R-71 litigation

August 29, 2009

With a lawsuite against R-71 at this time is just a delay tactic and expense tactic by the opposition.  The controversy is not over the signatures or the number of signatures but rather that the signature of the signature gatherers were not included on a vast majority of the R-71 petitions.

http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/2009/R-71/Litigation-State/Complaint.pdf

http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Pages/R71_Litigation_State.aspx

All of the ones which I submitted did have a signature on the back of the form however.  I did not get paid for gathering signatures on R-71 like everyone else.  No one got paid for gathering signatures for R-71.  I did notice Larry Stickney and his son got paid for their effort in coordinating this effort however.  

The Washington Secretary of State demanded to have included on inititatives and referndums a section for the signature and printed name of  “paid” signature gatherers. 

Since there were no “paid” signature gatherers the lawsuite/litigation is a waste of time and effort but only if not for the delay and expense factor.  The opposition to R-71 are spending money in an effort to get attention for their cause.  This is extremely common with political maneuvering and only in that context commendable. 

In other contexts this could be extremely dangerous.  Publicity by the opponents could counter-swing and backfire.  Attention to this matter could stimulate the R-71 base and accentuate the need to the “NO” vote supported by R-71 supporters.  I would have left the issue silent instead of stirring the “hornets nest”.  But as a supporting I am proud of getting the FREE  PR on behalf of my opponents. 

It does look like the number of signatures needed to pass R-71 (120,577) will be concluded on Monday afternoon.  With 7693 left to count and 5994 left for needing to be passed that would leave a margin of 1699 which could be still rejected and thus a rejection possibility rate of  22.0851%.  The average reject rate to dte is 11.86% for the other signatures which are already counted.  Also, with a possibility of 54 being added because of previously being rejected due to the Signature Image being Pending due to various county images being difficulty to read by the State auditors.

The intermediate news should come on Monday for passage.

What part of the Russian submarine Kursk is not known here.  “Damn the torpedoes – full speed ahead.”  In this case who holds the gold and are the nuclear weapons armed.  But unlike the Kursk the prayers of the various Churches will have a different type of emergency to them.  How will God perceive their prayers.  All civilized citizens of the world had their prayers united for the crew of the Kursk though.  But this time I know that both sides will be praying for their outcome.   

http://englishrussia.com/?p=845

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Russian_submarine_Kursk_explosion

Advertisements

U.S. Constitution and California Territory

July 18, 2009

Dear Washington State Congressional Delegation

Subject:  Constitution in relationship to California now being a Territory and not a State/they violated the Constitution for the requirement to remain a State.

California has to be a territory and not a State.  Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states:

“No State shall . . . emit any bills of credit . . . .”

This is one thing which was happening rampantly in the Pre-Revolutionary timeframe.   On an insistance by John Adams and by James Madison and knowing that emitting a bill of credit was extremely disruptive to commerce and personal business transaction this was a requirement which was included into the U.S. Constitution.  I as of yet am unable to see what King George was doing with this same technique.  If I were to read the Declaration of Indepence I am sure I would also see this type of transaction pre-eminant in King George’s time.  This could have been due partially because of the time travel consequences.  Our immediate cashing of checks via electronics eliminates this as a necessity.

Starting on July 2, 2009, IOU’s from California were submitted for payment to vendors.  This is extremely disruptive to the economy – state and national.

You need to stand up on the floor of the House and immediately demand that all California Representative step down out of the House since they are not to be represented in the House since they are no longer a “State” because their state has violated the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 10. 

1) California then as a Territory can collect all equivalent federal monies to balance their budget and then request permission to reenter as a State.  Their budget should be balanced within a few months time. 

2)  This would immediately change the balance of power in the House if some of the Blue Dogs want to vote with the Republicans.

3)  This huge spending mix will stop immediately.

4)  Otherwise, welfare recipients and illegal immigrants will come to Washington State and sign up for welfare and other Washington State benefits because we have the lowest residency requirements and the highest welfare payout amount.  The next closest state with better benefits would be New York State but the traveling distance is greater.

5)  Our State budget would go from $9 Billion to maybe $20 Billion over budget instantly for the biennium.

6)  The other solution would be for the federal government to bail out California from their $26 Billion deficit projection and thus eliminating the continuing process of a IOU program for California taxpayers.

Please advise as to what you will be doing.  Please announce this on the Floor of the House immediately.  A Point of Order statement on the Floor takes precedence over all other orders of business.  This is a Constitutional issue and their is another time when disruption in the House happened.  This was prior to the Civil War and all of the South left and President Lincoln ordered troops to arrest and jail all members of Congress who would not meet in the House.   Then another time was when General Washington saw a problem with the Confederation of the United States.  The next step if the Constitution cannot be abided by might be that the military General for the Army to take control.  This is his duty if he sees that the U.S. Constitution is being violated.   A legal coupe if you will.  Let’s follow the Constitution and avoid having our Army General called to his responsibility of “Protecting and Defending the Constitution” as is his sworn duty before God and Country.  If the Four Star General does not do this then the Three Star General must arrest all other Three and Four Star Generals and do the same.  If not then are we going to proceed down to a Private performing this duty.

