“Should marriage be redefined in our state, the very foundational nature of marriage for the good and strength of human society would be harmed beyond repair.”  Those are the words of consistently anti-gay Washington Bishop Peter Sartain.  (He was a Chicago-area bishop until 2010 when he moved to Seattle and I’ve posted an interesting link at the bottom of the blog on why this man should not really be casting stones and living in a glass house!)

Washington is one of four states that can make marriage equality a reality for all of its residents in November and this has some pushing the panic button to scare people.

The last time I checked Iowa was still a state and it had not fallen into the Mississippi River.  As a matter of fact, with over three million people, the population has increased 4.6% since the 2000 census.  Since the state legalized same-sex marriages in 2009, people are not leaving Iowa in droves for California and North Carolina, two states that recently voted down marriage equality.

When Americans go to the polls in November, the biggest contest will be to re-elect President Barack Obama or replace him with Mitt Romney.  This race is important to me and so are four other ballot measures that I cannot even vote on because they are in other states.

Voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington will decide if marriage equality is important to them and if every loving couple that live in their state should have the same rights.    Six states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New  Hampshire, and New York) and the District of Columbia already allow same-sex couples to marry.

Those rights were awarded by legislation or court rulings.  When voters in the previously mentioned four states go to the polls and approve marriage equality, history will be made and the tide will turn.

Sarah Warbelow, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights advocacy group, says, “We’re feeling positive. The reality is, we haven’t won a ballot measure on marriage yet.  I think it’s very reasonable and realistic to expect that we’ll win one or more of these ballot measures; certainly the polling suggests that all four are … a possibility.”

And, while polling numbers before an election can be off and misleading, there is definitely reason for optimism.

In Maine, a mid-September poll showed 53% support marriage equality, while 44% are opposed.

Last February, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire pushed forward and made same-sex marriage legal in that state.  However, enough signatures were gathered to force a vote in November.  The good news is that an early September poll shows that 56% are for upholding that law and making marriage equality a reality there, while 38% want it overturned.

The same thing happened in Maryland.  On March 1, 2012, Governor Martin O’Malley made same-sex marriage legal, but opponents got enough signatures to put it on the November ballot.  In a July poll, 54% of those polled are for marriage equality and 40% are against it.

However, in Minnesota, the current home state of conservative whack job Michele Bachmann, the race is much closer with 48% wanting to ban same-sex marriage and 47% for it.  While Bachmann has never been shy with her anti-marriage equality rhetoric during her failed presidential bid, she is facing stiff competition for her congressional seat in Minnesota from Jim Graves.

Graves states, “My stand is, I’ve been for 39 years in a loving and committed relationship.  I’m very fortunate. It’s been the best thing in my life and, by gosh, everybody in America has the same rights under the law and everyone should be able to marry who they want to, when they want to. As far as what churches want to do, or synagogues, again, I believe in separation of church and state. I don’t care what the Catholic Church wants to do. I happen to be born a Catholic. But under the law everybody has the same rights and I believe very strongly in dignity and respect for everybody.”

And, Graves isn’t the only high profile ally we have in Minnesota and in Maryland.

Baltimore Ravens’ linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, a father of two, is for marriage equality.  He has been fighting for it since 2009.

Once Maryland’s governor signed marriage equality into law this year, Ayanbadejo’s support meant even more.  This provoked Maryland state assembly delegate Emmett Burns enough that he wrote a letter to the owner of the Ravens on official state letterhead demanding that he “take the necessary action … to inhibit such expressions from your employee.”

The Ravens’ owner and president responded with “we support Brendon’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment” and Brendon vowed not to remain silent.  And, while football is a tough contact sport, Ayanbadejo got support from another NFL  player halfway across the country in a state where the fight for marriage equality was also being waged — in Minnesota.

Minnesota Vikings’ punter Chris Kluwe, a married father of two, wrote the most eloquent letter defending Brendon and marriage equality and blasting Burns.  And, he added a new phrase to lexicon of gay life!

Kluwe wrote, “I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful c–kmonster. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population.”

If you are Catholic, please don’t take this the wrong way.  However, I really have issues with people like Bishop Sartain.  Here is more of the quote I posted at the beginning of this blog:

“We urge our Catholic people to uphold our consistent Catholic teaching on marriage for the good of the Church, society, husbands and wives and their children. Therefore, we bishops reject the redefinition of marriage as a ‘civil contract between two persons.’ … Redefining marriage as a means of dealing with important issues of equality and respect for all persons will not achieve the goal of defending the rights of all and would overturn centuries of common law. To suddenly change the God-given and time-honored understanding of marriage would be a very harmful thing for our state and for the world. … Should marriage be redefined in our state the very foundational nature of marriage for the good and strength of human society would be harmed beyond repair.”

