Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Washington State’

WA Sheriff: ‘Don’t Be a Sheep’ and Blindly Follow Leftist Mask Order


Commentary By C. Douglas Golden | Published June 28, 2020 at 9:01am

The idea of mask orders went national this past week when Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said he would “do everything possible” to force all Americans to wear face coverings while out in public.

“The one thing we do know, these masks make a gigantic difference. I would insist that everybody out in public be wearing that mask. Anyone to reopen — would have to make sure that they walked into a business that had masks,” Biden told KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh.

Asked if he would use the power of the federal government to enforce this, the former vice president replied: “Yes, I would from an executive standpoint, yes, I would.”

“I would do everything possible to make it required that people had to wear masks in public,” he said, when asked if he would “in effect” make make wearing a mask mandatory.

That wouldn’t even happen before next January at the very earliest. By that one time, one prays (rather against the odds) that the whole thing will be redundant. Until then, we’ll still be seeing plenty of similar orders from state and local officials.

One of them is Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, who issued an executive order on masks effective Friday: “As necessary economic activity increases and more people are out in their communities, it is imperative that we adopt further measures to protect all of us,” Inslee said Tuesday, according to a news release.

“Until a vaccine or cure is developed, this is going to be one of our best defenses.”

The order states that “[n]o individual may appear in a public place without wearing a face covering,” that “[n]o business may operate, allow a customer to enter a business, or conduct business with a customer inside any building that is open to public or outdoors in a public place unless the customer is wearing a face covering” and that “[n]o individual may enter a place of business, whether the business is operating indoors or outdoors, without first donning a face covering, unless the individual does so under circumstances expressly exempted from this requirement under Order of the Secretary of Health 20-03.”

It’s probably not the most unpopular thing to do, given the recent spike in COVID-19 cases nationwide. However, Inslee is governor of a big state, not all of which is urban, experiencing a major increase in cases or particularly liberal. It all becomes more problematic when you parse Inslee’s language and realize he’s essentially signing the state up for mandatory mask-wearing until a vaccine is ready, which could be a year or longer.

It’s this environment and set of conditions that turned Lewis County Sheriff Robert Snaza into a viral superstar.

In a video taken by The Daily Chronicle in Centralia, Washington, Snaza — not wearing a mask — spoke to a mostly maskless crowd outside a church on the same day Inslee issued his order, according to The Washington Post.

“In case you guys didn’t hear, Governor Inslee in his infinite wisdom has decided after over a hundred and some odd days that we should all wear face masks — inside and out,” Snaza said through a megaphone in the clip.

“Here’s what I say — don’t be a sheep.”

The video had over 265,000 views as of Sunday morning, which is certainly more than you’d expect for a short clip of a sheriff of a sparsely populated county giving his opinion on Jay Inslee’s mask order.

Media in the region took note, as well. In an interview with Oregon Public Broadcasting the next day, Snaza expressed frustration with Inslee and skepticism that the new policy would actually work.

“My frustration is we continue to listen to the governor’s requests without asking questions, without saying: ‘Well wait a minute, there’s the other side to this’ and in particular wearing the mask,” Snaza said.

He’s also not convinced the masks would be efficacious: “Yet we’re telling people now to wear it and if you don’t wear it, we’re going to cite you for that,” he said.

Snaza’s remarks got enough attention that Inslee addressed them in a news conference on Wednesday.

“I think we have to be disappointed in any law enforcement officer who would encourage illegal behavior,” Inslee said.

He added that wearing a mask “is about demonstrating our respect and care for the other people around us.” And if you don’t care, the government might punish you with up to 90 days of jail time and a $100 fine.

Yet, Sheriff Snaza says he’s not calling for mass lawbreaking: “Just because I said ‘don’t be sheep’ does not mean that I’m outwardly saying I want you to violate the orders,” he said.

Inslee called this clarification “very helpful.”

Less helpful, at least by Inslee’s rubric, was Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer, who called the governor was an “idiot” and said he was “overstepping his bounds, violating people’s constitutional rights.”

Sheriffs in two other counties said they planned to “educate” people about mask usage without enforcing Inslee’s order.

