Today the House passed Senate bill 3307; the ‘Child Nutrition” (a.k.a. school lunch…and dinner??).  It will go to your President for his esteemed and wise consideration.  I have some thoughts on this.

I understand why some people feel bad about hungry kids not being able to learn because they are hungry. Really, I understand their motivation to help. I can’t overstate this.  I get it.  Here’s the “but”…

But…

Who is it exactly that is supposed to be responsible for the welfare of these poor hungry schoolchildren? This is supposed to be the parents and perhaps the extended family. This is a natural law. The progenitors are responsible for and accountable to the progeny; a concept which seems to be escaping us as a society. Whether you are religious or not is beside the point; ‘God’s Law’ and ‘Natural Law’ are interchangeable in this case; a simple description of the way the world works that outlines duties and responsibilities of parents.

What we are doing with this type of program is teaching our young that all good things (like food) necessarily must come from the government. Not from those who care about us as individuals. Not from our own efforts. From our benevolent rulers in government. In short, we’re raising a[nother] generation of socialists…which will do these young people a grave disservice as they age into adults believing in a type of social system which does not work  in the long run.

As always, Contributors’ opinions belong to them; others are not required to agree.  This makes them nongovernmental in nature.

The politicians we’re about to send to office need to clearly understand…they are walking into a job nobody in their right mind would want.  It will be one of crisis management and mitigation, not perks and privilege.  It is a job for patriots…or fools.

I’d like to share a few videos from the folks at National Inflation Association.  While I disagree somewhat with their analysis (I believe we will undergo some substantial degree of price deflation before the wheels come off and that energy scarcity will be the dominating factor), the message they are delivering is hard bitter truth not sugarcoated pabulum.

This is considered ‘fringe economics’ right now…by the folks with the most to lose…those in power. A long view, such as that taken by scholars Reinhart and Rogoff in “This Time Is Different”, would suggest that over the 800 years or so of available data in western economic history this trend of economic self-destruction repeats over. And over. And over.

It can happen here.

Also ‘Must Watch’…Watch I.O.U.S.A. here.

There are three individuals running as Republicans for the 3rd District U.S. congressional race. People often ask, “what’s the difference?”  It is an important question. Conservatives know all Republicans are not created equal these days. I encourage you to learn about all the candidates by visiting their websites, and especially hearing them in person. Here’s my take after doing so myself:

    Only David Hedrick opposes both ObamaCare and all other unconstitutional federal welfare programs.

    Only Hedrick would send every single illegal immigrant back to his or her country of origin and to the end of the line to begin the process of lawful immigration. Some candidates say we can’t afford to fully enforce the law. Hedrick says we can’t afford not to.

    Only Hedrick refuses to promise to “bring back the pork” for pet projects. I love his tagline, “A politician can bring back the pork, but first he has to steal your pig!”

    Only Hedrick has run a debt-free campaign and has hired no paid campaign strategists. He speaks from his own convictions about the liberty he loves.

    Only Hedrick shows a fundamental understanding that the path to prosperity involves massive reductions in spending and taxation across the board, and truly free markets, not stimulus spending projects or centrally-planned incentives for special groups.

    Hedrick is a husband and father, and is proudly 100 percent pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment. He’s a strong supporter of homeschooling, keeping local decisions local, and getting the federal government out of our way.

    As a dedicated Christian and former U.S. Marine, he will not be bought or intimidated. He became a national Tea Party icon when he stood up to Brian Baird, and I’m convinced he’s the best candidate to beat Democrat Denny Heck and then stand up for our God-given rights in Washington, D.C.

   It’s a simple philosophy, really: Tell the truth and obey the Constitution. I’ve never been prouder to say this: He’s got my vote. Learn more at: http://DavidWHedrick.com

Matthew Trent

Centralia city councilor

I have never met a candidate that feels so strongly as David Hedrick does about our Constitution and our government.  He is truly a Christian man of principled positions.  He does not feel a certain way about issues based on how the public perceives the issues, or who puts more money behind them.  He has a foundational belief that our country was blessed by God with a Constitution, and we should follow this Constitution unwaveringly.