Bishop Sartain should not be condemning marriage equality and talking about how “human society would be harmed beyond repair” for two men or two women to get married.  According to this blog, he has other skeletons that he should be working to get out of the closet rather than fighting against same-sex marriage.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/09/j_peter_sartain_new_seattle_ar.php

It’s nice to know we have people like Governor Gregoire, Governor O’Malley, and Governor Andrew Cuomo (New York), Brendon Ayanbadejo, Chris Kluwe, Jim Graves, and people like you (I know I have many friends that support marriage equality)  on our side, the right side of history, and I wish we had fewer people like Bishop Sartain and his followers that speak out against equality while closing their eyes and ears to indiscretions in their own house.

Anthony

Bigot of the Week

Surprising no-one, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie bucked the trend of equality sweeping the nation this week by vetoing a marriage equality bill passed by his state’s legislature. Thank you to my friend and LGBT ally Sara Carmona for her nomination of Christie. Despite pressure from advocacy groups, local politicians of both major parties, and a phone call from Washington Governor Christine Gregoire (who had just signed a similar law), Christie played politics with the civil rights of thousands of New Jersey citizens.

The Governor continues to hide behind a two-pronged attack on equality. First, he maintains that changing marriage law should be put to a vote of the people, an absurd claim that civil rights require a stamp of majority approval. This is also an ironic dodge given that all recent polls show a safe majority of New Jersey citizens supporting full marriage equality. Second, Christie points to New Jersey’s civil union law, saying that separate but equal should be just fine for the gays. REALLY? Wasn’t that concept thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court fifty years ago, Governor?

It’s very clear that Christie is playing the political odds here. He wants to run for president in 2016 (being too afraid to challenge President Obama this year) and can’t risk a pro-equality vote that would alienate the slavering hordes of tea party types that vote in Republican primaries. As equality sweeps the nation, however, that move may be a major miscalculation as equality may well be the standard by the time he tries to run. He certainly wasn’t prepared for the strong backlash as demonstrated in this bloviating, ineffective attempt at defending his position.  Christie, yet another Republican on the wrong side of history!  Christie better be careful, for the Gay Agenda will be watching his actions!

A sad dishonorable mention this week goes to Daniel Porkorney, the mayor of La Grande, Oregon, who posted anti-equality statements (including approval of Christie’s action) on his Facebook page. He quickly learned the lesson so many celebrities have learned — online words will bite you — as his community mounted a petition demanding his resignation and forced a strong apology.

While these legislative rulings appear to be enormous strides in granting equality to all American citizens, protestors plan to appeal and fight these measures to overturn them. Bob Struble, a 68-year-old resident of Bremerton, Wash., said he believes the state will halt gay marriage in a public vote and added:

“We’ll be doing everything we can to overturn this unfortunate law.”

My question to Mr. Struble and other protestors of same-sex marriage is:  Why? What is the point of fighting these equality-inducing measures? Many arguments from the opposition can be shot down with a single, rational arrow. The arguments are weak, last-ditch efforts by protestors so they can stay in their comfort zones and hang onto the power they want to wield over their fellow human beings for reasons beyond my grasp. I’d like to examine a few:

1. “It will ruin the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.”

I think it is safe to say that quickie, publicity-stunt marriages (i.e.: Kim Kardashian, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Pamela Anderson, Drew Barrymore, etc.) and the American divorce rate among straight couples (50 percent for a first marriage, 67 percent for a second marriage, and 74 percent for a third marriage) have already “ruined the sanctity” of marriage.

2. “It is not healthy for a child to grow up with parents of the same gender.”

Is it healthy for children to grow up with parents in the midst of a nasty divorce who are emotionally abusive to one another? No. Divorce is destructive and psychologically damaging, but it happens frequently. Further argument: Same-sex couples can still take on specific gender roles, although this is not always the case, and either style of parenting works—just as straight parents differ in their parenting strategies, so do homosexual parents. Not to mention, the children of these parents are still influenced by straight family members and friends—it’s not as though they are isolated with only gay parents to learn from. Every child is influenced by a number of adults in life, not just their parents. Furthermore, research shows that “children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.” Clearly these children are not growing up in unhealthy, detrimental environments.

3. “My religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin.”

I’m sure your religion also teaches that divorce is a sin. Should someone be denied the right to re-marry after the failure of their first marriage? That just doesn’t seem fair, does it? Everyone should get as many chances at love as they need! I’m sure your religion further teaches that sexual intercourse out of wedlock is also a sin. Should someone not be allowed to marry if they have pre-marital sex? Or, be denied marriage if they cohabitate without first being married? Denying this seems silly in this era of freedom and sexual exploration. But most of all, I am absolutely positive that your religion teaches you acceptance and to love others as you love yourself. People are clearly denying those important virtues of their religion when they deny the basic right of marriage to their fellow human beings.

I think about adolescents struggling with the inner-turmoil of realizing they are homosexual and how difficult that has to be on top of all the other dramas and stressors of growing up. As a straight woman, I never have to worry that one of my teachers could treat me differently because of my sexual orientation. But a lot of homosexual students will have to worry about that… And it breaks my heart. They could be treated as though they are worth less than their fellow classmates by teachers—whom they trust and rely on for their education—just based on their sexual orientation. Is that fair? These young people may not have to worry about marriage just yet, but they are still fighting for acceptance from their peers and superiors; the right to marry someone of the same sex will just be another obstacle they have to fight. It is not fair.