This is the invariable problem with blanket orders like this, which sound great on paper but are wholly unenforceable in reality — particularly given the optics of the government forcing you to wear something. Masks, while potentially efficacious, aren’t the be-all-end-all. After all, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control were previously at odds over whether they’re even necessary for healthy people.

In the end, personal responsibility is going to play a larger part in this than executive orders.

Even if Joe Biden is in a position (heaven forfend) to issue an executive order mandating mask-wearing, good luck enforcing it.

He’s not going to be able to do what Jay Inslee apparently can’t. Treating people as if they’re sheep won’t solve anything.

ABOUT THE COMMENTATOR: 

The United States of…Not America


waving flagAuthored By: David Barton | Posted: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:40 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/government/2017/02/the-united-states-ofnot-america/

Here’s a simple question: “What is America’s first-protected, most-important, and longest-cherished politically-protected right?” The answer? The rights of religious conscience. But the Supreme Court of Washington State just became another in the line of recent courts who know nothing of, or don’t care about this inalienable right.

The early colonists arriving in America came largely seeking this right. In Europe, the governments consistently told them how to practice their faith, and punished them if they did not do what the government wanted; but the religious-minded colonists believed that no one but God could tell them how to practice their faith.

The Pilgrims journeyed to America in 1620 to escape the hounding government persecution in England, as did 20,000 Puritans in the 1630s. In 1632, government-persecuted Catholics fled to America; in 1654, persecuted Jews from Portugal; in 1680, persecuted Quakers arrived here, as did persecuted Anabaptists from Germany in 1683, 400,000 persecuted Protestants from France in 1685; and so forth. These settlers, having been punished for exercising their rights of religious conscience, promptly enshrined these rights in their own governing documents, including Rhode Island in 1640, Maryland in 1649, Jersey in 1664, Carolina in 1665, Pennsylvania in 1682, and so forth. As John Quincy Adams affirmed, “The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience.”

In 1776 when America separated from Great Britain, the rights of religious conscience were once again promptly preserved in the new state constitutions and then in the federal Constitution. According to the Founding Fathers, this was one of the most important rights they protected:

“No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience.” “[O]ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted.” “It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences.” Thomas Jefferson

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” James Madison, Signer of the Constitution

“The rights of conscience and private judgment…are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left.” John Jay, an Author of the Federalist Papers and original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court

“Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.” “The state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society . . . in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?” William Livingston, signer of the U. S. Constitution

Based on this long tradition, today . . .

Conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars;

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;

The Amish are not required to complete the standard twelve years of education;

Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws;

Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work on Saturday;

And there are many additional examples.

It was because the rights of religious conscience were so important that they were specifically protected in the constitutions of the individual states—such as that of Washington, which declares:

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual; and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion . . .

But despite the clarity of this clause, we now get word that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that Baronelle Stutzman, a devout and pious Christian florist… was bound by state law to use her artistic talents to design floral arrangements to celebrate what she viewed as an immoral event: a gay wedding. The pretext for overriding the florist’s rights to free speech and religious liberty was Washington’s so-called “public accommodations law,” which required the owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to provide goods and services to customers “regardless” of their sexual orientation.Big Gay Hate Machine

Several things are wrong with this decision.

First, Baronelle has been economically-fined and governmentally-coerced to use her talents and skills in a way that violates her sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Second, the explicit wording of the Washington State constitution has been completely ignored by the Washington State Supreme Court. In essence, a Washington state court has deemed the Washington state constitution to be unconstitutional, just because they don’t want to uphold its provisions.

Third, the court elevated a state law (their “public accommodations law”) above the state constitution; but constitutions always trump statutory laws—always.

Fourth, John Adams described us as “a government of laws and not of men,” but decisions like this make us just the opposite: the personal predilections of judges are now routinely placed above constitutional provisions duly enacted by the people.

Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson rejoiced that “the comparison of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell,” but this happy distinction is now disappearing. Because of this ruling (and dozens more like it in recent years), America is becoming more and more like the tyrannical governments of Europe that millions of early colonists fled in order to be free from the government persecution of their inalienable rights of religious conscience.amen

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

David Barton Author of numerous best selling books and Founder and President of WallBuilders More Articles
 

Washington AG Claims that Religious Expression Must Remain Inside the Person


waving flagAuthored By Michael Ware November 18, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/washington-ag-claims-religious-expression-must-remain-inside-person/

We have all lived under a delusion. Many if not all Americans CP 01thought that our First Amendment Right to freedom of religion covered the exercise of religion.

