined others in preventing after winning, comes across as accusatory towards Ms. Couch and her analysis.
“I think staff is very appropriately answering the numeric claims you made, and I'm not an accountant so I won't delve deeply into those. I was, however, a quantitative analyst trained to use statistics in product research, so I do know that there are certainly ways to manipulate numbers to help them say what you want to hear (the main reason I left statistics for law school - ironic. :)). We will follow up to make sure that isn't the case in C-Tran staff's numbers, and I would think it very sad if you were doing that, just before an election that means so much to some of the people most in need in our County. Sad as a Rotarian trying to pass a 4-way test, or as a professional with a strong code of ethics. Ironic, though, considering that exact claim of manipulating numbers has been leveled by you and others against the CRC.”Ms. Couch responded,
“To imply that I, as a Certified Public Accountant, and Certified Fraud Examiner would manipulate numbers with respect to my analysis of C-Tran is disappointing. I’ve not done that in this case. Can you please point out, exactly, where you believe I’ve somehow manipulated the numbers? I’ve been VERY clear about the intent of my analysis, and how I came up with my calculations. I’ve sourced each and every number I’ve used (all which are C-Tran’s numbers, by the way). I had my report peer reviewed by no less than 5 other CPA’s and/or Public Transportation experts.”County Commissioner Marc Boldt chimes in with his own accusatory threat,
“To imply that I have manipulated numbers to make them “say what I want people to hear” is simply untrue.”
“Tiffiny.this is a very important budget matter between you and C-Tran.you have stated this is not public but you have made it public.You have , in my view. told the public that c-tran employees have convinced the board to place a measure on the ballot when we have excess cash. I have spent alot of time this year on our budget numbers as well as the state auditor . I do have more faith in our numbers than yours however I will seek to find answers to the truth and hold either you or c- tran accountable .” (Spelling and punctuation errors from original)Ms. Couch replied to commissioner Boldt,
“I have never stated that this was “not public”. I’m not sure where you get this information?”What is this policy that has both commissioner’s Stuart and Boldt in such a turmoil that has now been revealed to the public?
“I also never told the public that C-Tran employees have convinced the board of anything. Again, where did you get the information? Rather, I was informed from C-Tran employees that they abide by what the board members and board policies direct them to do. This was directly stated to me, and is exactly what one would expect. Management of any organization must abide by what the board of that organization agrees (or does not agree) to do. Based on C-Tran’s 20 year plan and 2011-2012 budget documents as well as the 2000-2010 CAFRS, board policies are clearly stated. Those policies were confirmed by Mr. Hamm and Ms. O’Regan on Wednesday.”
“If Proposition 1 fails to pass, current C-Tran board policy indicates that High Capacity Transit project costs will take higher priority over current levels of bus service; causing bus service to decline or to be eliminated." You back that up with an unidentified quote from C-Tran staff: “When asked whether these initiatives would continue to take place if Proposition 1 fails, the answer was, “these are Policy decisions made by the Board of Directors and these initiatives will move forward.” In essence, it appears that current levels of bus service would be reduced or eliminated if Proposition1 were to fail; because the cost of these High Capacity Transit initiatives would take higher priority.”Challenged by Commissioner Stuart as to just who expressed that policy, Ms. Couch replied,
“So, in answer to your first question, I’m quoting C-Tran CEO, Jeff Hamm.”Being accused by Commissioner Stuart of the appearance of “not independently or objectively analyzing this issue, but instead cloaking your politics in your profession,” due to the timing of the release Ms. Couch responded in part,
“Here’s the context of that conversation. Which also answers your second question. In reviewing all documents related to this issue, including: your “Public Transit Ballot Measure” marketing information on your website related to Prop 1; your 2011-2012 Budget; and, your C-Tran 2030 plan – the only information that I could find related to the potential budget cuts if Prop 1 didn’t pass was related to current bus service.”
