Patty Murray and Speaker Ryan: Partners in Crime.  Creation of a National Database | Breitbart

A bill sponsored by Paul Ryan and Patty Murray may increase surveillance of American citizens and create a national database.

Source: Paul Ryan-Patty Murray Bill Will Allow Creation of National Database

The activists – many who have been battling federal control of education for nearly a decade – say the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (FEPA) (H.R. 4174; S. 2046) and the College Transparency Act (CTA) (H.R. 2434; S. 1121) – would create surveillance and tracking systems of American citizens in the name of “transparency” and “program evaluation.”

“Both of these bills would expand and further entrench the administrative swamp that President Trump promised to drain,” says Washington, D.C.-based American Principles Project (APP).

The group, which seeks to protect the constitutional rights of Americans, says the FEPA legislation “would take the first step toward establishing a massive, centralized federal database that would metastasize into a Chinese-style system of government dossiers on citizens.”

APP explains the rationale behind the bill is that data needs to be analyzed in order to determine if government programs are effective.

“But even if we needed a mammoth database to tell us most government programs do not work, there is little likelihood Congress will stop funding useless or damaging programs merely because it has more data,” the organization states, citing the continual funding of the Head Start program.

advertisement

Under the guise of helping high school students make more informed choices about higher education, the College Transparency Act (CTA) (H.R. 2434) would allow a federal student unit-record system that would track every American citizen who enrolls in higher education.

CTA – introduced in May by Michigan Rep. Paul Mitchell (R) – is purported to enable students to obtain information that could be helpful in making a decision about higher education. Parent and education activists, however, say under the bill the tracking of students will be done without their consent or knowledge, and their data will be matched with that from other federal agencies – such as Social Security and the U.S. military – to form a dossier on each citizen throughout their lives and careers.

APP senior fellow Emmett McGroarty released the following statement:

It’s difficult to imagine legislation more at odds with America’s founding principles than FEPA and CTA. The very thought of allowing the government to surveil and track citizens throughout their lives should be anathema in a free society. Compiling such intrusive dossiers would vastly expand the power of the administrative state, intimidating citizens into silence and further weakening government accountability that in too many cases is already in tatters. Congress must defeat these bills and protect individual freedom.

Indiana parent education activist Erin Tuttle writes at Hoosiers Against Common Core, “It is striking how Congress is completely dysfunctional when it comes to passing legislation that would fulfill their campaign promises to Republican voters, yet pulls it together to pass legislation which does the opposite.”

Tuttle explains a vote on FEPA may be scheduled as early as Wednesday, November 15, and adds:

advertisement

Instead of dismantling the Administrative State, this bill would allow bureaucrats to propose to collect any data on any citizen on any topic they want, to answer their desired policy questions … [M[any Republican members of Congress have been misled to believe HR4174 would allow better transparency in how federal agencies operate. They owe it to their constituents to be informed on the details of this legislation before the vote.

The activists observe the federal government already has significant amounts of data that have not improved its programs. Additionally, they argue in a letter circulated to various groups and obtained by Breitbart News that the federal government “has demonstrated its utter incompetence at protecting the security of individual data,” and cite the following examples:

  • The U.S. Education Department’s recent FAFSA data breach
  • The 2015 data theft of personal information – including Social Security numbers of about 21.5 million Americans – from the Office of Personnel Management computer systems
  • The 2015 IRS data breach of tax information of more than 100,000 taxpayers
  • Concerns about the conduct and security in 2016 of the Chief Information Officer at the U.S. Education Department

“There is no reason to believe an even more enormous trove of data can be secured, or that it will actually change government behavior in any meaningful way,” the activists state.

Murray also teamed up with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) two years ago to engineer the “bipartisan” massive new federal education law known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) – which Obama signed into law almost immediately after its passage through Congress.

 

 

What is “ERPO” in Washington Sate? Gun confiscation by another name | ZeroHedge

“…promoting the use of an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) that many believe is nothing more than a thinly veiled confiscation plan that would allow a judge to ‘issue an ex parte order’ for the direct confiscation of an American citizens’ firearms.”

Source: Mainstream Media Now Promoting “Gun Confiscation Orders” As Solution To Mass Shootings

The new push for gun control from the left comes courtesy of ABC News which recently published a piece promoting the use of an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) that many believe is nothing more than a thinly veiled confiscation plan that would allow a judge to “issue an ex parte order” for the direct confiscation of an American citizens firearms.

