New Study:  Are Criminals Left Unwatched?
Freedom Foundation - 9/18/13

The public is living under a false sense of security when it comes to criminal supervision through electronic home monitoring (EHM) devices in Washington state.

In a new study with the Freedom Foundation, whistleblower Paul Murphy, a former Whatcom County Detective, claims that he has uncovered a scheme in which criminals “buy time off” of their electronic home monitoring devices. In exchange for petty favors or cash, private EHM companies, contracted by the government to monitor criminals serving time under house arrest, will look the other way when an alert comes through. Criminals use this time to illegally run errands, visit a significant other, or commit additional crimes. In the most egregious cases, criminals have committed heinous crimes such as rape and murder, or leveraged their “time off" into an alibi. 

The confusion of responsibility between government and private EHM companies is staggering, and it must be remedied quickly for the sake of public safety. Read more in our full study or in The Olympia Report's news article.

Click here to read the full report

    This little piece of work was handed out illiberally to students up at Western Washington University last week. It's a pledge card that suggests that four local candidates are in the can on a major issue that hasn't been through the complete review process.  And ho-yeah, it says vote for this foursome if you WANT TO SAVE THE PLANET.

These people (at least two of the four, who are already serving/incumbents) have a legal and moral duty to be fair-handed when the time comes to decide the GPT (Gateway Pacific Terminal) thing. This advertising promises they'll do something else.

WE won't tell you who to vote for, but if other candidates are saying  they'll vote "for" GPT, that would be just as bad.  Our position is that voting for pre-judged outcomes on anything is bad news.

WE'd just as soon see people skip voting altogether if they want our local self-government to be reduced to "winners take the spoils".  If that's the world you want, a government where candidates pre-judge issues, we'd rather see you have a nice meal, take a bike ride, get stoned, and save the stamp.

Whatcom WINS telling people to follow blindly is despicable. This promotion pushes every pretense of ethics over the cliff. Is that what "being a Democrat" has become? (Whatcom WINS is the Whatcom Democrats marketing strategy, or battle cry, this year).

What's heroic about elected officials making up their minds in advance?

That's downright indefensible, not only technically but morally unethical. Voting for pre-judgement if it suits your taste splits the community and pushes it down a dangerous and slippery slope.

This promotion also lays out a guilt trip. What's it saying - if you don't vote for these four, you're voting to trash the planet?  Apparently.

Does anybody actually believe that the "future of the global climate" is resting on the shoulders of this county, on this election (and its voters)?  That's a wild claim. People are cashing in on drama here - emotional theater. Use your head and keep this in proportion.

This pledge card - let there be no doubt that it says (wink-wink) that electing these candidates will trashcan the Gateway Pacific Terminal proposal.  The fudgy-wudgy phrasing about "how America uses its coal" doesn't fool anybody. This relays "vote this way, get your way" as a guarantee.  That's a stone's throw from "winners take the spoils." Is that your idea of good (self) government?

That's pretty insulting when you stop and think about it. The people we elect aren't supposed to pre-judge things.  If they got elected, they should recuse themselves (as if they would). Campaign promises are rarely worth the paper they're printed on. 

Now, some people are so fanatical they think that "the ends justify the means" and pre-judging is okay in this case. Whaa???  Are these candidates saying "Who needs the Corps of Engineers and the EPA?"  Would they ignore any law or regulation that suits them?

It comes down to trust and integrity. Do you want honesty and fairness, or just one result?  Can you trust anybody who would act like that? These people take an oath to be objective; to uphold and defend the rule of law, instead of popular fads. 

WE could go on, but why not let George Carlin close for us, in his own inimitable way? (Caution, strong language!)

WE think the mission creep has gotten way out of hand:

Campaign seasons are hectic, and across the state thousands of candidates are running for office. Sometimes the WA Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) doesn’t catch discrepancies that it should on its own. But it posts everything it receives for public review and scrutiny, and relies on that to help keep campaign finance forthright.

Ken Mann, running for re-election as a county councilman, reported in July on his PDC Form C-4 that his 2013 campaign fund was being seeded with a modest “left over” cash balance of $73.60 from his 2009 campaign fund.

There was a problem with that figure.