Please advise.


R-71Pastors/Church Guide

June 20, 2009

The way to use the below until I can change it is the first yes/no refers to Churches and the second yes/no refers to Pastors.  This reflects how someone can or cannot relate to R-71 in a Church or Pastor environment.

See also www.ProtectMarriageWA.com or R-71 for the bill information.

 

CIVIC PARTICIPATION GUIDELINES FOR PASTORS AND CHURCHES
By Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING CANDIDATES CHURCH PASTOR
Endorsing or opposing political candidates No Yes
Contributions to political candidate No Yes
In-kind and independent expenditures for or against political candidates No Yes
Contributions to Political Action Committees No Yes
Appearance of political candidate at church meeting or service Yes N/A
Introduction of political candidates at church Yes Yes
Political candidate to preach or read scripture (contributions should not be solicited & message
should not urge people to vote for the candidate) Yes N/A
Voter registration programs and campaigns (non-partisan) Yes Yes
Distribution of candidate surveys and incumbent voting records (avoid editorial opinions) Yes Yes
Distribution in church parking lot of political statements and opinions on political issues (so
long as no church endorsement) Yes N/A
Rent or loan church mailing lists to political candidates (list must be made available to all
candidates on similar terms and prices) Yes N/A
Church bulletin political ads at regular price and news stories Yes N/A
Church bulletin editorial where the pastor or staff member endorses or opposes a candidate No No
Church bulletin editorial regarding political issues or two different church members take
opposing views on a candidate Yes N/A
Use of church facilities by political candidates (if all other candidates are allowed or invited) Yes N/A
Fund-raising for candidates No Yes
Campaigning for candidates No Yes
Educate members of the public about viewpoints of candidates Yes Yes
Discuss church doctrine pertaining to candidate views such as abortion Yes Yes
Granting use of name to support a political candidate No* Yes*
Support or oppose judicial, department or cabinet appointments Yes Yes
Support or oppose judicial candidates No Yes
Support or oppose other political appointments of non-elected officials Yes Yes
SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING LEGISLATION CHURCH PASTOR
Use of church facilities by lobbying groups to discuss social issues Yes N/A
Rent or loan church mailing list to lobbying groups Yes N/A
Preach sermons on social issues and political issues and activism Yes Yes
Educate on political process and political/social/legislative issues Yes Yes
Petition drives supporting or opposing legislation Yes Yes
Support or oppose legislation unrelated to the church organization Yes** Yes
Support or oppose legislation that directly relates to the organization Yes*** Yes
Encourage members to voice their opinions in favor or in opposition to certain legislation Yes** Yes
Lobby candidates to support or oppose legislation Yes** Yes
Distribute position papers supporting or opposing legislation Yes** Yes
*A pastor may include title and church affiliation in a personal endorsement along with the following notation: “Title and
affiliation for identification purposes.”
**Churches and other 501(c)3 organizations may support or oppose legislation so long as such activity comprises an
insubstantial part of the overall operation. A 501(c)4 organization may support or oppose legislation without any limitations.
***A church or any other 501(c)3 organization may without limitation support or oppose legislation that directly affects the
organizational structure and operation of the organization. For example, a church may without limitation oppose legislation
attempting to repeal the tax-exempt status of the church.
Copyright © 2000-2004. Resource: Liberty Counsel:


HB 2377 Family Medical Care and Temporary 0.3% General Sales Tax Increase

April 25, 2009

Seattle Tunnel Ballard Community Forum

March 28, 2009

Seattle Tunnel Ballard Community Forum

This forum left more questions unanswered than were answered.

Tolls for one. How much on the tolls. Will it be feasible to collect tolls or will the operations bog down and choke off the entrance.

No answer as of yet on the quality of the dirt. How far down will the dirt dictate to go to non-shifted dirt. Remember that the phrase “Shop ’till you drop” was originated in Seattle. From Western Avenue every 1st floor was at the street level. At First Avenue the second floor was at street level. At Second Avenue the third floor was at street level. So in order to get from the street level on Second Avenue on had to climb down a ladder to get to the first floor of a building to enter the building. If your packages were too heavy or cumbersome then you could literally drop down the ladder. Of course, at that time it was time to drop. This happened when the fill-in dirt was put in. Subsequently the Second Avenue entrance is the equivalent of the former second floor level. The first floor is two stories down.

Why was the above raised is that also in consideration is the slope of the grade for the truck travel. A literally only 5% grade is extremely hazardous to the semi-truck industry. It was mentioned that this grade could possibly be a four percent grade or even a three percent grade when the question was raised. The tone of the answer was not based upon any studies or half-breed evidence but rather what the questioner probably wanted to hear. This type of answer is not conducive to the perception of confidence being instilled by anyone. But rather I smell an alternative plan or in other words a snow job. Is this really how government is supposed to conduct a community forum.

