R-71 qualifys for November vote!

With the Referendum 71 signature-check now nearly complete, state election officials say they've now confirmed that sponsors turned in more signatures than needed to qualify for a spot on the November statewide ballot. Signature-checkers passed the 121,000 mark on Monday, the 23rd day of an exhaustive hand check of all 137,000-plus signatures submitted on July 25.

It takes 120,577 valid Washington voter signatures to qualify a referendum to the state ballot. Voters will now have a choice of accepting the new law or rejecting it.

The numbers still are unofficial and not final, as checkers do one final check of hundreds of previously rejected signatures of people who weren't initially found in the voter registration records. That should extend the margin a bit, but the final margin could be in the range of 1,000.

Final certification is scheduled for Wednesday morning by Secretary of State Sam Reed.

Gary Randall
FaithandFreedom.us

In the Know

Should the Government Stop Dumping Money Into a Giant Hole?

Public Option Will Lower Private Health Insurance Premiums...to Zero

by Paul Guppy

Responding to the concern that setting up a government-run public option insurance plan would inject politics into American health care, public option backers are saying, “Right. And that’s a good thing.”

A recent Washington Post article reports, “Economists in this [pro-public option] camp say a public option would not under price insurers so as to drive them out of business; political pressures from medical providers would restrain Congress just as it is restrained today from limiting Medicare rates too much.” The article adds, “And the [public] option's pricing powers would be limited by political pressures against driving too hard a bargain on providers.”

This is a novel argument; bringing “political pressures” into the private marketplace makes the market more efficient. I'd sure like to know the names of the economists in the public option camp who say lobbying Congress is a form of healthy market competition. Ample real-world experience shows the opposite. Massive government intervention distorts markets, reduces the benefits of competition, and leads to waste, inefficiency and cronyism, not lower prices and better service.

We already have an example from the world of health care. Every year Congress experiences a political firestorm as it tries to save Medicare from bankruptcy by cutting reimbursement rates to doctors. The American Medical Association, not surprisingly, vigorously objects and lobbies hard to preserve or increase payments to doctors. A deal is reached and the controversy is re-scheduled for the following year. Whether this management technique is saving Medicare or sinking it faster is an open question, but I doubt most Americans want their own health plan run this way.

The current lack of competition in health care comes from politicians, not insurers. Health insurance is perhaps the most highly regulated economic activity in the country, with price controls, limits on products, extensive reporting rules, a ban on interstate sales, high barriers to entry, unequal tax treatment, and a host of minutely detailed federal and state regulations. Congress and state legislatures should first repeal the anti-competitive laws that they enacted, and force insurance companies to compete more against each other, before Congress sets up an insurance company of its own.

Another version of the public option idea is for the government to create nonprofit co-ops, like Group Health, but there is no particular policy advantage to health co-ops. Group Health faces the same problems of health care mandates, malpractice lawsuits, rising inflation and Medicaid cost-shifting as every other hospital. The only difference is all these financial strains are handled in-house, rather than billed out to a separate insurer.

Most Group Health members get their coverage through their employers. So on paper a Group Health member might be called a member/owner instead of a customer, but in practice it functions just like any other insurer – lose your job, you lose your Group Health coverage. Health co-ops are not an alternative to insurers, for the simple reason that a co-op is an insurer.

The President says that under his plan if you like your current insurance coverage you can keep it. This is simply not true. He forgets that most of us do not own our own health coverage, we get it from our employers. When employers find they can no longer afford to provide insurance they will drop their current plans, which in turn will force workers into the government option plan. Even the eight million Americans covered by personally-owned Health Savings Accounts would be forced on to the public option, as Congress decides these affordable high-deductible plans do not meet the federally-mandated definition of health insurance.

Public option supporters are right about one thing. A public option would reduce the cost of private insurance premiums. It would reduce it to zero, as private insurers go out of business trying to compete against a federal insurance plan that can print its own money.

Paul Guppy is Vice President for Research at Washington Policy Center, a non-partisan independent policy research organization in Seattle and Olympia.

Gingrich Predicts Anti-liberal Eruption

I recommend the following article by Jed Babbin of Human Events. He warns of the Democrat folly of insulting their constituents and mentions by name, Rep. Brian Baird of Washington's 3rd District, as having "plumbed the depths" by comparing the town hall protesters to Hitler's Brownshirts and Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma federal building. This has to be good news for my friend Jon Russell who is a candidate for Congress in the 3rd District.

Second Reagan Revolution?

There is a political energy in America now, reminiscent of the 2007 immigration debate that Republicans could capture and turn to their advantage next year. It could become a revival of the “Reagan Democrats” -- moderate Democrats and independents who vote for Republicans when they believe they are being betrayed by liberal Democrats. Read more.

R-71 Campaign Requests Emergency Hearing to seal names of donors

Protect Marriage Washington has submitted a letter (see below) to the Public Disclosure Commission to grant an Emergency Hearing and to otherwise seal the names of donors to the R-71 campaign as a result of threats of violence, including Bellingham, Washington resident John Bisceglia's nationwide inciting to use violence against churches, government property, and ALL of those working on the R-71 campaign. He goes so far as to urge people to get guns and kill. Protect Marriage Washington has not as of yet received a response from the PDC.