Following his election to Council in 2009, Mann’s end-of-cycle PDC Form C-4 dated January 11, 2010, reported unspent campaign funds of $7,787.47.

So $7,713.87 has gone unreported or missing. WE have no idea which. But this needs to get straightened out officially.

Elected folks who plan to stand for election more than once are required to follow the provisions of state law found in RCW 42.17A.430 (6), “Disposal of surplus funds.” They’re supposed to set up a “surplus account” to properly account for unspent funds.This law clearly states that “The surplus funds of a candidate or a candidate’s authorized committee may only be disposed of in any one or more of "... the several ways" spelled out in the statute.

But between January 2010 and May 2013, the PDC didn’t receive or post any reports amended or otherwise from Mann concerning the “left over” funds from the 2009 campaign. Despite having more than three years to do so, it appears that the PDC (and thus Mann’s contributors and the public) has no idea how he spent or otherwise disposed of these campaign funds.

Washington State’s public disclosure laws establish a citizen-complaint driven process. On July 3, a complaint was filed with the state’s Public Disclosure Commission to bring the matter to their attention. On July 10 the PDC acknowledged receipt of the complaint and advised they were undertaking a preliminary review of the matter. Because the Commission sometimes receives complaints deemed frivolous, they advise filers they have not made a determination whether a formal investigation or any enforcement action may be warranted at the preliminary stage. Candidates are given time to get their paperwork caught up, as a practical courtesy.

When weeks passed without a response from Mann, on August 16 PDC Director of Compliance Philip Stutzman wrote to confirm that a formal investigation would be made (PDC Case No. 14-001), and he advised Mann of this to provide yet another opportunity to explain what happened to the money and to file amended PDC reports. The PDC posts the reports that it receives to the public promptly, usually within 24 hours of receipt.

When the discrepancy continued to go uncorrected, on August 27 a package of hard copies of the complaint with supporting documents, PDC letters, and a cover letter were delivered directly to Mr. Ralph Schwartz at the Bellingham Herald offices. According to a first-hand account, Mr. Schwartz opened the package, took a quick look at the contents and remarked, “Almost $8,000 – that’s not chump change!” and Schwartz added that he’d take the matter up with his editor, Debbie Townsend, when she returned from vacation after Labor Day. WE understand that he then added that the paper “would likely not want to do anything that might impact the outcome of an election.”

Really?

According to further accounts since, it seems the Herald has made it clear that it has no interest of informing the public or keeping them otherwise abreast of this until the PDC investigation is finished “hopefully by late October.” Apparently the “newspaper” does not want to inform the general public of the publically-available but not easily located facts that have led the state Public Disclosure Commission itself to pursue a formal investigation. As of this writing, the investigation is very “live”, and ongoing.

WE are citizen journalists who fundamentally “do what we do” because the public has little choice but to share news on its own around here, filling in gaps that the “official” press refuses to address.

All we’re saying is (a) Mann ought to get with it and straighten this out well before October, and (b) the Herald shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the PDC's official concerns about a confirmed problem. WE think the press could handle this tactfully, if it wanted to. Straight up reporting shouldn't be considered a matter of taking sides. We need a press that will report news as it happens, to be worthy of our respect and reliance. Mann's campaign would probably benefit from the same kind of trustworthy openness with the PDC right now, too.

Update (10/06/13): We received this press release: Whatcom County Councilman Under PDC Investigation for Campaign Finance Violations

    WE just received a PDF copy of a passionate letter that county councilwoman Kathy Kershner dashed out on September 13th to the DOJ and EPA in Washington D.C. pleading for the fair-handed and balanced treatment of Rader Farms here in Whatcom County.

      If the Bellingham Herald's account below is correct, the scale of fines related to the federal government's case for blueberry farming this 10-acre parcel seem unbelievably mean-spirited and way out of proportion:

That's outrageous, and in some ways this reminds us of the Idaho Sackett Case that the Pacific Legal Foundation took to the Supreme Court (and won) and also the Koontz Case.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected disproportionate EPA actions.

Without analyzing the ins and outs of the case or the letter, WE definitely admire Kershner's grit and willingness to stand up and fight for someone like this.