Apparently, we have all been wrong. Our freedom of religious expression must be contained within ourselves, and this freedom cuts off once you have a business.

We have found this to be the case as Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson argued his case before the Washington State Supreme Court. He was defending the verdict of the law suit against florist Baronelle Stutzman.

Christian News reports

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson told the court that Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers may believe what she wishes in her heart and mind, but cannot live out her convictions when it comes to a public business.

“Ms. Stutzman for her religious expression is free to believe what she wishes,” he argued. “But when she engages in public accommodations and avails herself of the protections and benefits that come with being a business, there are of course responsibilities that flow from that.”words of another christian hater

Would this mean that a Muslim restaurant owner must sell pork if a customer wanted a Cuban sandwich? What about a Jewish deli? Would they be required to slaughter a pig if a customer asked?

No, this is foolish.

This same Attorney General would demand the opposite he has demanded of Stutzman. He would stand and say that this was an infringement of the Jew’s and the Muslim’s rights.

The point that is at issue is the fact that the left, including Ferguson, wants to punish those who disagree with them on this issue. Lawsuits are a means of coercion. It is the first step in moral and ethical conformity. You believe what they say, or you pay the price.

What’s next?free-speech definition-of-terms

Oh SNAP! One Mom’s Way of Unmasking Transgender Madness is Making Liberals Apoplectic!


waving flagWritten by Onan Coca

URL of the original posting site: http://eaglerising.com/32578/oh-snap-one-moms-way-of-unmasking-transgender-madness-is-making-liberals-apoplectic

Screen Shot 2016-04-17 at 4.26.11 PM

In the wake of liberal attacks on conservative states, cities, and citizens some American patriots are speaking out in defense of sanity. For example, one mom in Washington State took to social media in an attempt to teach silly liberals a little bit of logic about human sexuality. Her short photo commentary has been shared almost 50,000 times on Facebook!

From Facebook:

Kristi Merritt

Kristi Merritt

Kristi Merritt 2

Kristi Merritt 3

Kristi Merritt 4

As expected, she’s taken a lot of flack for her stance and has been threatened by liberals who have come across her page. But it’s not just the whack-job commenters who are causing her problems; even Facebook has been trying to silence her.

definetly ALERT Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Ann Coulter Letter: “ISIS: 0; Ted Kennedy: Too Many To Count”


waving flagCommentary by  Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://humanevents.com/2015/07/08/isis-0-ted-kennedy-too-many-to-count/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

ISIS: 0; Ted Kennedy: Too Many To Count

In the days leading up to July Fourth weekend, Americans were hysterically warned about an ISIS attack in the United States. Congressman Peter King, for example, somberly advised Fox News viewers that “this is the most concerned I’ve seen the FBI and Homeland Security” since 9/11.

And, once again, the weekend came and went without anyone in America being killed by ISIS, but a lot of people being killed by immigrants — legal, illegal, second generation and anchor babies. There’s no way to know exactly how many Americans were killed July Fourth weekend as a result of the country’s immigration policies, because the media don’t trust us with the truth. 

But the holiday weekend kicked off with the news that an illegal alien from Mexico, Francisco Sanchez, had shot and killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle on Wednesday on a San Francisco pier. The most surprising aspect of the crime was that we were told right away that Steinle’s suspected killer was an illegal alien. Usually, we only find out that the perp was an immigrant years later when the Spanish translators show up in court.

The day after Steinle was shot to death, the Associated Press reported that members of the Mexican mafia and their associates — Loribeth Martinez, John Mendoza Jr., Kristopher Sanchez and Veronica Sanchez — had been arrested for the murder of two people, Traci Lynn Lemley and Jeremy Carrico, in San Antonio, Texas.