LETTER TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION

August 6, 2009

Public Disclosure Commission
711 Capitol Way,
#206 PO Box 40908
Olympia, WA 98504-0908

RE: Request for an Emergency Hearing for Suspension or Modification of Reporting

Requirements - Donors to Protect Marriage Washington and the R-71 campaign

Dear Commissioners: I represent the interests of the Protect Marriage Washington, the organization that has spearheaded Referendum 71 ("R-71). Protect Marriage Washington is now making a written request for an Emergency Hearing for Suspension or Modification of Reporting Requirements, and asking that any disclosures made prior to any hearing be held under seal.

The reason for the emergency request is because of recent threats levied by opponents to the measure against the lives and property of principals involved in this Referendum at any level.

On August 3, 2009, the following threat was retrieved from the website Queer Equality Revolution http://gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/2009/08/gays-who-make-sense.html, blogger and Bellingham, Washington resident John Bisceglia making the following threat:

"I advocate using violence against the property of ALL of those who are working tirelessly to HURT my family; starting with churches and government property. Government is enabling a vote on whether or not I "should be allowed" to see my husband [sic] while he is dying in the hospital - any NORMAL man would be driven to get a gun and kill those who tried such evil cruelty against his loved ones."

This matter has already been referred to the FBI, because on its face is the incitement to use violence against potentially the Federal Courthouse in Tacoma, and a Federal Judge (and may include a threat against the PDC, the Secretary of State and so on). This is a true threat to the lives and property of those people who support the referendum process - in this case, to validate the actions of the state legislature to modify 201 statutes in a single bill.

The state of Washington has defined true threats:

A "true threat" is a statement made "in a context or under such circumstances wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted . . . as a serious expression of intention to inflict bodily harm upon or to take the life of [another individual]. State v Knowles, 91 Wash. App. 367, 373, 957 P. 2d 797 (1998).

The fear of harm aroused in the person threatened and the disruption that may occur as a result of that fear are some of the reasons why true threats are not protected speech. [Citation omitted]. That fear does not depend upon whether the speaker in fact intends to carry out the threat. For this reason, we hold, along with the vast majority of courts, that the First Amendment does not require that the speaker intend to carry out a threat for it to constitute a true threat. State v. Kilburn, 151 Wash. 2d 36, 46, 84 P. 3d 1215 (2004).

According to RCW 9A.46.020, a person is guilty of felony harassment if they threaten to kill a person without lawful authority. A reasonable person would take the statement about getting a gun and killing people who support R-71 as a true threat.

Given the scope of the threat to include "ALL of those" working with the R-71 project, Protect Marriage Washington now seeks an Emergency Hearing to Modify Reporting Requirements to redact or otherwise seal the names, occupations and addresses of those persons and entities required to be listed on form B, form C3 and form C4.

Attached as Exhibit 1, please find the website posting of John Bisceglia as referenced above. Attached as Exhibit 2, please find an additional posting by John Bisceglia naming Gary Randall and Larry Stickney as the recipients of Bisceglia's anger and harassment. We note that the threat set forth above is also an incitement to violence by others.

In addition, there have been clear threats by whosigned.org to intimidate voters and prevent signatures. The Secretary of State's own website posted the following:

Spokesmen for the new project [whosigned.org] say they want voters to think twice about signing the petitions and that opponents of R-71 should be able to talk with their neighbors and townspeople who signed to explain the ramifications. http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/06/who-signed . . .(The Secretary of State may have removed this link).

Here is another threat:

"whosigned.org will fix YOUR little red wagon. We [meaning whosigned.org] shall boycott the businesses of EVERYONE who signs your odious, bigoted petition. Rest assured of THAT. Father Raymond Superior (retired), Community of the Resurrection." quilisma@cox.net

Here is another threat:

"You [sic] better stay off the Olympic peninsula. It's a very dangerous place filled with people who hate racists, gay bashers and anyone who doesn't believe in equality. Fair is fair." rockettrike@rocketmail.com

Pursuant to RCW 42.17.370, commission shall find that a manifestly unreasonable hardship exists if reporting the names required under 42.17.341 "would be likely to adversely affect the competitive position" of the entity filing the report. There can be no question that death threats, threats to destroy property, threats to kill with a gun, and the inciting of violence in national blogs against named supporters of R-71 are "likely to adversely affect the competitive position" of R-71 proponents.

Given the possibility of the commission of serious crimes resulting from the publication of the names of the donors supporting R-71, Protect Marriage Washington furthers seeks written confirmation from your office that any names and addresses required to be disclosed on forms B, C3, and C4 will be sealed from public disclosure until such a time as the Commission can hear this request.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Stephen Pidgeon
Attorney at Law, P.S.

Republican Summer Picnic

On Saturday I helped to organize the annual Whatcom Republican picnic and it turned out to be a wonderful success. As we planned for the event we anticipated around 150 guests but by the time it was all said and done we had 260 people attend our summer barbeque. It was held in an airport hangar at the lovely Meadow Mist Airport in Ferndale. The weather cooperated and the food was exceptionally good. There were many dignitaries and several local candidates in attendance. There was also an old fashioned soap box and several people had the opportunity to "sound off".

There was a report that some Dems might show up with bullhorns to disrupt the Republican family picnic (hello!) but the event passed without incident and it turned out to be an awesome day.

Sheriff Bill Elfo and Senator Brandland

Iraqi veteran Toby

flame broiled

full house!