        Everyone who lives in Whatcom County (left or right) knows the truth about how blatantly partial the press is in these parts. This situation has existed for so long that even the guys on the beat don't begin to pretend that they don't "lean left." Despite the local facts of life, WE had no idea how truly insidious coaching to lie has become where it comes to climate change. Check this out:

"CLIMATE CHANGE FOR JOURNALISTS" OFFERS A PRIMER IN LYING TO YOUR READERS, Sept 16 2013
Jeff Rhodes, Electronic News Editor - Libertyville.org
Email

Those who believe, as I do, that the mainstream media overwhelmingly tilt to the left usually concede this bias is more institutional than conspiratorial in nature. 

Journalists don’t normally sit in meetings and plot ways to tell only one side of the story; they simply write from their own personal perspective — which tends to be almost exclusively liberal. Usually very liberal.

There are, however, exceptions to this rule as I discovered last week when I attended a two-day “Climate Change for Journalists” workshop hosted by the Seattle Times. Held at the Bullitt Center, which bills itself as the “world’s greenest building,” and conducted by the University of Rhode Island’s Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, the event was precisely what we’re told never happens: a conscious, deliberate effort to coach reporters on the finer points of deceiving their readers and viewers into believing climate change is settled science.

Not that the assembled “journalists” needed a lot of arm-twisting. Reading though the bios of those who, like me, wangled invitations to the workshop, I noticed a participant who attended “on behalf of people who grow and raise our food, not all of whom accept that climate change is real.” Another proudly noted his “major area of interest is how the rhetoric and science of climate change, biodiversity loss and human health inform the creation of public policy.”

Four attendees were Seattle Times staffers, not including Kathy Best, the publication’s managing editor, who proudly introduced the event’s speakers.

I didn’t ask for a show of hands, but I’d be willing to wager I was the only climate change agnostic among the journalists present. As for the presenters…forget about it.

The first session of the day, for example, promised attendees “…a strong scientific and policy foundation for journalists covering the broad implications of climate change, just in time for the next highly anticipated report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” For the record, not once in the discussion did anyone bother to point out that, in the IPCC’s previous report, it was caught redhanded falsifying its findings to look like man-made CO2 emissions were causing global warming, even though scientific evidence showed nothing of the kind.

This was followed, even more disturbingly, by a session with Hedia Adelsman, representing the Washington State Department of Ecology, who cheerily informed her audience that, “If there’s one thing we know for certain, it’s that human activities are changing the climate in ways that have committed us to centuries of change in temperature, preciptation, sea level rise and change in ocean chemistry, posing risks to our environment, econmony and way of life.”

And so it went with one speaker after another reassuring those who already agreed with them that there was only one viewpoint worth considering.

In point of fact, if there’s one thing we know for certain, it’s that nothing in science is ever certain. For every true believer the Metcalf Institute can trot out claiming the question of global warming is settled, I can counter with an equally distinguished skeptic. That isn’t to say either side is right. Clearly there are differing views on the subject and, despite what zealots in government and academia would have you believe, nothing close to a consensus exists on either side. 

And as a journalist, I’m fine with presenting both sides of the issue. What I’m not fine with is obvious collusion to ignore facts that don’t comport with preconceived environmental and political biases. It's not fair to the issues and, more importantly, it's not fair to the American people.

When WE think of a collaborative economy, it's usually something like this:

For some, it seems, WE'd be wrong. According to self-styled financial advisor and Port of Bellingham District 1 commissioner candidate Renata Kowalczyk, economics means something completely different from the tried and true principles that Nobel laureate Milton Friedman presents in the video.

While Renata's campaign website (cached) and press statements relay a reassuring tone to assure the public that she's grounded in the traditions and common sense of a free market and downright jazzed about the ability of the Port to invigorate the local economy, her rhetoric and slogans fail to reveal the full ideology that predominates her “Collaborative Economy Catalyst” website and her “5 Keys” promotional brief.