Unbelievably, the order can actually be issued without the firearm owner even being present, which would in turn end with police at the citizens door demanding he hand over his weapons or face violence from the state.

ABC’s Andy Fies, on the other hand, apparently wants Americans to see the orders differently, painting a more friendly picture of the ERPO’s while quoting two different left-wing gun control groups as seemingly unbiased experts on gun violence.

As of now, only Washington, California, Connecticut and most recently Oregon have ERPO laws (while Indiana and Texas have modified risk warrant statutes). Over the past year, however, spurred by a string of mass shootings beginning with the Pulse Nightclub attack that killed 49 in June 2016, legislatures in 19 states and Washington, D.C., have taken up 32 separate ERPO bills for consideration, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates for gun control.

 

Everytown’s deputy legal director, William Rosen, told ABC News that list will grow. “We expect to see at least as much interest in 2018,” he said.

 

“There is a growing consensus,” added Lauren Alfred of the gun violence prevention group Sandy Hook Promise, “that this is the first step we should be taking when we are talking about people who are at risk of hurting themselves or others.”

 

Current laws barring gun ownership are limited. Generally, a person with a long history of mental health issues can still legally buy or possess firearms if they don’t fall into specific statutory categories such as having been adjudicated mentally ill or under a domestic violence restraining order. But, as was the case with Texas church gunman Devin Kelley, even these restrictions may not work if the person’s troubled past is not recorded on a background registry.

 

With an ERPO, however, if family members or police can show a gun owner to be an imminent danger to themselves or others, they can force the person to surrender their weapon(s).

Keep in mind that Everytown for Gun Safety is a Michael Bloomberg funded, left-wing gun control group that was created as part of a rebranding effort by the billionaire gun grabber after his previous group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, was outed by multiple former members as actually pushing an agenda of full-scale gun confiscation.

 

 

 

Time for mileage tax supporters to put their cards on the table: Constitutional protection or not? | Washington Policy Center

Source: Time for mileage tax supporters to put their cards on the table: Constitutional protection or not?

 

 

Transit agnosticism: “the idea that when it comes to getting around, everything from bikesharing to the subway will do.”

This is the term USA Today used to describe an open, flexible approach to mass transit. It means that mass transit isn’t confined to rail or buses. In 2017, it “can be anything that gets you where you’re going – whether it’s on rails or hailed through an app.”

Randal O’Toole, transportation expert at Cato Institute, makes this distinction as well when he refers to public transit, clarifying that “public in public transit doesn’t refer to ownership; it refers to transport that is available to all of the public.”

As expected, some government officials and transit boosters are not fond of this progressive redefinition of mass transit, and prefer the older, outdated approach. They see ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft as “first-last” mile tools that should connect people to traditional mass transit.

Much to their chagrin, Uber and Lyft are many people’s preferred travel mode for their entire trip. This trend makes sense. Why would anyone disembark from Uber in the first mile, adding additional legs to their trip, when they could take one vehicle the whole way directly to their destination?

As a result of this shift, Uber and Lyft are no longer transportation choices government officials and transit boosters can support. Ridesharing services are, instead, treated as competitors and opponents that must be pushed out of business. As O’Toole puts it, government then regulates “privately owned transit to save publicly subsidized transit, because for some reason, subsidzed transit deserves to be ‘saved’ from private competition.”

This does not serve people or increase mobility – it serves traditional mass transit, even when it doesn’t work for all commuters. Most disappointing is that this approach reduces transportation choices and hurts people’s freedom to choose the travel mode that best works for them. Unfortunately, this is a growing sentiment in cities throughout the country.

In a recent New York Times article, author Emily Badger asks, “Is Uber helping or hurting mass transit?” She cites results from a UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies survey of 2,000 people, which “suggest that ride-hailing draws people away from public transit.” According to the study, after people in major American cities try ride-hailing, there is a 6% decrease in bus use, and a 3% decrease in light rail use. Ridesharing users felt that transit was “too slow or unreliable.”

The question The New York Times should have asked instead was whether Uber is helping or hurting people. In a world where transit is no longer a means to an end – but an end in itself – this question seems to be ignored. Badger concedes that ridesharing might be more efficient for people individually, but says it hurts the city collectively because it encourages riders to switch from transit to cars, and cars are bad for dense cities.