I always try to point out to protestors of same-sex marriage the fact that I didn’t choose to be straight… And neither did they. We just are. I didn’t wake up one day and decide I was going to be attracted to boys. That’s not how it works for straight people, and that’s not how it works for homosexual people. There is just something that is inherently in their brain, body or heart that attracts them to people of the same sex… And that’s okay. They are human beings with feelings and beliefs and equal rights under every other piece of the law (gender, race, religion, etc.,) and they deserve the right to marry whomever they would like.

My intuition is telling me that decades from now, we will look back on the issue of same-sex marriage and scratch our heads when we think about why it took us so long to find equality. That’s how the majority of Americans feel now looking back at denying women the right to vote, enslaving Americans of a different race, and rejecting interracial marriages. It seems absolutely ludicrous they were denied their rights as humans, and the matter of same-sex marriage is no different. This is not a matter of “gay rights.” It is a matter of human rights.

I applaud each state that has already passed laws allowing same-sex marriages, as well those states in the process of taking a leap in the right direction. This is a time of enormous change in our country, and I am proud to be a part of the movement working to better the lives of my fellow human beings.

What are we gonna do about it? Besides saying “woohoo” and high-five-ing a bunch, we’re going to rejoice by offering a 25% discount to same-sex couples that want to celebrate their vows in 2012! The discount will be applied to any full-service planning package booked before December 31st, 2012 and taking place prior to June 7th, 2013. (Woohoo!)

Um, but…We know that the new law doesn’t officially take effect until June 7th, 2012, and we also know that there is movement out there to halt the progress pending a separate November vote – well, here’s where we stand: if you’re looking to celebrate love in any capacity, we’re in! Our discount may be applied to planning commitment ceremonies, weddings, anniversaries, engagement parties, and pretty much any other special event you can create surrounding love and partnership.

More News: http://abcnews.go.com/US/OTUS/wireStory/washington-state-governor-signs-gay-marriage-bill-law-15575929#.Tzl5NFzOUg4

Support Pro-Equality Businesses

Since Gov. Christine Gregoire‘s passionate speech launching a push for full marriage equality in Washington state, things have moved forward quickly. Enough members of the Washington House and Senate have indicated support for a marriage equality bill to make its passage very likely. It looks like our neighbor to the north will become the seventh state to offer full equality to same-sex couples some time this year.

One pleasant surprise in this effort has been the outspoken support from the Northwest business community. A number of powerful companies are headquartered in Washington (including Microsoft and Starbucks). Seven regional companies have written to the Governor and the Legislature indicating their support for marriage equality. After watching the anti-gay efforts of companies like Target, let’s take a moment to celebrate these firms. Three cheers to:

• Starbucks,
• Microsoft,
• Nike,
• Vulcan,
• RealNetworks,
• Concur, and
• GroupHealth.

Other major companies from Washington score very high on the HRC Corporate equality index, including Amazon.com (90), Costco (90), and Boeing (85). Let’s hope they add their vocal support to this equality effort. As Starbucks Vice-President Kalen Holmes so eloquently states:

Starbucks is proud to join other leading Northwest employers in support of Washington State legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. Starbucks strives to create a company culture that puts our partners first, and our company has a lengthy history of leading and supporting policies that promote equality and inclusion. This important legislation is aligned with Starbucks business practices and upholds our belief in the equal treatment of partners. It is core to who we are and what we value as a company.

Bravo to businesses that understand the value of all their customers.

This relationship affects every aspect of life.  It is impossible to separate the Christian faith from politics, economics, music, family, leisure or anything else you can think of.  Christianity isn’t something you drag out at Easter and Christmas, or on Sunday morning, and then put back in a box for the shelf once you leave church.

Never shy of addressing controversy, I’m going to make a statement I hope is something of an “ah-ha” moment.  Here it is: we’ve wrongly allowed marriage to become a political issue.

The governor of my neighboring state of Washington announced this week that she endorses homosexual marriage and is going to enact it through the Democratic legislature no matter what voters think or want.  She is entitled to her views and she is empowered to follow through on them.  Since we allowed marriage to become a power of the state, the state has the power to define marriage.

So much of what we believe about marriage is based on churchianity not Christianity.  Where does the Bible say a priest performs weddings?  Does the Bible speak of marriage licenses?  Which verses detail or even hint at church weddings with cake and a kiss?  Culture and politics.  Not the Bible.  Not Christianity.

In the past few years, in the homosexual marriage debate, it’s been popular in some circles to say “Marriage is about one man and one woman.”  I agree, with one change.  From a Biblical perspective, we may invite our friends and family to rejoice with us, and a person of faith may remind us of it’s sacred nature, but marriage is between one man, one woman, and their God.  No government, politics, or culture needed, wanted, or invited, unless the couple chooses that option.