“However, your board approved budgets and plans had millions of dollars of High Capacity Transit expenditures included in them. And:
• In no public messaging could I find references from C-Tran staff or board members that indicated that they needed the Proposition 1 funds because they were dedicating over $11M to High Capacity Transit expenditures in the next 5 years.
• In no public messaging, could I find references that indicated that the depletion of reserve funds would be accelerated because of High Capacity Transit expenditures, thus necessitating additional tax dollars from the citizens of Clark County.
• In no public messaging could I find references to the axing of said High Capacity Transit expenditures should Proposition 1 not pass.
• C-Tran is sitting on $47 million worth of unrestricted cash…yet only burning $2M worth of cash per year. Where is that in your messaging?”
“Those FACTS begged the question that any reasonable person would make based on this research. The very same question I posed to Mr. Hamm. Which was, “If Prop 1 doesn’t pass, are you telling me that C-Tran is going to cut bus service FIRST before the planned High Capacity Transit expenditures?” Mr. Hamm said to me, “These are board policies, Tiffany. Management of C-Tran can only implement the policies made by the board.” To which I replied, (by picking up the Ballot Measure piece from your website) “Well, Jeff, doesn’t the public deserve to know that this is the case? It does not say that anywhere on this material”. To which he replied that C-Tran has complied with all requirements of the information that needed to be put out to the voters.”
“I have been sitting on this information for a long time. And the more I looked at it, the more troublesome it became. But I was afraid. I was afraid of the backlash it would cause me. I was afraid that people would think that David Madore was “behind this”. I was afraid to receive emails like the one you sent me today. But then…I looked in the mirror. I realized that I was a citizen of the United States of America. I realized that I was a CPA; someone with a DUTY to inform the PUBLIC of items in their best interest. And, yes, I realized that I was a Rotarian. I had an obligation to inform my fellow citizens of the information that I had. To sit on that information would have been in direct violation of everything I stand for.”As we all can see, that is exactly what has happened. One brave person standing against the power elite that would cut off seniors and handicapped from bus service they can easily afford to maintain, all to continue the pursuit of an expensive bus and light rail system we do not need and have three times now expressed in our votes that we do not want.
Nowhere in any pro-Proposition 1 material is the public informed of this intent. And the person who brings it out is attacked and demeaned in classic shoot the messenger style, not only by our local so-called newspaper but by elected officials because of information voters have a right to know.
This is the dark underside of Clark County today and is clearly a manipulation of the public by a small number of power elites who ignore Clark County citizens in order to force upon us what we have said in the past we do not want.
If you haven’t marked and turned in your ballot for this Tuesday’s election, what more reason do you need to reject Proposition 1 than this?
Complete emails may be seen HERE and HERE
Posted by Lew Waters at 2:10 PM
Friday, November 04, 2011
By Rees Lloyd
Alvarez brazenly boasted publicly that he was a former Marine and Medal of Honor recipient to boost his career as a minor Democratic Party politician, and decked himself out in a fake Army (not Marine) dress uniform with a chest full of medals which he didn't earn -- because he never served a day. (Alvarez' medal-bedecked photo appears in a California Bar Journal story on his case at: http://www.calbarjournal.com/November2011/TopHeadlines/TH1.aspx )
Alvarez, exposed by a real former Marine, Melissa Campbell, assisted by American Legion Post 79 and District 21, and by legendary broadcast journalist and WWII Marine the-late George Putnam, a member of Post 79(see below), pleaded guilty in federal court to violation of the Stolen Valor Act, which imposes criminal penalties for false claims of receipt of the Medal of Honor or other medals of valor by imposters.
However, Alvarez filed an appeal at taxpayer expense represented by the Federal Public Defender, cheered on by the ACLU, which never met a criminal, terrorist, or pervert it didn’t like, or a patriot it didn’t despise.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, in a 2-to-1 decision, overturned Alvarez’ conviction, holding that the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment "freedom of speech." The dissenting judge criticized the decision for effectively creating a constitutional "right to lie."