I have been able to meet Mr. Hedrick personally, and have heard him speak several times.  Each time Hedrick has shown his depth of knowledge and clarity of vision as he addresses difficult questions ranging from immigration to health care to Social Security.  He is the most conservative candidate.   He will fight to regain liberty for each individual citizen.  Furthermore, he clearly is the front-runner, as noted in the most recent polls (www.washingtonstatepolls.com), and will be the only one who can defeat any democratic opponent.  Join me in voting for David W. Hedrick for Congress.

Jeremy L. Corwin, CHP Medical Physicist,  Centralia, WA

from WashingtonStatePolls.com: 

Our Contributors’ Opinions are Always Their Own

Joe Sixpack started the day early, having set his alarm clock (made in Japan) for 6 am.  While his coffeepot (made in China) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (made in Hong Kong).  He put on a dress shirt (made in Sri Lanka), some jeans (made in Singapore) and tennis shoes (made in China).

After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (made in India), he sat down with his calculator (made in Mexico) to see how much he could spend from his depleted savings account. After double-checking his watch (made in Taiwan) against the radio (made in Korea) he got in his car (made in Germany), filled it with some gasoline (from Saudi Arabia), and continued his search for a decent paying AMERICAN JOB.

At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day Joe came home to check his computer (made in Malaysia with parts from China, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, and Ireland) for email – nothing except a message from tech support (India).  Joe decided he had better relax. He put on his sandals (made in Brazil), poured himself a glass (made in Canada) of wine (made in France), turned on his TV (made in China with parts from Japan), and sat down on his couch (made in Mexico using hardwood from Columbia).

As the news came on, the President (made in Kenya, programmed in Indonesia) came on and explained to him that the economy has ‘turned the corner’ and we are all actually better off than we would have been if – uh – an asteroid had hit Kansas, which of course would have been “Bush’s Fault” if it had happened.

The question is, of course, what the heck happened…and how do we fix it?

There are several concurrent reasons.  I wish to address just one today.

When a corporation or union gets big enough, it starts to actually write the laws that get passed to regulate it.  When this happens, you wind up with a bloated and inefficient parasite  (think GM) that specifically lobbies for laws and regulations that drive out its competition.  Like Komoto Dragons, if you’re big enough, you eat your young so they don’t effectively compete.  If you’re a very big wheel inside a very big union (think SEIU), you are effectively in government…and again you are protecting your interests first, your constituents’ interests second, and to hell with the broader economy.  The problem with unions starts to occur when they realize they can (rightly or wrongly) demand their own number on their paycheck – in ordinary circles this is called ‘extortion’.  The Union leaders benefit greatly, the company becomes less competitive (the Chinese are not going away), and the rank and file think they are getting a great deal with their ‘prevailing wages’.  In reality they are getting a somewhat bigger piece of an ever-shrinking pie.  Price inflation created by above-market-rate wages eventually erodes even them into insolvency.  Happening now.  Everybody else, including those who would like to afford American products, either purchase cheap foreign goods or do without.  A downward spiral we’ve only just begun.

Is it any wonder that small business innovation does not occur in this country at the same rate as in, say, China?  By some measures, the Chinese are more capitalist than we are, in that while they will run you over with a tank if you diss the government, they largely leave business alone (allowing for graft of course).  Their labor force is much much hungrier than ours, both literally and philosophically.  They are not stupid people.

How can this web be untangled?  It will be painful.  It will be painful no matter what we do or fail to do.  But in my view our best hope of revitalizing American business, resuscitating the can-do economy our country enjoyed in the past,  is to secure all subsidization to big business.  End regulatory ‘revolving doors’, both in the corporate world and that of Labor Relations.  Allow the big banks to implode; let Fanny and Freddy disintegrate.  As history has shown again and over again, a society thus freed from the constraints of an ossified, byzantine, and corrupt structure will reinvent itself with astonishing rapidity.  It won’t be pleasant, but the alternative is perpetual subjugation of the working class to a government contaminated and corrupted by special interests.  The alternative is multigenerational debt servitude for our children and their children.