It may be perceived as radical, but I’d like to see a return among Christians to a Biblical picture of marriage.  But since we long ago accepted political and cultural control over what marriage is, who can marry, how marriage is recognized, who performs marriage, etc, we can’t be surprised at what’s happening in regard to homosexual marriage … or what comes next.

What God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:6).

Pacifica: The Lavender Scare

This short story (fiction) I have started is my creative attempt at participating in Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed. It is still a work in progress. I hope to have a new installment weekly. Please do let me know what you think. Copyright 2011, Michael Hulshof-Schmidt.  Feel free to share with attribution.

The morning after the 2012 Presidential Inauguration in the Oval Office

 President Rick Perry: Well, we did it, Michele. We showed them sons of bitches the law of the land and the path to righteousness.

Michele Bachmann: Mr. President, what are we going to do about the gay issue? We have to keep to our campaign promises.

Perry: You are the god damn Vice-President, Michele. What the hell do you want to do?

Chief of Staff: Um, Mr. President, I would suggest to both you and Madame Vice-President that you immediately re-instate Executive Order 10450 as well as find a way to overturn Lawrence v. Texas.  

Perry: By God, Rove, you are brilliant! This is why I have you as my Chief of Staff. But don’t think I don’t know all the god damn bullshit you said about me before the election. Let’s face it, Rove, we are both doing God’s work.

Karl Rove: Yes, well, at any rate Mr. President I would call Justice Scalia and see what he can do to help overturn Lawrence v. Texas.  

 Some days later at an undiclosed location

 Justice Scalia: Paul, Tony here.  I know you are starting your own firm since leaving King and Spalding.  How would like to land some government contracts?

Paul Clement: What do you have in mind?  Boehner still owes me $350,000 for billable hours just defending DOMA.

Scalia: I need you to figure out a way for us to overturn Lawrence v. Texas.  Dig up a case, or do what you need to do to bring this to the Supreme Court.

Clement: It will be tricky, but I think I can do it. After all, these evil decisions that voided all the sodomy laws have violated the religious freedoms of the Christian community. I think I have a very dear friend in Colorado who could get legal standing to petition a case.

Scalia (rubbing his paws together): Excellent…

The wheels of injustice turn quickly when greased with corruption and shared bigotry.

October 11, 2012: The New York Times runs the headline Supreme Court Overturns Lawrence v. Texas: 5 to 4.  Photos show an exultant Justice Scalia brandishing his majority opinion standing next to a frail James Dobson, weeping with joy.

October 31, 2012: White House Press Secretary Rick Santorum, frothing at the mouth, holds a press conference announcing the redrafting of Executive Order 10450.

Michael on the phone with his brother Brad: Did you see the NYT article about Lawrence v. Texas?  Is the American public really so stupid that they don’t know heterosexuals violate the sodomy laws all the time?  Brad, you need to get out of Georgia. Do you want to stay with us?

Brad: Michael it is happening all over the country.  Why would I be any safer in Oregon?

Michael: Brad its not just Lawrence v. Texas, Perry is reinstating 10450 and there is talk about having all Americans sign something called a LoyalTea Pledge to prove their patriotism.

Michael to his husband:  Brad just told me he was fired from his job with the state of Georgia for “unpatriotic behavior” under 10450.  He is refusing to sign the LoyalTea Pledge.  Shawn said he and Todd are moving back to California, but who knows how quickly all of the states will start to enforce 10450 and require us to sign the LoyalTea Pledge.

By November 15, all of the Southern States, Ohio, Missouri, South Dakota, and Kansas had agreed to enforce the LoyalTea contract. In a very back door way, LePage got Maine to also enforce the LoyalTea contract.  The Great Exodus of the LGBT community had now officially started.  What happens now to the over 35 million LGBT people? November 15, also marked the day when the states that quickly adopted the LoyalTea contract for America managed to overturn Roe v. Wade without exception. The country is experiencing a 21st century Manifest Destiny.  Rumors are flying that Governors Brown, Kitzhaber, and Gregoire are meeting to talk about secession and forming a new country called Pacifica.

Just prior to tipoff at 6:00pm, attention will turn specifically to the victims of 9/11. Those who tragically lost their lives will be honored with a moment of silence followed by the playing of Taps. A military honor guard will present the colors and a Washington Army National Guard band will perform the national anthem.

After the Storm’s game against the Chicago Sky gets underway, members of the armed services and first responders will still have the chance to take center stage by participating in contests during timeouts all night long.

Fans can play a part in Sunday’s efforts as well. Operation Bald Eagle will be collecting supplies for military serving around the world. In particular, Operation Bald Eagle is in need of postage, dental supplies and individually packaged snacks. Donation bins will be placed around the arena.

Of course, there will also be the fan giveaways that have been a staple on Fan Appreciation Night. The first 5,000 fans into KeyArena will also receive a Storm T-shirt. With everything else that’s planned, however, Sunday’s game figures to be unlike any Storm season finale before.

New Jersey to California, state officials are preparing for the end to more than $ 90 billion in federal largesse specifically designated for Medicaid.  To control costs, states are cutting Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals, limiting the benefits to Medicaid recipients, reducing the scope of services covered, requiring beneficiaries to pay higher co-payments and  expand the use of managed care.