The Ninth Circuit’s decision nullifying the Stolen Valor Act and establishing an unprecedented constitutional “right to lie” generated a tsunami of criticism. For one instance, Maj. Gen. Patrick H. Brady (USA ret.), a genuine Medal of Honor recipient (Vietnam), told me: “I just can’t understand how anyone, including judges, can believe that General George Washington and the Founding Fathers intended to create a First Amendment Constitutional ‘right to lie’ about military service and receiving the Medal of Honor or other medals of valor. It just defies common sense.”
Despite the nationwide outcry, the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing by the original three-member panel, or re-hearing en banc (i.e., by a full panel). Ironically, a concurring opinion supporting denial of rehearing was written by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kosinski, an exposed Porno Pervert who is as much a disgrace to his public office as Alvarez was to his.
That is, Kosinski, in 2008, was exposed, tried, and convicted by a panel of his federal judge peers (who gave him a slap on the wrist) for publishing on his publicly available website graphic pornography degrading to women, including images of naked women painted as cows and posed on all fours in a field. Porno Pervert Kosinski, an unelected, unaccountable, federal judge for life, remains the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit.
It took the courage of former Marine Melissa Campbell to expose the dishonorable cretin Xavier Alvarez, whose conviction Presiding Pervert Kosinski, et al., have overturned. Melissa Campbell paid a heavy price for her courage: Alvarez used his position as an elected Water Board member to have her fired.
That is, when Campbell was involved in a business meeting between the firm for which she worked in community relations and the Water Board, the despicable Alvarez sat down next to her and tried to charm her with his tale of being an oft-wounded combat Marine who received the Medal of Honor. However, when Melissa Campbell responded that she, too, was a former Marine and began asking Alvarez questions about his Marine service, Alvarez, fearing exposure, changed his attitude and complained to her firm that she was harassing him with questions. He demanded that she be fired. She was fired, her firm fearing negative action on its business with the Water Board by Alvarez.
However, Alvarez’ attempt to silence Melissa Campbell by having her fired didn’t deter her. Legion Post 79 and District 21 became involved when I was contacted to provide representation to Melissa Campbell for her wrongful discharge. (I agreed, but she soon obtained other employment and decided not to sue.) I was also contacted to confirm that Alvarez was a member of The American Legion, as he claimed on the Water Board’s website. Another lie. I demanded the Water Board remove the false claim from its website or we would sue. It was removed. George Putnam, himself a Marine, was the first to broadcast on his “Original Talk Back” radio show news of the bravery of former Marine Melissa Campbell, and the corruption of the fake Marine Xaiver Alvarez. Federal investigation, prosecution, and conviction of Alvarez by guilty plea followed.
Alvarez, although publicly exposed, refused to resign his Water Board public office. He was removed upon his conviction. Although his Stolen Valor Act conviction was overturned, Alvarez remains in prison on conviction of fraud in his Water Board elected office which was discovered in the course of the Stolen Valor investigation.
The Supreme Court will now review the 9th Circuit’s creation of a constitutional “right-to-lie” in the Alvarez Stolen Valor Act case. That is good, but we cannot now sit with thumbs atwiddle in the mere hope that the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court will do the right thing. We must act to demand that the Congress and/or the Executive Branch act to protect the integrity of the Stolen Valor Act no matter what the Supreme Court does or doesn’t do.
“I hope a way will be found by Congress, and the Executive Branch, to protect the meaning and integrity of the Medal of Honor, and other medals of valor, from abuse and exploitation by charlatans under this 9th Circuit decision,” said Maj. Gen. Brady, one of only ninety living recipients of the nation’s highest medal of valor, the Medal of Honor. It is up to us, all Americans in general and veterans in particular, to take action to make that hope become a reality.
[Rees Lloyd is a longtime California civil rights attorney and veterans activist now residing in Portland, Oregon.]
Posted by Lew Waters at 10:46 AM
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
There is more truth in this one sign than in all of the Occupy anything but a bar of soap protest signs combined.
The problems lie at the feet of Politicians. If you need an example of why, read An Open Letter to the Citizens of Oakland from the Oakland Police Officers’ Association
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:03 PM