Archive for February, 2013

“When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.” – Adolf Hitler

On the heels of State Senator Don Benton’s attempt to dictate to Washington State citizens how long they should remain married comes HR 1934 , a bill with 59 co-sponsors in the State House, including seven Republicans (Reps Hope, Nealey, Johnson, Smith, Magendanz, Fagan, and Walsh). This amazing piece of legislation would allow a judge to order a parent to surrender their own child for regular visitations with anyone who can establish that they have had a non-monetarily-compensated, “ongoing and substantial relationship” for at least one year with the child. This might include grandparents, former foster parents, former significant others, neighbors, Sunday School teachers, Boy Scout Leaders, that weird unmarried uncle you don’t want your kids around…anyone who a judge deems to have met the criteria, the will of the parents notwithstanding.

The fact that legislators, including ‘small-government Republicans’ continue to put forward legislation that assumes that the State has a right to meddle in any and every facet of our private lives and families should confirm to us that the Liberty movement is an idea whose time has come. The founders of this country were often given to citing ‘Natural Law’ as a basis for the overthrowing of tyrants. God put children under the stewardship of parents; it is the most sacred and well-established, self-evident relationship on Earth, and no state or agent thereof can supersede that relationship.

Every citizen must draw a line in the sand beyond which a government may not go. A law-abiding, peaceful person has the right not to be interfered with by the government. For me, the line is when the State dictates to me how I should raise my children and to whom they will be subjected during their formative years. I do not give my consent for the State to determine these things on my behalf. I also do not give my support to any politician who believes he or she can erode at my God-given parental rights via legislation, no matter which party they identify themselves with.

Recently, Don Benton put forth a bill, Senate Bill 5614 , the ‘Family Second Chance Act’ that would require a waiting period of a year before finalizing a divorce in an effort to compel those who are about to put a financial burden on the State to think it over more carefully. It would also require the contemplative couple to read a state-issued handbook on ‘the benefits of reconciliation’. No word on if there would be an exam on the material, and what, if any, sanctions would be imposed in the case of a grade of ‘D’ or lower.

My initial reaction when I read the article in the Columbian was anger that I had helped by voting and asking others to vote to elect a big statist who would presume to use the government to tell adults how long they should remain married, thereby taking the ‘nanny state’ idea to a new level, that of a kind of secular parish priest. In the course of throwing up my hands in frustration and despair however, I came to the conclusion that actually, this bill is a stroke of pure genius.

The thought came to me as I was pondering how any Republican could be disingenuous enough to call himself a proponent of ‘small government’ while putting forward legislation that would make Kim Jong Un blush. I suddenly realized that what that wily old Senator intended by introducing such ridiculous legislation was to expose the lunacy of the government being involved in marriage at all. For years, conservative legislators have been saying that they “would prefer it if marriage were not the province of the state at all, but since it is…(insert socially-conservative statist legislation here). Senator Benton, seeing this disturbing pattern, decided to call their collective bluff by putting forward a bill so heavy-handed and infringing on individual civil liberties that it would force them to look in the mirror and see the hypocrisy they had been participating in and repent. He also clearly intended for an anti-Republican backlash to occur that would lead to major reforms in the way the Party approaches issues involving civil liberties. One need only read the comments after the Columbian article to see that his plan is working perfectly!

There really is no other conclusion for a rational person to draw. Don Benton is brilliant! This bill will advance the cause of Liberty more than pikers like Ron Paul ever dreamed of doing. Let me just say to Senator Benton, if he is reading, that I am sorry for ever doubting you.

This morning, in response to criticism from Paul Harris at yesterday’s CCRP Central Committee Meeting, Liz Pike distributed the following email to all PCOs:

Dear Clark County PCOs:

I am writing to clarify details contained in a bill I introduced, House Bill 1788 – the Safer Schools Act of 2013. Recent massacres at “gun free zones” in public schools prompted me to start a broad community discussion about how we can make our schools more safe in Washington. I believe in government that’s closest to the people. Elected school boards are without a doubt – government closest to the people. This bill gives them the authority to allow certain permanent employees the opportunity to carry a concealed firearm onto school grounds.