The author seems to understand that people choose to rideshare because it is faster and more reliable, but worries that having more cars on the road will reduce overall transportation efficiency, and therefore ridesharing should be regulated. This assumes, however, that people are not rational. In practice, people will stop choosing to rideshare if it becomes slow and unreliable. They do not need to be told. They already know what is most efficient, and adjust faster than politicians.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has taken this anti-transportation choices ideology one step further. Emanuel is proposing to increase the current 52-cent tax on all Uber and Lyft Rides in the city by 29%. This would bring the current tax to 67 cents per ride in 2018. The tax would increase to 72 cents per ride by 2019. This represents a near 40% increase in the tax rate in two years.

The tax revenue would go to the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA). Emanuel’s administration does not like that Uber and Lyft compete with traditional mass transit, complaining that “the ride-hailing industry has drained $40 million from city and other local government coffers, in part by shifting some commuters away from the CTA.” In other words, commuters are not making the choice he wants them to make, so they should be punished.

The Chicago mayor is proud of the tax and says, “[Chicago] will be the first city to tap into the ride share industry for resources to modernize our transportation system.” If this statement doesn’t demonstrate that irony is dead, then I don’t know what does.

Rather than hamstring transportation choices that compete with traditional mass transit, government should encourage innovation and allow transportation services to compete with one another.

When we encourage monopolies in mass transit, public transit agencies collect more revenue without any incentive to provide better service, and commuters have fewer transportation choices. On the other hand, when we encourage competition among various mass transit options, we preserve the freedom of commuters to choose the best and most cost-effective mode for their needs. This is the better approach.

Oil, coal train fines in Spokane go to voters | Spokesman Review

On the question of whether Spokane can – or should – fine the owners of rail cars transporting certain crude oil and coal through downtown, both sides say they’re on the right side of the law.

Source: Oil, coal train fines in Spokane go to voters with legal path unclear

Legal certainty is a trait shared by those on both sides of the debate over whether Spokane should impose fines on coal and oil trains rumbling through downtown.

The citizens’ group behind Proposition 2, which would fine the trains, argues that federal inaction has opened a window allowing the city to demand covered coal trains and the removal of combustible gasses from rail-carried oil they say could cause a fiery explosion downtown.

Their conclusion defies the opinions of two legal experts at City Hall, and the railroads and commodities groups have taken notice of the measure, spending tens of thousands of dollars on a campaign to defeat it at the ballot box.

Mayor David Condon, who has contributed his voice to the campaign against the proposal, said although he understands the concerns of citizens about safety, imposing fines ignored federal actions to make the shipments less prone to derailment as well as efforts to improve the emergency response.

“To me, it’s such an unfortunate way of going after concerns that are legitimate that our citizens have,” Condon said. “The effort, in my opinion, is misguided or misdirected.”

Supporters of the initiative, now dogged by allegations of campaign finance violations, insist their proposal is modest and would withstand a likely legal challenge. The union representing hundreds of local firefighters have endorsed their cause, saying a downtown derailment would be catastrophic.

“The initiative was born from what these guys in the community have been warning us about, for at least the past six years that I’ve been here,” said Todd Eklof, minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church and the main sponsor and spokesman for Safer Spokane, the committee supporting the initiative.

The question has split the Spokane City Council, seen by critics as an ideological monolith tilted toward the left. The proposal originated before the panel last year, with City Council President Ben Stuckart arguing the fiery explosion in Mosier, Oregon, necessitated local action. He later reversed course and said he preferred to work directly with the railroads and federal regulators to achieve change.

Citizens gathered enough signatures to put the question before voters this November in a subsequent petition campaign.

A total of $151,000 has been raised to defeat Proposition 2. Among the largest donors are Lighthouse Resources, a corporation that owns several coal mines in Wyoming and Montana, and the railroads BNSF and Union Pacific.

The citizen group supporting the ballot initiative have raised just over $6,000, mostly from individual contributions. The largest contributor is Mike Bell, who is also serving as Safer Spokane’s treasurer.

Stuckart said in light of recent rollbacks of some environmental regulations by the Donald Trump administration, including rules on leasing federal land for coal mining, he’s now leaning toward voting for Proposition 2.

“I haven’t seen anybody locally stepping up and doing the work, at the federal and state level, lobbying to try to change the rules,” Stuckart said. “Are we just supposed to sit back and take it?”

City Councilwomen Candace Mumm and Amber Waldref said they had concerns about a protracted legal battle if the measure passes. Both said they likely will vote against the measure. City Councilwoman Karen Stratton wouldn’t comment on how she will vote, but said she, too, expected a legal fight. Councilman Mike Fagan is an outspoken critic of the measure, while his colleague, Breean Beggs, helped draft the ordinance and has been its staunchest defender on the council.