It appears that away from the campaign trail Renata (the only name shown on campaign signs) predicts that the economy will never return to "normal" (after what WE assume means the Crash of 2008). But she says there’s a "new normal" being created, The Collaborative Economy that she's a “catalyst” for. What would the "new normal" be, when it’s at home?  And who says that this “new normal” is desirable? Is the idea to get elected, then personally nudge the body of her "collaborative" economic theories and other transitions into public policy?  What are the "brand new rules" she has in mind?  She's fuzzy about 'em.

It's significant that beyond her campaign site, Renata writes about wanting “a new life in which connection and collaboration matter more than anything else."  That begs the question:  Which connections and what kinds of collaboration does Renata have in mind for the Port?  A little searching revealed that she's tied-in tight with BALLE and Sustainable Connections, and a private investment group known as WIN (Whatcom Investment Network). The first two are highly ideological and the third seems more than a little secretive about its operations.

[WE want to make a critical point up front: Free market economics is not some artificial or sophomoric construct dreamed up in dorms, or by a bunch of hippies in a (pot) smoke filled room somewhere. Healthy, vibrant commerce rests on natural law (specifically, human nature in this case) that plays out every day, regardless of anybody’s personal agenda, would-be financiers who might try to monopolize it, or regime mandates. Past, present or future, when powers govern against nature, they're bound to fail. From even before the First Thanksgiving, human history is littered with failed regimes that refused to acknowledge that simple truth.]

So... Renata waxes big on communal ("community") resource-sharing strategies, like “in kind” exchanges of goods and services, suggesting that collaborative transactions are somehow better and more satisfying than trading in cash. Sure, sometimes swapping goods and services makes sense (and it generally isn't taxable*). But often times you, or the person you want to do business with, won’t have anything that you want to exchange tit-for-tat. That's why trading with currency has long been considered a major advance beyond tribal economics. Cash (currency) is a token for trading-at-will that liberates one to obtain the goods or services that you do want. And with cash, you have a method of counting and saving, for measuring success, and keeping things straight. Without a means of measurement there can be no real accountability. A cash economy offers flexibility and vast opportunities; reverting to more primitive standards is regressive.

After eschewing cash, Renata then goes completely off the rails and celebrates a flaky transaction using Life Dollars. Micro-brew currency might be fine for a commune or a small subculture, but it seems odd that a serious contender for public office would be quite so uncritical about it.

Why are WE telling you this? We're concerned that Renata will bring some risky, untested and bizarre ideas to the Port, most particularly the collectivist agenda driven by her affiliations with Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE) and Sustainable Connections. These groups have been holding and promoting workshops led by Renata for quite some time; one was held just last week.  What services Whatcom Investing  Network  (WIN) provides as a "local lending network" we don't know, but Renata describes it glowingly in cash terms:

    "I participated in the creation of a local lending network that grows our local economy by making sure small businesses have access to capital they need, right in our community.  In its first year, we loaned out over a half million dollars."

[Documents forwarded to the Vator reveal that WIN’s investment operations have been under review by the State of Washington’s Department of Financial Institutions for about a year.  Check out WIN’s long trail of evasive tap-dancing here, and here, and here.] 

BALLE?  Like Sustainable Connections, BALLE blatantly pushes a globalist-collectivist agenda, with tentacles that reach well beyond local, despite the “localist” community-building image they promote. Their objective is to change the world, evidently without bothering with the consent of the people. How presumptuous is that? (Very.)  All this would be academic if its collaborators weren't itching to get mitts on a hefty lever of power, to shift things into some other gear.

The Port of Bellingham has a budget of $40-50 million annually (in greenbacks), and it’s not a social club or an agent for social change. It’s a public service agency that’s supposed to perform practical functions and provide uniform service. Git ‘er done, not change the world.