Here is a link to the full bill:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1788&year=2013

The following colleagues helped craft the legislation and also co-sponsored the bill:

Rep. Matt Shea
Rep. Jason Overstreet
Rep. Dave Taylor
Rep. Elizabeth Scott
Rep. Brad Klippert

Here is an overview of the Safer Schools Act of 2103:

• Bipartisan legislation allows school boards more options for school safety

• Allows coordination between School Administration and local law enforcement officials.

• Hundreds of parents, teachers and School Board members support my idea.

• School boards would adopt written policies within the guidelines of the bill.

• Allows qualified permanent school employees to enter a physical training program created by the Criminal Justice Training Commission. (CJTC)

• CJTC trains every law enforcement officer in the State of Washington.

• Liberals hate this bill because it’s perfect.
The person who entered Sandy Hook Elementary School last December broke at least 8 laws when he committed those terrible crimes. One more law on the books would not have stopped him. Criminals intent on harming innocent victims do not care about gun laws. For this reason, I am morally opposed to any sort of restriction on firearms. When government restricts second amendment rights of citizens, it just means that the bad guys are the only ones with the guns. US crime statistics have shown that as the number of concealed carry permits rise in each state, violent gun crime goes down in those states.

When gun violence occurs in a public school, who is the first person called to the gun free zone? Answer: a cop with a big gun. Who is the second person called? A preacher to conduct a memorial service. The two very things not allowed in public schools, guns and prayers, are the first responders when gun violence occurs.

Rep. Pederson, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is not willing to move this legislation out of his committee. The deadline for him to hold a public hearing and committee vote on this bill is this Friday, Feb. 22nd. There is only a limited amount of time for legislation to pass through the process and we are near the end of that cycle. If we don’t come up with a better solution to ensure the safety of our children and school teachers, I will introduce this bill again next year because I am looking for solutions.
Lastly, my overall goal with this legislation was to elevate the community discussion to identify ways to make our schools more safe for our children.

I am happy to address any specific questions you may have. Thanks!

Liz Pike
WA State Representative, District 18
Protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

Cell (360) 281-8720
Personal Email: ElectLizPike@comcast.net
Legislative Email: Liz.Pike@leg.wa.gov

Liz Pike
WA State Representative
ElectLizPike@comcast.net

At the first meeting in 2013 of the Clark County Republicans Central Committee, 17th LD State Representative Paul Harris was asked to give a spur-of-the-moment report on developments in Olympia. Among his comments was the rather surprising admission that he and “several legislators in his caucus” were not in support of HB 1788 , the bill initiated by Liz Pike and sponsored by such pro-Constitution stalwarts as Reps Matt Shea, Jason Overstreet, Elizabeth Scott, Cary Condotta and David Taylor, which would allow permanently-employed teachers to pay for their own training and certification in order to carry a concealed weapon onto school grounds.

The context of his comments was in relation to the resolution that was being considered by the Central Committee to oppose “any holder of public office and any candidate for public office who the Board finds has taken any action to infringe, impair or usurp our Natural and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, regardless of their party affiliation.”  Harris argued that his failure to support Pike’s bill could be considered grounds for such opposition by the CCRP, but that he actually had good reasons for not doing so. He stated that Pike’s bill could have unintended consequences, such as opening the door to teachers being forced to register firearms. He also expressed concern that teachers would have to pay large fees to be trained and certified by the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission per the bill’s requirements. He doesn’t want teachers to have to pay large fees, which could reach $500 or more, according to Harris.

So in one fell swoop, Harris attempted to both justify his lack of support for Pike’s bill, and his opposition to the CCRP resolution, while still trying to keep his ‘conservative credentials’ intact. The only problem was that word has apparently reached Pike and other sponsors of the bill that he was undermining it before the PCOs. She is apparently meeting today with Board members and PCOs in Clark County to clarify the contents of the bill. In reading it (see link above) I find no requirement to register weapons at all, only a requirement for school personnel to be designated as potentially carrying after being trained to the Commission’s satisfaction. Harris used the ‘slippery slope’ argument here, but frankly, I don’t see where he is deriving the fear that it would be a precedent for gun control. I think it more likely that Harris, who hails from a swing district, is afraid to be on record voting for a controversial bill to arm teachers.