As a result, the costs can be expected to increase in other parts of the system of health care.  Cuts in Medicaid payments to doctors, for example, it is less likely to accept Medicaid patients and more likely that people will turn to hospital emergency rooms for care.  Hospitals and other health care providers often try to compensate for lost revenue by increasing Medicaid costs to other patients, including those with private insurance, experts say.

Neither White House nor Congress has tried to extend the additional funding from the federal government for Medicaid, even if the number of beneficiaries is higher now than when Congress approved the aid as part of an economic recovery in February  2009.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal spending on Medicaid will decline in 2012 for only the second time in the history of 46 years of the program.  But states say they will have to spend more on Medicaid in their struggle to make up for the loss of federal money.

State officials say they are resigned to the loss of additional federal matching payments, given the climate in Congress, where deficit reduction is a primary objective.

“We all see the reality of what happens in Congress,” said Mark W. Rupp, director of the Washington office of Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington State, a Democrat who is president of the National Governors Association. “It  is on the cutting of spending. Why put much effort into something that does not seem likely to have a positive result? It would have been quite futile. “

Although Medicaid provides health insurance for one in five Americans at some time in a year, it is more vulnerable to cuts in Medicare and Social Security, which have a broader political support.

“Medicaid is a lot on the block,” said Senator John D.  Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and the chairman of the Finance Subcommittee of the Senate on health care.  “The vote of the elderly.  But if you’re poor and disabled, you may not vote, and if you’re a child, you do not vote – it’s a lot of the Medicaid population.  They have no money to lobby. “

Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and states, the federal government to pay a greater share in poorer countries such as Mississippi and West Virginia and a smaller share of higher-income states like New York and  Connecticut.

The assistance ends next month has increased the federal share of Medicaid expenditures in all states, with additional help for the states where the unemployment rate has risen sharply.  The extra help was to expire last December, but Congress has extended for six months at the urging of the White House and state officials.

The extra money pushed the average share of federal Medicaid spending nationally to 67 percent.  It will be up to 57 percent next month.  Cutbacks in federal Medicaid money has put pressure on states to reduce the budget of other programs, including education and social services.

Toby J.  Douglas, director of the California Department of Health Services, said the federal Medicaid cuts that caused “a very consequential reduction in health care and other public programs.”

California is cutting Medicaid payments to doctors and many other suppliers of 10 percent, set new co-payments for drugs, physician services and hospital care, and limit the beneficiaries of seven office  doctor visits per year unless a physician certifies the need for more.

With 5 minutes to go before that “cut-off,” Senator Mark Schoesler (R-Ritzville, Adams County) motioned for consideration of SB 5407, a bill “Concerning the issuance of drivers’ licenses, drivers’ instruction permits, juvenile agricultural driving permits, and identicards.”

Senator Schoesler was attempting to allow the Senate to vote on the bill that was blocked from the Senate calendar by the Democrat Speaker Lisa Brown (Spokane). His motion failed 23-25 with this bills primary sponsor, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, (D-Camano Island) joining the ‘No’ votes.

Of that apparent ‘flip-flop,’ Haugen said,

“Nothing is ever dead in the Legislature. I’m going to go talk to the governor. I’d ask the governor that she needs to stand and take leadership in this role. She needs to recognize what’s happening in this nation.” 

When was the last time governor Gregoire actually stood up for citizens in Washington State? If the Democrat Speaker refuses to recognize what is happening in the country, what makes her believe the Democrat governor will?

Indicating that Haugen’s efforts with the bill were not as altruistic as we might think, we read where she says “for years she had stopped similar bills because she was worried about the impact on the farm industry, which employs a significant number of illegal immigrants using fake identification,” adding that “her bill would put restrictions on identification fraud by imposing stricter rules on state residency, [and] illegal immigrants in the state would have not been affected by the proposed law.”

From The Daily News online we read, “Washington state is one of [only] two in the country that let illegal immigrants obtain driver’s licenses. New Mexico is the other state that still allows such practice, but lawmakers there are also considering bills to close the access.”

Soon, Washington State might be the ‘ONLY’ state that will grant those in the country in open violation of our laws driver’s licenses without some proof of citizenship.

Little wonder Washington State sees a 35% increase in Illegal Aliens over the last 3 years.

Gregoire indicated previously she would sign the bill if it passed, but she is safe now what with the efforts of Democrats in Olympia to prevent from coming to a full vote. She will not have to take a definitive stand, even though we see there are 300,000 more driver’s licenses in the state than drivers.

In the meantime, unemployment in Clark County and elsewhere remains in double digits and scarce benefits are growing scarcer.

Arguing against the bill, Pramila Jayapal, executive director of OneAmerica says

“lawmakers are trying to fill the void left by the federal government’s lack of action on immigration law, but that restricting the licenses does not address immigration issues.” 

Neither does turning a blind eye to the issue and embracing lawbreakers with full benefits and entitlements. That makes her next words even more ironic as she added, “This bill was a threat to road safety, would have driven up insurance premiums for everyone, and costs money that we can ill afford as a state.”