Who understands the magnitude of the problem?

Denny Heck does not  There is no question at all in my mind on this.  I heard him with my own ears:  “Social Security will be solvent until 2037, and we’ll deal with it then if it becomes a problem”.  Wow!  Uh, Denny, that ponzi scheme went cash-flow-negative this year, six years earlier than projected in 2008.  There is absolutely nothing in the trust fund either…unless you count IOUs from “self” to “self”.

Jamie Herrera, I hope so.  I have heard her speak in generalities of the horror of multi-trillion dollar deficits, but I am still convincing myself at this late date she feels it in in the gut.  She has a record of fiscal discipline from her time in Olympia;  I hope that she just doesn’t think the country just needs a few tweaks on the corporate-government complex…tune the carburetor so to speak, to pop the economy right back up again.  The situation is truly more dire than that.

Dino Rossi?  Again, he has a track record of responsible spending (ahem) in government.  Not enough.  If he does ‘get it’, his habitual refusal to answer straightforward questions with straight, hard answers disqualifies him as an obfuscatory elitist.  Sorry, had my fill of those lately.

Patty Murray?  We really don’t need to go there.  The woman truly does not understand that all life will not grind to a halt without government to direct it with its usual efficiency and fairness.

The best viable candidates I’ve seen demonstrating a grasp of the severity of our situation:  David Hedrick for the House, Paul Akers and Clint Didier for the Senate.  All three of these gentlemen say their story straight, and they don’t change it for the benefit of a particular audience.  Not popular I’m sure to tell a crowd how we’re not just teetering on the edge of the fiscal and monetary cliff but have already actually plunged off and are heading for the rocks.  These men have clearly articulated to me that they understand their task in government will be crisis management, not “business as usual”.

Opinions belong to their authors, who understand they are responsible for them.

Thanks for the help, Uncle Dave!

What an interesting development.  I am really not sure what to make of this joint press release by Paul Akers and Clint Didier, two nonestablishment grassroots candidates for Washington State Senator.  These two gentlemen have earned my respect; indeed I have cast my vote for one of them in the primary.  They both represent the Constitutionalist ideal of citizen-statesman.  I am unclear, however…how exactly is this going to work?  Is this a maneuver that will hand a primary victory to establishment candidate Dino Rossi?

It is truly unfortunate that Patty Murray will occupy one of the two “top two” primary slots.  Incumbent aristocracy, you know.  My opinion is that Akers, Didier, and establishment candidate Dino Rossi are in a three-way battle for the other slot that is going to be closer than Mr Rossi will believe without seeing.  I rather wish Dino would go away; his arrogance in assuming that he is the only one capable of beating Murray is irritating and presumptuous in the extreme.  I really don’t think he understands the sea change occurring in Washington State politics.  In point of fact, both Akers and Didier compare very well against Ms. Murray in the polls, and are far more palatable to those, such as myself, who are  frustrated with the politics-as-usual clique.

We are certainly priveleged with an interesting election year.  With good honorable men like Paul Akers and Clint Didier stepping up to the plate, perhaps there is some hope yet.

Contributors’ opinions are their own.

Turns out that Governor Gregoire really, really wants to put another bullet into the patella of the free market.  So much so, she is willing to violate her properly defined role as Governor.  She does this by promulgating an executive order…that has the exact same effect as a recent bill rejected by the state legislature!  You think judges “legislating from the bench” are bad?  When a governor does it, this becomes absolutely frightening.  This conclusion is inescapable whether or not you believe in climate change.  It is an abuse of power.

Not going to write a lot here, just direct your attention to a recent Evergreen Freedom Foundation article and video.

http://www.Seffwa.org/main/article.php?article_id=3194

Here is David Hedrick’s response to the governor’s face, caught on an i-phone at a recent forum.  I don’t think they realized who they were calling to the microphone…

Conservatism (2): A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change (3) the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Conservative (3a): tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions:  TRADITIONAL

Constitutionalism: adherence to or government according to constitutional principles:  also: a constitutional system of government

-Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

Many within the Grand Old Party, as well as those of us identifying with the ‘Tea Party’ phenomenon, use the word ‘conservative’ to describe ourselves.  It is important for us to communicate not just to each other (we already understand the nuance), but also to the public at large exactly what we mean when we say ‘I am a conservative’.