Another comment is that the construction of the tunnel will generate 2.9 jobs for every tunnel job created. Is this really true. I say the 2.9 jobs are just old smoke and mirrors for this particular project. When one job is created additional delays of travel are created for the rest of us. So if I want to go to another job for my second part time job and presently work downtown this will be impossible to do unless I also have a second job outside of the core downtown Seattle area. At night downtown Seattle virtually is dead. An occasional job at the Quest filed or Safeco field could be worked at but will the job expire if no one is traveling to downtown due to the traffic congestion created by a few Tunnel workers. In certain situations an economic model of the creation of 2.9 additional workers is not applicable.

This project also ignors the will of the voters from two years ago. Overwhelmingly the voters said “NO” to a cut and cover Tunnel along the waterfront. What is the difference here. Should not a vote of all of the alternatives be given to the citizens to exactly find out what the voice of the people are for them, “the community”.

The clearest and least expensive choice still is a retrofit which would only cost around $1B. In this day of economic crisis and of BOEING’s major buyer not being able to get financing for jet purchases should not the belt be tightened. The yearly accumulation of funds for this project could be done and this would truly lessen the burden and the interest costs of construction. Interest expense on bonds is really the cost of construction.

The Port of Seattle is also talking about contributing $300 million of the costs and it is really questionable whether infrastructure renovations not directly associated with the Port is part of the Port’s charter. What we do not need is a law suite contraditory to a Public Agencies Charter. Let’s think this thru and VOTE NO on a Seattle Tunnel. Sign I-99 or download and sign I-99 so this City Hall con-game can stop.


Seattle Tunnel versus Viaduct alternatives

March 18, 2009

Mr. Scott White.

I believe you are on the Transportation Committee when I looked this up previously.

Am the treasurer for the initiative I-99 which seeks to take away the right-of-way for the Seattle Tunnel as proposed by Mayor Nickels.

The cost of a tunnel at this time is extremely expensive and Elizabeth Campbell who is the sponsor of the initiative will be having a 100% effort in gathering signatures for this initiative after her Winter 09 class ends.  I will join the signature gathering efforts after the tax season ends on April 15, 2009.

However, this effort would be null and void if the funding for the Seattle Tunnel is not approved by the State Legislature and yourself and the committee on Transportation.

Have spoken with many people concerning this effort, obviously, and almost virtually everyone is opposed to the Seattle Tunnel idea.  Some comments circle around the State Budget and the need to balance the budget and others also still do love the idea of the beautiful travel route which the current Seattle Waterfront Viaduct passes by.  Others are extremely upset that voting does not count and recollecting the vote which overwhelmingly ditched a tunnel option previously.  The voters do not like to be ignored whatsoever.  As you recall I had said I would approve a teachers pay raise as per the voters even if no other state employee were to get a raise as per the voters electing this a few years ago.

Personally I still would like a retrofit of the Viaduct and then an accumulation of funds for the setting aside of funds for other more appropriate roadway construction in about 20 years or so.  I assume you would still like a Street Version of the Viaduct.  Both are incongruent with the Seattle Tunnel alternative and I would wish you to vote “NO” on any approval of a Seattle Tunnel version.

Thanking you in advance for your deep concern on this important roadway structure for the beautification of the Seattle Waterfront and the drivers of Seattle and the enjoyment of the beautiful vista which drivers are able to enjoy at the present time.  An enjoyable drive while in Seattle will remain if you agree to Vote against funding of a Seattle Tunnel project. 

Thanks

Keith Ljunghammar, EA


Letter about State Balanced Budget

March 6, 2009

Dear Senators and Representatives
 
Would like to find how the Washington State budget will be balanced.  Could you indicate to me the method which you will be using.  Please mention a bill or how much of a particular program you would be cutting off.  Of course a dollar amount should also be indicated. 
 
My method is to
1)  Save $1 bilion by passing Initiative 1043 – illegal immigrants initiative.
2)  Cut  $2 billion from the medical insurance to children.  The amount which it has grown by in the last several years could be cut back and the parents would have to assume their childrens health care insurance amounts.
3)  Cut $3 billion by implementing State Auditor Brian Sonntag’s performance audit recommendations.  Although many will take several years to get this type of a savings it is really a sound step in the start of this process.
4)  Cut $2.5 Billion from the state nursing home care portion of the budget.  This would be accomplished by making senior citizens either pay for their own nursing home insurance and by electing out of state coverage or by starting to pay for nursing home state insurance at the age of 65 and taking out 15% of the monthly amount from the senior citizens social security checks monthly and automatically.  The exact numbers on this I have not received back from my own representative, Mr. Scott White, but they should be close. 
 
Total savings of about $8.5 Billion 
 
Please indicate some recommendations which you would recommend.  If you wish to include only a minimum of $1 Billion please advise.  Will keep your information private for your purposes but will include as a whole for party declaration purposes.  Will not send this to your opposing party however except in the format of a blog or newspaper article unless you specifically say not to include your information.  Again, not from an individual basis but from  a collective basis.  So if three representatives say they would cut $75 million and another says $400 million and another says $300 million then the amount indicated would be $75 million – $400 million or the highest/lowest amount showing from a party collectively. amount.
 
Sincerely
 
Keith Ljunghammar