So WE think it's important for everyone to know what principles motivate the candidates running for this public office, and we think Renata's beliefs about society and the “new normal” are being soft-pedaled. WE have to ask:

• Renata claims that she’s bringing ivy-league credentials in economics and a rich history of Wall Street experience to her candidacy. But then she says she’s rejected all that, to achieve a "new American dream". Which Renata would we get if she were elected, and which principles would she employ in office?
• Does she feel that the people should control and define their government, or the opposite? She’s a relative newcomer (so new some would even say a carpetbagger). She wants this important seat for what reason?
• Renata speaks of alternative currency and relying on "connections".  Would that limit the opportunities of the people that she and her affiliates don't connect with? Would the unconnected find themselves on a less than level playing field, unwelcome? Will collectivist (oops - collaborative) political litmus tests be added to Port policies?
• Renata seems to prefer a cashless economy for many things. Would her brand of “collaborative" economics overlap into the use of public resources? Without dollars and cents accountability and auditability, all sorts of mischief can go undetected. That's the opposite of the kind of transparency in government that informed citizens want and demand. How will Renata's tenure be audited? Will she faithfully follow standard accounting rules, or side-step them as WIN seems to?
• Are the “connections” of which Renata speaks tantamount to crony socialism, crony capitalism, or just plain favoritism? Without accountability, how would we be able to evaluate that? 

Are WE deliberately spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) here? You bet we are, and rightly so! And it will remain so, until the candidate answers such questions to everyone's satisfaction. 

Even without FUD, there's good reason to feel that Renata's connections (sustainable or otherwise) are patently unpalatable to free market realists, countywide. (We're guessing the Tea Party was suckered.)

___________________
*an interesting dichotomy for those statist, illiberal control freak 'progressives', who never saw an expanding government bureaucracy they didn't like. Who will pay for it, if all the collectivists in their little communes are trading goods and services in kind, under the table and below the government radar? Oh yeah, the One Percenters, that's who.

On August 29, the Bellingham Herald published this article about the possible untimely release of a criminally insane mental patient into unsupervised leave in open society. Fortunately, Sheriff Bill Elfo and his counterparts in other counties managed to stall the release for the time being.

The article states, "[Per Olaf] Johansson, 35, is notorious in Whatcom County. He was arrested in December 2010 and charged with second-degree murder and second-degree assault. According to charging papers, he stabbed his father at least 30 times in a deluded rage, and stabbed his mother and 13-year-old niece. The two women survived; Johansson’s father didn’t."

There are dreamers who say that criminals should be rehabilitated. Maybe they should be -- if they can be. There are dreamers who say that other cultures put the victim and the perpetrator together face-to-face in the town square (instead of a jail or prison) to make them resolve their differences, making both whole again. Uh huh. Force them to shake hands and make up. If only it were that easy. 

Anyway, WE told you that so WE could show you this: The dreamers in Olympia evidently think  "low barrier" housing for sex offenders, felons, fugitives, and drug users would be a good idea. The Freedom Foundation published another expose' of foolhardiness and wishful thinking at the citizens' expense. The article contains a litany of neglected priorities and unwise trade-offs. 

Not only does this housing project open the door for dangerous occupants, the article states, "the Olympia City Council and Thurston County Commissioner Valenzuela want to take the approach of no questions asked, no ID needed, no idea who is staying at the “low-barrier” homeless project in Olympia. Their preference means there’s $400,000 less to use for families and children who are homeless."

WE think it would be wise for elected officials and bureaucrats to consider these two articles in context of one another before going off half-cocked on risky Utopian 'progressive' policies. 

This nation was founded on the idea that we are citizens to be free, not subjects to be managed. Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to M. L'Hommande in 1787 , “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.” The original purpose of the American government was to protect our freedom and liberty, not to restrict it. 

For nearly 200 years, the default status of the American people was that we were at liberty to do pretty much whatever we wanted (especially on our own property), with very few exceptions – and those were usually related to the consideration of the rights of others. 

Today, the situation is nearly reversed. The default status is that we need permission to do just about anything. We are at liberty to do only the most mundane and trivial pursuits. As WE have said before, government is taking our rights, and selling them back to us as permits – if they're permitted at all. 

Today, if you decide to build, dig, landscape, or start work on much of anything on your own property, you'd best check with the city and/or county and/or state and/or the feds, or face fines – or worse. Really, what's the point of owning property if the only privilege you gain is paying taxes, without any of the advantages of self-determination? 

WE know what you're thinking: It can't happen here! Wanna bet? In the latest installment of Freedom Foundation's Tales of Tyranny series, we have this, from right here in River City:

Read the full article, Tales of Tyranny: Joe Remenar’s “Illegal” Wildlife Habitat at Freedom Foundation's website.