A hint at his real position can be found in this article in the Columbian from December, in which he is quoted:

State Rep. Paul Harris, R-Vancouver, said on Thursday that he would need to research Pike’s proposal before taking a stance on it. He said he could support more police in schools, if there was a way to pay for it, but arming teachers?

“I’d have to give that some serious, serious thought,” said Harris, a former Evergreen school board member. When it comes to preventing school shootings, Harris added that he’s yet to see a solution that addresses both sides of the issue.

I can’t imagine that he had never had a chance to ‘give serious thought’ to the issue before he was approached by the media. It is highly likely that he was among the first people that Pike consulted before publicly speaking on the subject. It seems clear that Harris is afraid to stand up for this application of the 2nd Amendment, and has instead chosen to cast doubt on the bill among the conservative base so that he is not alone when he opposes it. A calculated political move that one would expect from the invertebrates who currently lead the National Republican party.

This bill would add no cost to taxpayers. It would only take advantage of the fact that there are many citizens among our population, including teachers and administrators in schools, who have chosen to acquire training at their own expense in the proper use of firearms so that they can protect themselves and others in public. It even allows for the option of the school paying for the teacher’s certification expenses. It is a local, citizen-based solution rather than a big-government one. I applaud Representative Pike and her co-sponsors for taking a political risk in order to provide a safer environment for school kids.

In a continuation of the daily stalking that we witnessed during David Madore’s campaign for County Commissioner, the Columbian is now attempting to set the record for most articles dealing with the same elected official in newspaper history. This time, the all-consuming news of the day is that Madore has dared to bring in his former campaign manager, Anna Miller, as his executive assistant on his own dime, rather than putting her on the public dole. The objections raised are like something out of a cartoon. Democrat Commissioner Steve Stuart, only too happy to join in, has this to say about Miller’s presence in Madore’s office:

“You have an independent employee,” Stuart said. “If you have that person working in a public building, they must fulfill a public purpose if they are using a public resource.”

So, the fact that Anna is a taxpayer and voter in Clark County and that she is providing support for a County Commissioner so that he can address more issues is not enough to justify her presence in a ‘public building’? What does ‘public resource’ mean in this context? Does it mean ‘taxpayer funded, but controlled by Steve Stuart and others who are already well-paid from taxpayer funds’? Are members of the public allowed to work, at the behest of an elected official, in a ‘public building’ that they helped to fund? If not, perhaps we should change the name of these facilities, from ‘public’ to something else.

“Stuart also said he is concerned by Miller’s robust history as a member of the Republican party.

“I do have significant issues with politicizing an apolitical staff,” Stuart said. “I couldn’t tell you if anyone (in our office) is a Democrat or a Republican, and I don’t care.”

So now Anna Miller is an objectionable choice as an executive assistant because she has served in a similar capacity for both Madore, and in her local political party? Presumably, she would be more acceptable if she had stayed home and watched soap operas for the last 15 years instead of getting involved? Apparently, Stuart would rather surround himself with apathetic voters in order to preserve the integrity of his office. Are there any bets on how many in Stuart’s office actually vote Democrat compared to the average citizen in Clark County? I think I’ll take the over on that one, with apologies to Stuart and his claims of ignorance on that subject.

The idea that the practice of employing people who worked on one’s campaign is somehow new is also a joke. President Obama and his wife have a staff littered with former campaign workers who are paid on the public dime, but who are accountable to no one but the Obamas.

This should probably not bother me as much as it does, but if the citizenry works to get a man elected in order to change the wasteful habits of government, only to be told that these habits are institutionalized for eternity, this gets to the heart of our problem with government in general. Men like Madore are facing ridicule and daily character assassination in order to make our government more efficient and cost-effective. To many, including myself, he is a hero for undertaking this task. Godspeed, Mr. Madore.