In some ways, those on the progressive left have an excellent claim on the dictionary definition of conservatism…that social stability is to be valued above all else (including economic health)…that a gradual development and evolution in government is to be preferred to an abrupt change.

This is not what I mean when I say ‘I am a conservative’.   A better way to say it, perhaps, is that I am a Conservative Constitutionalist.

Fact is, the definition according to Noah also strongly incorporates the notion of tradition.  In this country over the past 90 years it is conclusively demonstrable that we no longer hew to the Constitution, the supreme law in a Republic by definition founded upon Rule of Law.  Left, right, and center must all agree on this point if bothered to examine the evidence.

Being a conservative in this environment does mean honoring tradition, our Founders, and our Constitution.  It does emphatically not speak to a gradual sort of change, but rather a fundamental sea change in how we govern ourselves…back to our founding precepts which made us the greatest nation the world has ever seen.  We need revitalization, to survive as a republic we must avow the necessity of drastic reordering of our government away from a eruro-style pseudo-arostocricy and back to our roots.

A final point:  Social stability is not in the cards.  Regardless of our leadership in the coming years, our economic conundrum driven by excessive debt will create hardship and austerity.  The question is not in whether we avoid paying the piper for past extravegances by our government, our banks, and our lobbyists.  It is whether we embrace our problems with a uniquely American ‘can do’ optimism…or decline into a morass of socialistic serfdom.

As always, our contributors’ opinions belong to them and only them:

Candidates that I think “get it”:

David Hedrick – top of my “Take Back Our Republic” A-list.
Paul Akers – business principles to DC
Clint Didier – take-no-bull to DC
Skip Mercer – not a chance in the primaries, but boy do I like him!
Jon Russell
Norma Jean Stevens
Brian Peck – small businessperson, understands cash flow.
Paul Harris
Brandon Vick
Peter Van Nortwick – understands the job, has ideas for immediate implementation.  Eminently qualified.
Scott Weber – is running so he can eliminate the office!
Mike Appel
Alan Svehaug – like I5 tolls?  No?  That’s Alan’s fight.
John Elkin
Justices Sanders, Johnson, and Daggy – mighty important for judges to understand the Constitution(s)

Some I think might understand, but can’t say for sure for one reason or another:

Jamie Herrera – potential here, I am hopeful she understands…remains to be seen.
Ed Orcutt – haven’t been able to really tell if Ed is ‘captured by the system’ or not.
Bill Cismar
Craig Riley
Brent Boger
Garry Lucas – seems like a “good cop”.

Politicians-as-usual, and/or Progressives.  Lumped together.  Intentionally.

David Castillo
Patty Murray – I haven’t got the words…
Dino Rossi – machine politician.  Not much else to say.
Denny Heck – shiny exterior.  Dangerous ideas under the hood.
Cheryl Crist – Patty Murray, “Light”.
Tim Probst – I deeply respect this man personally.  Just not his ideas.
Martin Hash
Monica Stonier – an Obama delegate to last election’s Democratic Convention, by the way…and I’ve heard her BRAG about it.
Dennis Kampe
Jim Moeller
Janet Seekins – unqualified.  Heir-apparent to the current officeholder.

The rest, I simply haven’t had the opportunity to research or talk to.

BY:  MICHAEL FROME 7.28.2010

I have heard that a ‘Tea Party Republican’ such as David Hedrick couldn’t possibly win…because no businessperson would ever make a maximum contribution to such a dark horse campaign…because he couldn’t possibly win.  Such an assertion is not only circular, it is demonstrably wrong.  I myself am a small business owner and have indeed made such contributions to his campaign.  I would like to share why.

