Donna makes good on disavow request

I have been forwarded an email from Donna Watts that the website in question was not done by her or her campaign. This is the disavowment I was looking for: the knucklehead cross burners in Simpson's district are not in Donna's campaign. Thanks to the peep who forwarded this.

What's more- Donna also gave a show of support for shared parenting legislation. I have a call into Geoff's campaign to see where he stands on shared parenting----no word back as of this morning.

Also the numbskulls on Sound Politics who took the following positions

1- "you have to prove our candidate did it."
2- "this is about character, and therefore we can post whatever we want about our opponent"

are not only wrong, but encouraging this type of attitude detracts from the moral high ground many of our candidates take in campaigns when they choose to attack issues instead of people. Also they would be fools to think that candidates who have been accused of domestic violence only fall on the Democrat side of the fence. But if you read the comment thread over there- you don't need me to tell you which SP fans are missing a chromosome or two. As an SP fan myself, I was really disappointed in the attitude taken on the mudslinging issue. It's not acceptable.

BAD FORM DONNA WATTS!!!!

Bad form on the GOP candidate Donna Watts and any other individual responsible for this smear tactic used on Democratic candidate Geoff Simpson.

I expect this type of tactic from Democrats. I expect better from Republican candidates. If you can't win on issues that affect the people in your district, don't run for office. This is a disgrace to your opponent who is a human being, his own family which is obviously going through a turbulent time, to yourself as a candidate, your party and the system by which we choose our elected officials.

Bad form- I expect to see an apology as well as some discussion at the party level for a candidate pulling this type of garbage.

Opponents of 920 and 933 admit to screwing us over

What voters should be paying attention to this week in debates on both 920 and 933 is not only the arguments used to justify taking property and the estates of dead small business owners, but also that they now acknowlede the legislature has been screwing us.

They now want an "open discussion." Note- not a solution, just a couple more years of screwing us. I wish I weren't a fan of the initiative process, but we have a tax, spend and ask no questions about it legislature to thank for that. Gregoire has called it "getting a lot done" at the end of every partisan session so far.

Funny- they didn't ask for an "open discussion" when stealing from us in the first place, they just took it.

Voter opinion on the death tax and property rights has been pretty clear in other places in the country so far, it will be interesting to watch how Washington votes.

The biggest blunder in Iraq

Why hasn't there been a draft in Iraq to defend Iraq?

While there is no shortage of blunders in this military campaign, the biggest blunder of all is that we are trying to transition military stability over to a volunteer army that is undertrained and understaffed. That isn't working- it's time for Iraq to have it's own selective service requirement.

When your own country is a battlefield, service to defend it isn't optional. Note to the left: This is how you complain about Iraq and this is how you get our troops home.

Gregoire says stick rural landowners with the bill, but leave her bank account alone

According to the Seattle Times, 933’s strike at land use rules is a magnet for lawsuits and too expensive.

Too expensive for whom?

Opponents of the bill say they don’t want to pay for the land rights, but they expect landowners to have their property devalued by tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars and foot the entire bill. Better yet, why not just confiscate all rural land for the good of the environment? Landowners should have known the risk they were taking decades ago.

How about if we reach into Queen Christine’s bank account and snatch a few hundred large for the good of us all? Would that be too expensive? Obviously it would not be expensive for anyone outside of the Gregoire household. Why should the taxpayers be saddled with the cost of letting Gregoire keep her cash? Not so funny when it’s your own money missy.

933 says if the government wants to take land or land rights, it needs to pay for it, not TAKE IT WITHOUT PAYING. Simple concept, so simple that it was framed into the constitution. Then again, the constitution never was Gregoire's strong point.

The National Organization of Child Abusers fights shared parenting legislation

Or the Ku Klux Organization of Women Klan rides again.

If you’re going to make outlandish claims on abuse, divorce and custody rates, you need to actually cite your unbiased source- or in the case of NOW, who you paid off to conduct the study. I saw a side splitter here in Washington State where they tried to tell the legislature that most attorneys were getting out of family law because couples were figuring things out for themselves in divorce and custody battles. Their source: the yellow pages. Apparently the litmus test of truth for these folks is whether or not their noses grow while they are speaking.

On the bright side- the louder NOW bigots fight against shared parenting, and the more disingenuous their tactics, the more enemies they appear to be making among those who aren’t burning bras and actually know someone who has been reamed in a custody battle. Most importantly they appear to be showing their true colors to policy makers who are more likely to know the losing side of a custody battle than the few cases of domestic violence that go unreported for years on end. Much more, the agenda to use children as a means to suck money from a former spouse is becoming more transparent with each passing year of debate on this subject as the article linked above reveals.

Here’s the scorcher on the DV stink bomb- Proposed shared parenting laws in every state begin with the following preamble- “In the ABSENCE of abuse and neglect….” The victim factory feminists seemed to have skipped over that one and insist that unreported DV is going on in every case where custody is contested; therefore we must protect women from these goons right? It must have been the same day they didn’t read that child abuse is at the hands of mothers 2:1 over fathers. DOOP! This sort of puts a fly in the ointment of claiming fathers who want custody are also patternistic abusers of children. (to NOW reps- note the use of a CITATION, notice how I haven’t paid the source of this information any money to conduct the study?)

One has to wonder why they would choose to call themselves the National Organization of Women and not something else. They may have to choose some other title as more and more women are coming out on the side of shared parenting. Perhaps some women actually prefer equality to reverse discrimination and systemic bigotry.