Also on Thursday:

– A fifth suspect in a shooting in Las Vegas, Benjamin Hernandez, was arrested. He joined Yors “Cuete” Garcia-Mier, Nicholas Pedro “Silent” Cortes, Miguel “Trips” Salazar and Jeiszon Valles in jail for the killing.

– In New Jersey, an illegal alien from Ecuador was indicted for attempting to murder his ex-wife by stabbing her with a steak knife in front of one of their children. (Gosh — I hope all those kids were born here, so the media can start referring to them as “American citizens” right away.)

– The bodies of two Americans, Michael Careccia and his wife, Tina, were dug out of the Arizona desert, and Jose Valenzuela, was arrested for their murder.

– An illegal immigrant from Mexico, Juan Francisco de Luna Vasquez, murdered his wife with a hammer in Laredo, Texas. Vasquez had previously been charged with assault, making terroristic threats, DWI and evading arrest. It just sounds awful to be living in the shadows like that!

That was Thursday. And I didn’t even include drunk driving fatalities, a specialty of our Latin American immigrants. (It may not be a good idea to pluck people from the Mayan jungle and put them directly on American roads and highways.)

On Friday, as Americans worried about the imminent ISIS attack:

– Prudencio Juan Fragos-Ramirez, an illegal alien in Washington state, was accused of murdering an 18-year-old and her toddler son, then setting the pair on fire.

– Irina Kolenkina, a Russian immigrant who does not speak English, was ordered to stand trial for the murder of her husband in Vienna, Wisconsin. Kolenkina had to be put into restraints because she became so combative upon her arrest.

– Illegal immigrant Sinar Roblero Escalante found out he would get off scot-free for killing a 24-year-old man in East Naples, Florida, 10 years ago in a car accident. After the crash, Escalante had fled the scene on foot. He went on the lam and is believed to have hid out in Mexico for at least part of that time — thus, outlasting the statute of limitations. Escalante was recently re-arrested after being caught in his car with a baggie of cocaine on his lap.

– In another immigration success story, Andrew Romero assaulted a prison guard in New Mexico last week. Romero is awaiting trial on charges that he murdered Rio Rancho Police officer Gregg Benner.

– On our nation’s birthday, it was reported that Brogenet Cinor, a Haitian voodoo priest, was arrested for child rape in Florida.

– On Monday, an illegal alien from Mexico engaged in a fatal hit-and-run accident in Bellingham, Washington, then fled the scene of the accident. Witnesses described a “short Hispanic man” running from the car, which was littered with empty beer bottles and a case of Modelo Especial. The illegal farm worker doesn’t speak English, but he was able to ask for an attorney in Spanish.

In related news, a non-elderly woman in Washington state became the first person to die of measles in the U.S. since 2003.

On the bright side, heading into the July 4 weekend, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that it is reconsidering its policy of releasing convicted criminal illegal aliens into the public without warning. This was the agency’s lightning-fast response to the murder of 21-year-old Grant Ronnebeck by a Mexican illegal alien in Arizona last January.

Apolinar Altamirano had been released by ICE because the charge on his conviction sheet was “burglary,” which our public servants deemed a “nonviolent” offense. But burglary was merely the charge Altamirano had agreed to in a plea bargain. His actual crime, according to the victim, was to break into her home with two accomplices, steal all her belongings, kidnap and rape her.

Mexico really is sending us its best people!Illegal Immigration Giant

Some of these crimes were committed by legal residents — even “citizens.” But without Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act, combined with Justice William Brennan’s 1982 anchor baby invention, the “Mexican mafia” would not be living in America, much less be “citizens.”

Just as America’s immigration policies began favoring people from cultures as different from ours as possible, we also began providing government assistance to any loser immigrants and refusing to deport the criminals.

There’s no question but that the only reason any of this week’s criminal immigrants are in America at all is because of Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act.

Now go back to worrying about ISIS.