In an email sent out, Craig Keller organizer for Respect WA, a group working to curb Illegal Immigration in the state informs us,

“Currently Washington State and New Mexico are the only 2 of 50 states whose licensing application does not screen for U.S. lawful presence. Consequently, this lack of compliance with the Federal “Real ID Act” will prevent Washington State residents from boarding commercial airplanes after May 11, 2011 using a Washington State drivers license alone. Due to Wash. St. DoL’s failure to verify U.S. lawful presence upon issuance, many states now refuse to accept the Washington State Drivers License as proof of U.S. lawful presence of those moving from Washington State.” 

Governor Gregoire has the option to follow suit like former Oregon Governor Kulongowski and issue an Executive Order to the Department of Licensing to begin verifying U.S. lawful presence.

I have little faith she would do so.

We citizens can also advance Respect Washington’s I-1122 to the November 2011 ballot by collecting of 241,153 signatures by July 8th.

Contact information for Clark County, if you would like to help out is STEPHANIE TURLAY
CHAIRWOMAN, VANCOUVER, WA email: Stephanie@RespectWashington.us

I urge all that can to get in contact with Stephanie, or Craig through the website above and let’s show Democrats in Olympia that we want to see an end to their acceptance and embracing of lawbreakers in Washington State.

We are expected to respect the law, why allow open violators of the law more respect than law-abiding citizens?

And I wonder now if  ‘seventh heaven’ can even describe my elation properly.

That my daughter wrote to the governor this morning is well, a bit more than I ever did.  Or ever asked of her.

But after seeing the governor’s picture online, and learning a smidge about the office she holds, my daughter touched the screen and said, “I want to meet her.”  Which was when she pulled out a piece a paper and asked how to spell the governor’s name.

And then didn’t look up for the next twenty minutes…

As she put her heart into her pencil and scrawled sentence after sentence…

Until it looked like this.

By which time my daughter sat back down and sharpened her colored pencils for a quarter hour.  And then lost all track of time as she drew a detailed picture of Governor Gregoire looking out the window of the capitol building.

We folded both pieces together and sealed them in an envelope addresed to the governor or whatever soul opens the mail.

And with that done, my daughter squealed, “I just hope she writes back.”

Oh, friend…

so do I.

Courtesy of Tacoma Community College

Governor Christine Gregoire released her version of Washington State’s biennial budget in December 2008. April is here and the Senate and the House’s perspective of our state’s budget is available.

Gregoire’s budget shows that the overall funding for the state of Washington will drop by 3.6% and that was only with her predicted deficit of $6.1 billion. In actuality is it closer to a $9 billion loss of income and that means close to 25% of our foreseen finances is not available for the next two years.

With the emergence of both the House and Senate budget, state workers and citizens of this state should have some worries. State employees are now more susceptible to layoffs as any other citizen.

Residents of our state should also be very weary of possible tax increases, such as the recent hike on cigarettes.

On March 30 and 31 the Senate and House released their budgets. The Senate budget shows us there is almost a $1 million difference in state funding between them and the Governor.

The House’s budget implies an almost $3 million dollar difference in finances for the state of Washington. There are expectations that attempts to close the gap between the House and Senate’s budgets will close by April 26. From there the governor is the last one to sign off for the final state budget.

There is a nearly $6 million difference in state funding from the 2007-09 budget for the House compared to the more than $3 million shortfall predicted by the Senate. With the optimism of the Senate and governor there is much hope throughout the state expecting better times ahead.

State agencies are doing the best they can to work around the deficit, but ultimately there will be actions taken to reduce money spending and that includes leave without pay and layoffs. Some agencies believe that there may be financial cuts as much as 20%, which would mean significant layoffs.

If there is a state downfall, it will not only affect our state employees but also those who pay taxes as a resident of Washington. Therefore, the need to keep in contact with our legislators is very high on the list of necessities.

In addition, the company will be required to pay more than $5 million in back assessments the company failed to pay.

Gregoire also announced the state is seeking to revoke Countrywide’s license to do business in Washington for its alleged illegal activity.

Joining Gregoire at today’s announcement was Deb Bortner, director of consumer services at the Washington state Department of Financial Institutions (DFI), and James Kelly, president of the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle.

“The allegation that Countrywide preyed on minority borrowers is extremely troubling to me,” Gregoire said. “And I hope to learn eventually just how much this may have contributed to foreclosures in our state. The allegation offers evidence that Countrywide engaged in a pattern to target minority groups and engage in predatory practices.”

“That’s why we intend to bring the full weight of the state on Countrywide to rewrite home loans for minority borrowers who may have been misled into signing predatory mortgages,” the governor noted. “My job is to protect hard-working Washingtonians, and protect them we will.”

DFI is required to examine every home-lender licensed in the state of Washington. The agency conducted its fair lending examination of Countrywide last year. At that time, DFI looked at roughly 600 individual loan files and uncovered evidence that Countrywide engaged in discriminatory lending that targeted Washington’s minority communities. The agency also found significant underreporting of loans during its investigation.