The initiative’s opponents, including Condon, cite legal opinions from the city’s hearing examiner, Brian McGinn, and the City Council’s policy adviser, Brian McClatchey, that the measure would have a slim chance of surviving a legal challenge.

Both men identified different sections of federal law to conclude that an ordinance passed at the local level would be trumped by rulemakers at the national level, opening the city to potential litigation and courtroom costs if the commodities, railroad or someone else filed a lawsuit to block its enforcement.

Condon pointed to efforts underway at the federal level, including legislation introduced in Congress by Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, calling for national standards on cargo volatility and increasing funding for firefighting training. The city also has eliminated vehicular at-grade crossings with trains to reduce the likelihood of collisions within city limits, the mayor said.

“That’s where I think we really need to focus our attention,” Condon said.

The ballot measure would also fine uncovered coal trains over concerns about dust scattering to the tracks and increasing the likelihood of derailments. Opponents, including Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, have seized on the inclusion of coal cars as evidence supporters are seeking to change environmental policy, not protect downtown.

Initiative supporters say their specific requests that coal cars be covered and the oil extracted from the Bakken shale, an oil-rich patch in western North Dakota, be treated to reduce the vapor pressure, haven’t yet been addressed by federal rulemakers. They cite a 2000 case out of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to argue that in the absence of regulation, cities can step in.

Bell, the Safer Spokane organizer and treasurer, said if the legality already was settled, the railroads would have filed a lawsuit before voters weighed in.

“They’re spending thousands of dollars to fight this on the ballot,” Bell said. “Why haven’t they already filed suit?”

BNSF spokeswoman Courtney Wallace said the campaign was “an opportunity to educate people about the value of rail.” The railroads have stressed that emergency responders work with the railroads on exercises to respond to a potential derailment, and that track inspections in the Spokane area occur even more frequently than currently required under federal law.

The city didn’t make any pre-ballot challenge because the state values the initiative process, Condon said, and taxpayers may have spent money on legal proceedings that won’t be necessary if the measure is defeated.

“We’re an initiative state. We have a very low threshold for citizen’s initiatives. I think we’re very prideful of that,” the mayor said. “On the flip side, I think the citizens need to be aware of the legal ramifications of this, and the confusion it causes.”

If the ballot measure is successful, it may not be a clear-cut victory for supporters of rail safety, said Fred Millar, a Washington, D.C.-based rail safety consultant who formerly worked for the environmentalist group Friends of the Earth.

“I worry that the proposition, if it actually became enacted, would lead to a lawsuit very quickly from the railroads,” Millar said. “I think the railroads would win on federal preemption” – the legal doctrine that federal law supersedes state law. “I don’t think the city has a chance.”

Millar said that would lead to another legal decision that continues to give Congress and federal rulemakers more authority in regulating rail. Proponents would be better served pushing for additional transparency from railroads on the type of cargo traveling through the city and pushing for explanations of why Bakken oil must be shipped through downtown, Millar said.

Opponents warn that the initiative would have the effect of putting more oil cargo on the highways, where accidents and explosions could be more frequent than on the rails. They point to studies by the Federal Railroad Administration finding that trains are four times as fuel-efficient as trucks and from the Congressional Budget Office showing trains pose a lower accident risk than trucks on the road.

“I think the safety standards that are set by the federal government to our railroad carriers seem to be very high,” Condon said.

Stuckart and the initiative’s sponsors said oil companies are unlikely to abandon rail, because it ignores the higher cost of trucking the commodities compared to lowering the vapor pressure of the oil and covering coal train cars. Oil regulators in North Dakota say stabilizing oil in train cars would cost about $2 a barrel, or around 5 cents per gallon.

They also disputed the threat of legal action should scare voters from supporting the initiative.

“It’s not going to cost any police officers on the street. It’s not going to hurt our budget,” Stuckart said. “We deal with lawsuits all the time.”

Reassessing Orwell to Understand Our Times | Scott Powell, Discovery Institute in Seattle

Source: Reassessing Orwell to Understand Our Times

 

 

Reassessing Orwell to Understand Our Times

Just two or three generations ago, most Americans understood that George Orwell’s classics Animal Farm and 1984 were written to explain how freedom is lost to totalitarianism and the intolerance that accompanies it.  “Big Brother,” a term still casually used to describe an all-knowing governing authority, comes right out of 1984. In the state that Orwell describes, all subjects are continually reminded that “Big Brother is watching you,” by way of constant surveillance through the pervasive use of “telescreens” by the ruling class.