I have had the great privilege of serving and defending my country in our military.  I have a child for whom I do my utmost to educate and provide for.  I own a business and thereby have furthered the ability of my employees to provide for their own families.  I have been proud to be a productive and contributing member of our society.

I have also failed.

Until recently, I have failed to fully comprehend how very, very important it is for citizens to understand what our government is doing in our name.  A citizen must hold the people that make up that government accountable.  At the very first, the Founding Fathers of this country recognized something so important they wrote it down as the climactic final statement of our Declaration of Independence:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

-final phrase of the United States Declaration of Independence

As any businessperson completely understands, failure is the very best teacher of all.  I shall not fail again in my duty to defend my Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees for my child.  I shall not fail again to fully pay attention to the incomprehensible shenanigans of our government – and to stand up and demand they cease.  I shall not fail again to seek out and support to the utmost of my abilities the very best candidate.  I shall demand of my representative honor, integrity, intelligence, and fiscal responsibility.  I shall require that he or she possess a comprehensive understanding what exactly it is the oath they take actually means.  I shall do this irregardless of whether this person has the approval of some establishment, some union, some party, or some media.  I shall hew to the spirit of this country’s founding, and pledge my Life, my Fortune, and my sacred Honor, such as it is.

I am pleased to say that in my opinion David will fulfill his duty as your next Congressman in such a way that will bring great credit not only to himself, but to the ideals put forth by the Founders of this United States.  I am proud to call him friend, and shall be proud to have him represent me in Congress.

Please note this opinion was originally written  Nov 4, 2009, when Jon was still running for the 3rd Congressional District.  Jon refocused his efforts on Olympia in January of 2010.  The story bears repeating, as the facts haven’t changed…and it is time to choose the next Representative for Washington’s 18th District.  It is unfortunate and frankly distasteful that there are some who are spreading innuendos and lies about Jon for their own reasons.  This is what I discovered for myself last year as I did my own due diligence; I’d like to share it again.

Jon Russell is running in 2010 for Washington State’s 3^rd Congressional District.  [he is now running for Washington's 18th District -7/28/10].  He graciously spent an hour with me recently, and let me ask him some pointed questions.  As I’m sure some folks from here in Southwest Washington State are aware, Jon is a City Council member of Washougal, a small city of 13,000 souls.  The Mayor of Washougal is currently under special investigation by our State Auditor for financial ‘irregularities’.

Jon is willing to answer some tough…and fair…questions with regard to his qualifications to represent us in the US House.  There are people who say that he is too young or too inexperienced to function as a congressional representative and that this apparent fraud happening within his own city proves it.  There also exists an allegation that he was on the City Council for years while these misdeeds by the Mayor and others were going on…and that he was either too naïve or too cowed by authority to address the problem at the appropriate time…as it was happening.  Jon was able to put a timeline on what he did, and when he did it, when speaking with me.  It is worth a listen, because it reveals the character of the man.

Jon was appointed to the City Council in late 2006, and won the seat by election in late 2007.  Over the course of six to nine months, as he settled into his new role, a few things became clear to him.  The first thing was the realization that the Mayor and the rest of the council had a very Progressive, very Liberal mindset.    By the summer of 2007, he had already opposed an aggressive domestic partnership agenda, and also made it clear that he would not provide the unanimous Council vote the Mayor was pressing him for, with regards to flagrant anti-American apologist language in the “Mayors’ Climate Resolution”.  There were other issues as well.  Exploring what Jon did in response to these issues makes a characterization of him as a perennial “Yes Man” completely non-credible.  This is important for us voting types to know, because we need somebody in DC that won’t be cowed by Speaker Pelosi.

The second thing that became rapidly apparent to him was that the city had money management issues.  Even though the Council had a Finance Committee, it really wasn’t intended to do anything.  The way things were run, city officials (including the Mayor) could simply grab any Council Member to sign off on any expense, ad-hoc.  There was no accountability, no itemization.  Jon has a background as a successful businessman; he had no trouble at all realizing that this was not an acceptable practice.  We need folks with actual business experience in DC. I next asked Jon a fair question…”what did you do about it – and when?”