“The Urban League is seeing far too many families caught up in the mortgage crisis who are being steered into bad loans,” stated James Kelly. “Today’s announcement from the governor is consistent with her message of protecting Washingtonians from national mortgage instability.”

DFI sent Countrywide a statement of charges on June 23, notifying the company of the fine and the back assessments the state plans to pursue.  Washington says that the investigation continues.

We have written on the disproportionate impact that the mortgage meltdown and housing crisis has had on minorities.

Washington’s action against Countrywide comes on the heels of lawsuits for fraud, deception, and unfair trade practices filed against Countrywide by the states of Illinois, California, and Florida.

From my inbox again I bring you the latest updates on what is being done about the Air Force decision to outsource our refueling tankers. I do hope this helps you stay involved and up to date. There is nothing like grass-roots pressure to change the outcome of a bad decision.

Rallying Against the Tanker Decision

On March 19, I was joined by Congressman Rick Larsen, Governor Christine Gregoire and leaders from the labor community, together with Boeing workers, Boeing Workers Protest Tanker Decision at Rally. their families, and concerned citizens to protest the Air Force’s misguided decision to award a $40 billion tanker refueling contract to Airbus.

Over 500 workers crowded into the Machinists Hall in Everett.

I led off the rally, detailing the many reasons why we should not be outsourcing our national security capabilities, particularly at a time when our country is trending towards recession.

Murray talks with the Boeing Workers.This was one of the loudest, most energized rallies that I have ever attended. You could feel the passion and the pride that our 767 team has for their tanker. I spoke with dozens of workers, all echoing the same message: We have the better tanker, we have proven we can provide a quality product, let us do our job.

I agree with them, and will continue working to make sure that in the end we make the right choice for the tanker contract.

I love it when American Citizens get passionate about something. And while the Boeing may not have the most stellar history in the world, at least the jobs are here, the money STAYS in the economy, and it shores up our moral! Senator Murray went on with these remarks:

Wow – look at this crowd!

If the energy in this room today doesn’t send a message back to Washington, D.C., and those folks at the Pentagon, I don’t know what will.

I’m so proud to be here today with the best workforce in the world.

You’ve helped make Boeing the worldwide standard of excellence, and I want to thank you for your work and dedication – not just since the Air Force made their short-sighted announcement, but all the way through this process.

Your work and your passion are a testament to the American spirit – and they represent the best of what our country has to offer.

It has now been three weeks since I stood on the 767 line – when the Air Force decided to award a critical $40 billion contract to an illegally subsidized foreign company – instead of Boeing.

Like you, my shock turned to anger when the Air Force decided it would give away our jobs – and the control of our national defense – to a foreign company…When our government said it would rather outsource jobs than create them here in Everett and across the country. And when it said it would rather send a U.S. military contract to a company that has never built a refueling tanker – or any military plane for our country.

That day I talked with Tom about how this decision would impact this community, your union, and the next generation of American aerospace workers.

That day, I vowed to fight for you, and for America’s military strength.

And today I’m back from D.C. to report that over these last three weeks those of us on this stage have been working with one mind, one focus, and with one goal – to bring this contract back to America and the workers here in Everett where it belongs!

Now as I’m sure all you know, this effort won’t be easy and it won’t be quick.

But it won’t be successful unless we have the courage to stand up and fight.

I believe that fight begins with waking up the American people to the realities of what this decision will mean – here in Everett – in Kansas – in Washington D.C. – and everywhere in between.

We need to wake people up to the reality that you – and all the workers at Boeing – are the best trained, most experienced in the aerospace industry.

* We have machinists who have passed experience and know-how down the ranks for 50 years.
* We have engineers who know our mission and the needs of our airmen and women.
* And we have a reputation for delivering for our military.

In short – we have a workforce ready to build a plane on Day One.

But what does Airbus have?

Well, Airbus has – as Tom puts it, “a paper airplane” – a plane that only exists on paper. And it has workforce that has never built a tanker – and that has never had the weighty responsibility of supporting our men and women in uniform.

We also need to spread the word that if we don’t preserve our domestic aerospace industry, we will lose it. I fear what this contract means for our economy – and our national security. Once our industry is gone, it can’t be rebuilt overnight.

Should we pay other countries to take our technology and make it their own?

Should we be investing in what amounts to a European jobs program as we slip into recession?

I think the answer is no – and I know that most Americans agree with us.

I’ll make sure they hear our voices.

And finally, we need to wake the American people up to the fact that this was an unfair competition from the beginning.

Because the truth is that no matter how hard you all work – or how much experience you bring to the table – you aren’t competing on a level playing field. Airbus will always rely on European countries, which support it with massive subsidies. Our government is so concerned about this that we have brought a case against the European Union at the WTO.

So I’ve been asking a simple question of everyone in Washington, D.C., who had a hand in this decision – why is our government fighting the Europeans over subsidies – and at the same time giving them a $40 billion contract to build our country’s tankers?

I can’t seem to get a straight answer on that one.