Orwell’s warnings about totalitarianism written in novel form in Animal Farm and 1984 came shortly after Freidrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom was published at the end of World War II.  But it took the shocking revelations from books on Nazism and Soviet Communism, by scholars like William Shirer and Robert Conquest in the 1960s, to really make Orwell relevant for teaching to the masses educated in American public schools.  And it was not just an academic exercise insofar as Stalin’s successors Leonid Brezhnev and Alexei Kosygin were at that time rolling tanks into Czechoslovakia to crush all resistance — enforcing the “Iron Curtain” over eight countries in Eastern Europe — the Soviet model of totalitarian control and subservience to Moscow.

Reading Orwell, it was thought, would help American students appreciate their freedoms and gain perspective and critical faculties so as to understand socialist totalitarianism and its defining features: 1) the institutionalization of propaganda designed to warp and destroy people’s grasp on reality, and 2) the fostering of group think, conformity and collectivism designed to eliminate critical and independent thinking.

Orwell described the scope of the totalitarian enterprise, noting in one section of 1984 that “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, and every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

In 1984, Orwell said, “Who controls the past controls the future.” Orwell’s coining of the concepts and terms of “newspeak, doublethink and thought police” are what we now experience as political correctness. Newspeak is the distorted reality accomplished by manipulating the meaning of language and words, while doublethink is the conditioned mental attitude to ignore reality and common sense and substitute and embrace a distorted or false narrative. The analogs of “thought police” in 1984 are now the enforcers of political correctness seen in the mainstream media and college campuses across the country.

As Orwell notes, “the whole aim of newspeak and doublethink is to narrow the range of thought.” Political correctness has the same goal and that’s why its adherents are so intolerant — seeking to shut down and silence people with whom they disagree on college campuses, clamoring for removal of historic statues and monuments so they can rewrite history and control the future, and demanding that people with opposing views on such subjects as climate change and gay marriage be silenced, fined or arrested.

Many assume that because the press is not state-controlled in the U.S. there is a long way to go before the American government has the power of Orwell’s Big Brother.

But what if the universities and the educational system and the major television and print media institutions embrace the groupthink that ingratiates them with the ruling elite?  What if the culture shapers in Hollywood and the advertising industry on Madison Avenue follow a similar path in participating in and reinforcing the same groupthink norms?

And what if the rise of social media promote a kind of groupthink conformity that effectively marginalizes and silences opposing views? Could it then be that propaganda in a free democratic nation like America might be more effective in shaping thought and attitudes of the masses than the propaganda of totalitarian regimes affects their subjects?

Orwell’s Big Brother has become a reality in the NSA’s tracking and recording all email, text and telephone communication in the United States.  But Big Brother has a new dimension with social media and consumer giants, Google, Facebook, and Amazon, knowing almost everything about people’s preferences through their artificial intelligence peering into peoples’ “telescreen” computers and smartphones.

Social media have great power to narrow the range of acceptable thought. On Facebook, those who openly support a politically correct view — what appears to be the popular majority view — are frequently lauded with thumbs up, while dissenters often remain silent to avoid being criticized or denounced. All of which leads to what is called “the spiral of silence,” which reinforces the groupthink of what seems to be the social and cultural majority.

What comfortable and disengaged Americans have forgotten is that there are determined enemies within and there is an internal war being waged against the values and institutions that made America a great nation.

The left is the vanguard leading this war, following a course laid out by cultural Marxists such as Antonio Gramsci and members of the Frankfurt School. Becoming influential in the 1930s and beyond, they believed the “long march through the institutions” was the best route to taking power in developed, industrialized societies such as the United States and Europe. This “march” would be a gradual process of radicalization of social and cultural institutions — “the superstructure” — of bourgeois society, which would transform the values and morals of society.  In retrospect, there is a high correlation between the softening of morals over the last two or three generations and the corruption of our family, political, legal and, economic foundation.

There are three measures of the establishment’s venality.  First there is a high incidence of denial, manifest for instance in little to no discussion of the doubling of national debt in just 9 years to over $20 trillion, and unfunded entitlement liabilities now five times greater than that — conditions inviting financial collapse of the U.S. A second measure of corruption is the establishment’s reluctance to prosecute fellow establishment law breakers in government, which has effectively created a two-tiered justice system. A third measure of establishment corruption is its accommodation of extremist anti-American groups as though they have a legitimate role to play in reform and influence on policy-making — whether in taking down historic monuments, creating sanctuary cities and controlling the nation’s borders, establishing police protocols in law enforcement, fighting wars overseas, or restructuring the economy at home.