The way the Washougal city government is structured gives the Mayor a great deal of control over procedures.  She did, in fact, direct that Council Members were not permitted to ask anything of City Department Heads.  Wow!  These same city managers were directed by the Mayor to refuse to answer any questions that did not go though her first.  Double-wow!  Jon has a several year history (almost as long as he’s been part of the Council) of being verbally reprimanded by the Mayor for asking direct questions to city managers, in violation of that ridiculous edict…and he takes pride in that.  We need this kind of honest and open questioning of authority and policy in DC.

In the spring of 2008, Jon became very concerned about possible misallocation of city funds regarding a local event called WashougalFest.  By this time, Jon was actively working towards fixing the city’s accounting system.  This included repeated periodic public calls for the Mayor’s office to produce a Profit and Loss statement (about every two or three months).  While understanding he still had to work with the other members of the Council, he wasn’t shy about vocally advocating fiscal common sense.

Jon also reflects, however, that the tenor of City government was of fiscal irresponsibility and avoidance of personal accountability…typical defects in the thinking of Progressive politicians.  Instead of turning himself into some sort of iconoclast, he has taken the approach of working very hard to get more fiscally conservative people elected to City Council.  In 2007, Jon was the lone voice for fiscal common sense on the Council; today, there are three. Jon expresses a desire to be part of the solution on the national level, as well.

Jon states that the experience the City of Washougal is now going through gives him extra perspective and motivation, to do what must be done in the US House. He has, in fact, demonstrated the ability to recognize fiscal problems in government, and apply his business sense and experience to vigorously address them.  It is important to look at Jon’s side of the ‘Washougal Scandal Story’…because it does not reveal a callow, inexperienced local politician.  Rather, it reveals that he is and has been part of the solution.  It allowed him to demonstrate true character and fortitude in standing up to and working through a Progressive-dominated government entity.  He feels strongly that he can do the same, representing us… our values, our interests, in Washington DC.

You can learn more about Jon Russell, and learn what a Republican Constitutionalist is all about, at:

http://www.jonrussell.us/aboutjon.html

As Always, we credit our Contributors with having a Brain.  Their Opinions (and Endorsements) are their Own.

BY: MICHAEL FROME 1.31.10

With Dr. Brian Baird’s pending retirement from Congress this year, there is a vibrant and dynamic competition for the Peoples’ Seat:  Washington State’s 3^rd Congressional District.

This weekend I was able to hear three of the four of the major Conservative contenders for Washington’s 3^rd District congressional seat (and I’ve heard the fourth several times in the past), and I’d like to share my impressions.  I must make a few disclaimers, first.  I am supportive of candidate Jon Russell’s campaign, as I am an independent with a strong libertarian streak…but it is important to understand that I feel comfortable when we have such a good, competitive field from which to choose our next representative!

I also must state up front that I cannot in good conscience vote for a Democrat in the coming cycle no matter how good a person they may be, because I equate that party firmly in my mind with the Progressive movement…with which I have no truck (that libertarian bent, again).  Caveat emptor complete, here are my impressions.

David Castillo (first speaker):

David spoke very well, I think.  He is very easy to listen to; his oration is fluid, smooth, and clearly audible.  He is adroitly capable of engaging his audience. Mr. Castillo touched a little bit on his background and his credentials, and was able to properly articulate the general conservative values he represents.  He spoke of the debt burden our governments are heaping upon our children…a subject I personally am quite passionate about.  He understands that this burgeoning generational debt is unconscionable.  He “gets it”.  I did note, however, that he chose to use the current ‘official’ federal debt number of roughly 14 trillion in articulating this.  As astonishing and staggering as that sum may be, it is not a survival threat to the United States as the preeminent economic force on our world.  The real number (see www.usdebtclock.org) is on the order of 55 trillion dollars…which places our entire society at risk going forward.  I firmly believe the voters are not in need of panacea; and that the first step in reconciling our government expenditures with reality is recognizing the true scope of the problem.