And that’s not the only question I can’t get answered.

In fact, every briefing and hearing that I’ve taken part in raises more questions than answers.

But I promise you one thing today – that’s not going to stop me from getting answers.

And I’m glad that Boeing is pressing for answers, too.

Boeing is appealing this decision – and that must mean that there are some serious irregularities – because that doesn’t happen every day.

So, I’m proud to stand here as a representative of the state where Bill Boeing started a little all-American company back in 1916.

And I’m proud to stand here as representative for you – the workers who have been building the best airplanes in the world for 75 years.

Friends, I want to let every one of the 45,000 machinists represented by IAM 751 that I will always be your ally in this fight.

Whether it takes weeks – or months – or years – I’m going to be with you.

Whether it’s on the Senate floor – or at the Pentagon – or anywhere else – I will speak out for you.

I urge you all to visit my web site, and sign our petition. I know you’re with me in this fight.

Together, we are going to ensure that the best qualified, most experienced workers continue to build our nation’s tankers.

 

Now from the TriCityHerald.com we have this news article:

Friday, Mar. 28, 2008
Air Force hurts itself with tanker contract

It isn’t just Washington that is being hurt by the bungled Air Force contract for a new type tanker plane.

It’s the Air Force too.

Fortunately, both houses of Congress seem to be awakening to just how messed up the Air Force procurement office has become.

If the critics are correct, the procedure that chose a French contractor over Boeing for a $35 billion (for starters) contract for new aerial tankers was switched in mid-process to favor the French bid — and Boeing wasn’t even told about it.

The Air Force procurement officers say they simply were trying to keep the Airbus bidders in the game. Instead, the Air Force seems to have forfeited the contest to the French.

That’s more than incentive for the Europeans. It’s an unfair and possibly illegal advantage.

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., is among those demanding answers from the Air Force on this strange — no, if the critics are correct the better word is bizarre — chain of events.

First the Air Force procurement office said it wanted a medium-sized tanker that would give it flexibility in aerial refueling of many kinds of aircraft.

So Boeing came up with precisely what the Air Force wanted.

Airbus showed no interest.

Then in order to get a competitor, the Air Force honeyed up the deal to fit something Airbus could provide.

But according to the critics, the Air Force didn’t tell Boeing about the change, or if it did tell anyone, lulled them into confidence by stressing they just wanted to keep a second bidder in.

Murray says she’s been told that to use the Airbus, the Air Force will have to make extensive infrastructure changes at many air bases to accommodate the larger planes.

That wouldn’t be needed for the Boeing planes, which would fit handily into existing areas.

And the lighter Boeing machines would be able to operate from many air bases and runways that cannot be retrofit to handle the heavier Airbus planes.

So.

The Air Force procurement office went from ordering flexible planes to ordering inflexible and unsuitably large airplanes for reasons not in the specifications put out for bids.

It’s a good thing the Government Accounting Office will examine this thing to see if it is even legal.

And it is important that the House and Senate take a look at it, too.

Yes, we’re parochial enough to be worried about Boeing losing a big job to an overseas competitor.

And we’re concerned that Airbus might not have been selected if not for European government subsidies that allow it to make bids that are below actual cost.

But primarily, we’re concerned that the Air Force is making a purchase dictated by procedural concerns when the people in the field — the people operating this extremely expensive machinery in hazardous conditions — told their superiors they wanted something entirely different than what they are going to get if this deal is allowed to stand.

Bring on the investigators and their questions.

I wrote about this very thing back on 3-17-08. You can find the report Here: It is nice to see that the Air Force now finally admits they did this. Of course, I got the lead from someone who viewed another article I wrote on Boeing and the Air Force and EADS and left me a comment. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate it when there is discussion on these articles. I don’t know it all and I can only learn what I am pointed to or what I discover on my own.

I also feel that it is extremely important right now that we keep US Dollars at home. Why should Europe gain jobs when here in America we are hurting so badly? Why should there be a huge jump in employment overseas when we need the boost in OUR economy? Get involved if you haven’t already. Raise your voice and show your support for OUR economy and OUR jobs.

I don’t know about you but there just seems to be some common sense issues here. Issues like National Security, American Jobs, the Economy, common sense period. What are those in positions of decision making thinking? Who was paid what? Why did they change their minds mid-bid? Will we ever know the real story? Not if we don’t stay, or get, involved. Let them hear from you today. Raise your voices and be heard! ROAR America!

Some serious questions being raised on this issue by Senator Murray are:

What happens if that government disagrees with us on foreign policy? What if it decides it wants to slow down our military capacity? Do we want another country to have that kind of control?

Second, I question why the Air Force was not required to take the economic impact into consideration when it awarded this contract.

That brings me to my final point today, Mr. President. Why didn’t the Air Force consider these obvious questions about national security and economic security?

Did the Air Force pull a bait and switch with this contract? Did it unfairly change the process to benefit EADS?

Some serious questions indeed. I hope we get the answers to these and more one day. In the meantime, I’ll keep you posted as things come to my attention. I know this is only one of the issues of importance to us all.