The hostility to the Trump Presidency by the establishment elite in both political parties, the media, the teachers’ unions, the university faculties, and Hollywood is probably a contrary indicator. It likely tells us more about the real state of corruption in government, the establishment media, and popular culture than it does about Trump and his peccadillos.

A society committed to maintaining liberty, prosperity, and opportunity for all needs to focus on real threats, a key one of which is now the loss of freedom of speech and the assault on the First Amendment.

One of our nation’s founders, Patrick Henry of Richmond, Virginia, was a gifted and passionate orator best known for his declaration, “Give me liberty or give me death.”  But his most important, substantive and lasting contribution to the legacy of freedom was his tenacious and ultimately successful fight to have the Bill of Rights amended to the Constitution because of his conviction that the First Amendment and nine others were absolutely necessary to protect individual liberty against the power and abuse of centralized government.

Orwell reminds us today of the critical importance of the First Amendment, noting “if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Exactly the opposite of the current trajectory and what the politically correct crowd wants.

Scott Powell is senior fellow at Discovery Institute in Seattle. Reach him at scottp@discovery.org  

Shoreline motorcyclist on ‘terrifying’ traffic stop: Threatened at gunpoint but not ticketed | The Seattle Times

Alex Randall said King County Sheriff John Urquhart called him after seeing the video and said, “This is wrong and everybody feels terrible about it.”

Source: Shoreline motorcyclist on ‘terrifying’ traffic stop: Threatened at gunpoint but not ticketed | The Seattle Times

[Ed.: We believe it’s time for your retirement party Detective. This is a cop who doesn’t know to use his authority with prudence. This is clearly a cowboy cop that shouldn’t have a badge anymore and we are fans of the men and women in blue here at EvergreenStateNews.com, but not this one.]

Rantz: Despicable abuse of power on safe injection sites

Campaigners for Initiative 27 submitted the required signatures to put on a ballot a ban on safe injection sites. But that doesn’t matter to the King County Council.

Source: Rantz: Despicable abuse of power on safe injection sites

[Ed.: “Abuse of Power” doesn’t quite do this action justice. This is downright dereliction of duty, malfeasance and misfeasance. Rantz is absolutely spot-on in his analysis of this action. It’s delaying and a completely tone deaf response to the concerns of citizens who have not been impressed with the results that Vancouver, BC is getting with this sort of facility.

I’m glad there’s an “equal protection” clause in our Constitution so that the law is always meted out equally and fairly. These people need to be locked up for their lawlessness.]

King County Council pushes public vote over injection sites to February | Q13 FOX News

SEATTLE — The danger in the streets of abuse and addiction needs attention. But is sanctioned drug-use the way to go? “People are allowed to come into these facilities and use drugs,” said Joshua Freed, the chief sponsor of Initiative 27.It would stop drug consumption sites in King County.

Source: King County Council pushes public vote over injection sites to February | Q13 FOX News

[Ed.: As predicted, the King County Council (save a few sane ones) is pulling out the stops to push this to a February Special Election ballot so that it will not be successful.]

Lawsuit seeks to block vote on safe-injection sites | KIRO-TV

SEATTLE (AP) – A group of public health experts and others are challenging a proposed King County initiative that would ban safe injection sites for drug users.

Source: Lawsuit seeks to block vote on safe-injection sites | KIRO-TV

[Ed.: Oh, is polling telling you that your precious, stupid liberal idea is going to go down in flames if you don’t sue and have the initiative quashed before you get to de facto legalize heroin in King County? Any judge who looks at this with a skeptical eye toward any health benefits of this crackpot program has to side with the sane people who do not want supervised injection sites because it doesn’t work and it draws a criminal drug element.]

Seattle landlords barred from using criminal records when renting | MyNorthwest.com

The Seattle City Council unanimously passed legislation that will bar landlords from considering criminal records when renting property.

Source: Seattle landlords barred from using criminal records when renting

[Ed.: Again the Seattle City Council overreaches. It’s like they’ve got a full-employment program for land use attorneys going on there because Seattle’s going to get their asses sued off. So, now we’re destigmatizing criminality. It should be hard to find a place to live if you’ve committed a felony. You’re potentially a danger to your fellow renters and a landlord should know if there’s a potentially heightened risk from a new tenant. Just wait until the first landlord or tenant is harmed by a felon who was not known to be so. The city’s going to lose their shorts in court(s).]

1 2