Jamie Herrera

Jamie spoke reasonably well, but was not particularly inspiring to me.  She has an advantage in that she currently represents Washington’s 18^th District in Olympia, and as a staunch Republican in a liberal dominated state house, she can really look to her record to give examples of how she will work for us in DC (thank you for your work, Jamie!).  However, in her piece, she did not focus on any particulars in this way.   She did give us some background about herself, which is somewhat important, but one thing that I noticed in both Jamie’s speech and David’s was a lack of specifics.  I frankly found this type of ‘we have hard work ahead of us’ pabulum reminiscent of campaigning from a time when most voters weren’t that engaged…say, just a few years ago.  I know that this was intended to be primarily an introduction, but nonetheless I mark the absence.

Jon Russell

As I earlier stated, I’m quite familiar with Jon’s position on many issues, and have chosen to back him.  You must therefore accept my comments with that provision in mind!

Of the three speakers I heard on Saturday, I thought Jon was the most motivating; the most connected with the audience.  He did a little bit of an introduction by stating he was the one candidate there that was a business person first and foremost rather than a career government person, and this gave him a better basis to understand the societal contributions and needs of small businesses.  I appreciated the way he was able to make relevant his intro and bio to his behavior as a future legislator.  Jon also did speak to some specifics; of the three, he was the one who specifically stated he holds to term limits, and that he will propose legislation to make this the law of the land.  He spoke of how he uses the Constitution of the United States as the prism through which he shall analyze all legislation he considers.  He said these things is a measured yet passionate tone that I think will be able to connect to voters…voters who will respond with emotion to his Constitutionalist message as well as intellectually to the specificity and thoughtfulness inherent in that message.

Dave Hedrick

I was unfortunate in not hearing Dave speak at this event; I’m not sure if he was expected by the organizers or not.  He had an opportunity to speak some time after the others had concluded and I was engaged elsewhere.  I have, however, heard him speak several other times and will comment on his general presentation, not the specifics of his piece.

 I first saw Mr. Hedrick at the famous First Baird Town Hall last summer.  It was gratifying to see 3,000 people all wanting to speak their minds!  There were several quite articulate speakers at that event…but Dave was the one who put it all in a nutshell.  He was able to encapsulate the frustration at the arrogance in our government the best, even though he was not by any stretch the most eloquent.  When Dave shouted, “You keep away from my kids!” I looked at my wife and stated “that guy is going to be on TV”.

 Having heard him subsequently, I stand by that original assessment.  Dave represents the righteous wrath of a constituency treated like sheep, rising up against the cynical faux-tyrants in government who would prefer to keep it that way.  Semper Fi, Mr. Hedrick, continue the fight!  I’m just not positive that the best service he can do for us is sitting in DC.  I’m also skeptical that a message of anger borne of extreme frustration (however righteous and appropriate) is going to connect with enough voters to get him there.

So there it is…my ‘gut check’ reaction to this past Saturday’s event.  As always, this is my opinion you’re looking at, and I totally understand there’s more to picking a candidate than just an initial reaction of one guy.  Please take it for what is worth, “do your own due diligence”, and for the sakes of your country and your children, be vigilant…educate yourself and others…find your candidate…and work to “Take Back Your Republic”.

Our Contributors’ views are their own, as always.

Budget deficits have not only gripped matters on a national level, but have wreaked havoc on local governments as well. Here in Washington, Olympia cut six million from the Battle Ground School District (BGSD) this year and is said to be looking at cutting an additional seven million next year.

My husband and I personally met with BGSD Superintendant, Dr. Shonny Bria, and her senior staff members regarding this issue. It was clearly demonstrated to us the BGSD is making every effort possible to be fiscally responsible and that these are indeed dire times for our schools, our kids, and our community.

However, If you are like me and believe strength comes from the individual, not Olympia, and that local matters are best handled at local levels, not bureaucrats in Olympia or D.C.,  please vote yes on the 2010 Levy.

Our kids. Our schools. A strong community.

This is a short op-ed piece submitted by Diana to the Columbian.