Civil Race Both freedom combo 2

Feelings. Not Facts


waving flag

Party of Deciet and lies

Do liberals even care how absurd they look?
Check it out:

The latest act in the theatre of the absurd that is America played out in Washington state this week, when it was revealed that Spokane NAACP Chapter President Rachel Dolezal has been telling people that she’s African-American. When confronted on the issue, Dolezal herself says it’s hard to explain her feelings, and that people wouldn’t understand. Indeed she is being widely criticized by the press as a liar and delusional, likely “suffering some psychological affliction.”Liberalism a mental disorder 2

Yet the same media paid little attention when Elizabeth Warren was found to have lied about her racial makeup, or when President Obama, through his literary agent, falsely claimed to have been born in Africa in a bio in 1991. And they’ve mostly applauded Bruce Jenner for saying that he wants to identify as a woman. All of which illustrates the inconsistency, the double standards, and the confusion surrounding the emerging trend of self-identity reassignment.

And what hasn’t even been discussed yet is potential for conflict between laws designed to empower minorities, and new social conventions which allow people to enter and exit minority status at will. Tax breaks specially available to female owned businesses, for example. Should they be available to transgender women? And if so, why not allow someone who acts, looks, and identifies as a black person to declare minority status?DO NOT JACKASS

It’s too early to predict where all this will lead if identity is redefined as nothing more than an amorphous social construct. But at the very least, the Rachel Dolezal farce has exposed the emperor’s lack of clothes.

feelings

Continue reading on www.facebook.com

freedom combo 2

Woman got shout-out from president; can’t afford Obamacare after all


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/11/19/woman-got-shout-out-from-president-cant-afford-obamacare-after-all-87456

November 19, 2013  by

Jessica

A Washington woman who received a presidential shout-out learned afterwards that if Obamacare is too good to be true, it probably is. It turns out that the “affordable” coverage she was originally promised is unaffordable, and she’ll have to go without.

When touting the Affordable Care Act at his Oct. 21 Rose Garden speech, President Barack Obama added a heartwarming and memorable testimonial from a struggling single mom, according to the Washington State Wire.

“I recently received a letter from a woman named Jessica Sanford in Washington state, and here’s what she wrote,” the president said, who then read from her letter.

I am a single mom, no child support, self-employed, and I haven’t had health insurance for 15 years because it is too expensive. My son has ADHD and requires regular doctor visits, and his meds alone cost $250 a month. I have had an ongoing tendinitis problem due to my line of work that I haven’t had treated. Now, finally, we get to have coverage because of the ACA for $169 a month. I was crying the other day when I signed up. So much stress lifted.

Obama closed with the following: “Now, that is not untypical for a lot of folks like Jessica who have been struggling without health insurance,” he said. “That is what the Affordable Care Act is all about.”

When Sanford applied for coverage under Obamacare, she was informed that most of her premiums would be covered by a tax credit.

“I’m really terribly embarrassed,” she told the Wire. “It has completely turned around on me. I mean, completely.”

Another Obamacare computer glitch, as the Wire reported:

Chalk it up to a bollixed-up state website that apparently still has major problems. Originally it said Sanford and her child would get a whopping tax credit that would reduce their total premium to $169 a month. Now the state is telling her it goofed – twice – and she has to pay full ticket. There may even be a third goof involved: At least one health-insurance broker says she may qualify for a tax credit after all, albeit a small one. Officials at the state Healthplanfinder website could not be contacted Sunday night. But it just goes to show that even in the state of Washington, which has earned national kudos for a health-insurance exchange that seems to function better than the dysfunctional federal website, there are big, big problems.

Sanford’s $169 health insurance premium was based on her qualification for a monthly $452 discount.

Four days after the president’s shout-out to her, Sanford received her first letter from the state, informing her that the previous calculations were made in error and that her discount would be reduced to $110. She felt she could still work with this by switching to a less favorable plan — one with higher deductibles and copays.

“I knew I would be struggling in my slow months,” Sanford said. “I didn’t know how I was going to do it. But honestly, I just wanted to get it in my budget and start working on it right away and start working on saving money toward it – that was all I could do, just work at it and hope for the best and try to take the money from here or there or wherever.”

Then the other shoe dropped. She got a second letter from the state last week informing her that she was entitled to no tax credit at all. She has no choice but to continue without insurance.

“They have to own up to what is going on,” Sanford says. “They have to fix it. They can’t just go around and say this is working great. In my opinion they ought to shut it down and just get all of it straightened out.”

So much for the “affordable” in the Affordable Care Act.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: