An Open Letter To American Muslims

Once again a rift of fear has risen between our people. The horrific actions of Major Malik Nidal Hasan in the senseless murders of 13 of his fellow American soldiers in Ft. Hood Texas last Thursday, November 5, 2009, has many of my fellow Christians outraged and incensed towards all Muslims in America.

I do not completely share their view.

I am concerned, however. Concerned that this will happen again and yes, concerned of potential backlashes against you, innocent Muslims who just go about their business on a daily basis.

I am concerned when I read of groups of Muslim men arrested for plotting to attack Military Bases inside America.

I am concerned when I read of a young Muslim arrested, thinking he is going to blow up a building in Dallas, Texas.

I am concerned when I read of 16 year-old girl fearful of returning to her Muslim parents due to her exercising her god-given and constitutionally guaranteed right to embrace the religion of her choice in America.

I am concerned when I read of a well to do Muslim man beheading his wife in New York, because she filed for divorce from him and he is operating a TV station aimed at countering negative Muslim stereotypes.

I am concerned when I read of a Muslim father running down his adult daughter and killing her because she has become too “westernized.”

I am concerned when I see footage after a Muslim man serving in our Army and charged with helping those with the scars of battle embedded in their minds coldly murders 13 of their number.

Most of all, I am concerned when I read of a Muslim saying about those murders,

“When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal. But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad,” and “Ultimately it was Brother Nidal’s doing, but the command should be held accountable. G.I.’s are like any equipment in the Army. When it breaks, those who were in charge of keeping it fit should be held responsible for it.”

The only area I see where the Army should be held accountable is the fear of reporting suspicious activities coming to light about Nidal Hasan for fear of being labeled a racist or Islamaphobe.

I am disturbed to see Hasan’s actions marginalized by comparing them to those we have termed “going Postal” over the years. Neither can be accepted nor should be excused in any way.

But, with all due respect, those “going Postal” don’t stand on a desk yelling “Allahu Akbar” as they methodically gun down unarmed soldiers in a confined area. Those who went “Postal” did not speak against the Post Office in terms of killing them as acceptable or accusing them of warring against a specific people.

But, where I disagree mostly with Victor Benjamin II, who made those statements is in comparing the two in the first place when a more applicable comparison might be looking back at American Blacks and White Supremacists, primarily the Ku Klux Klan during its heyday in the Southeastern United States.

Reports of lynchings, shootings and whippings of Black Americans for little more than looking at a White woman were not at all uncommon. The Klan enjoyed a large membership hiding behind their white robes and hoods and they also actively perverted the scriptures from our Holy Bible to justify their actions against peoples of color.

Not all Southerners were members of the Klan nor were all Klan members murderers, but can you honestly blame Blacks during that era for looking upon Whites as possible members?

If you were a Black person during those days, would you feel safe and at ease if Klan members who didn’t support the killings stood up and said, “it isn’t the Klan’s fault, we just don’t want the races mixed?”

Yet today, should I look warily upon you, I am a bigot, an Islamaphobe in spite of continual members of Islam sporadically popping up to murder people and invoking the name of your religion.

The Klan was marginalized; their numbers greatly reduced and wiped out in some areas by members who were sickened by the murders by a few. White Southerners infiltrated the Klan and at large risk, exposed them, informed on them and Blacks were granted the rights that should have been theirs all along.

Likewise, we need your help in defeating radical Jihadists. I believe you when you say they do not represent your religion, but I see they come from your midsts. They worship at your Mosques and listen to your Imams. They walk freely amongst your number and sit in your homes. It falls upon the Muslim community as a whole to expel the radicals, to expose the hate preaching and to point out those who approve of the bloodshed to the proper authorities.

Too few of you step up and expel those Imams that preach hatred between us. Not enough of you speak out and condemn these acts. We cannot do it without your help in revealing what is going on around you.

Just like it was the White’s responsibility to eliminate the threat posed by the Ku Klux Klan against Blacks, it is now your responsibility to help eliminate the threat that comes out of your Mosques and communities.

Help us mend the rift of fear before we see more senseless murders committed in the name of God. Help us understand and see the common ground we may share. It is not enough for you to issue statements of disagreement AFTER such an incident. You must help us stop them BEFORE they happen.

I neither intend nor wish you any harm. I wish only peace upon you.

I pray you wish the same for us.

Lew Waters

Castillo Calls Baird On Anti-Israel Stance

In late September, the United Nations Human Rights Council, known for turning a blind eye to violations of Human Rights in third world dictatorships while pointing accusing fingers towards free Democracies in the west, issued yet another biased report accused both “Israel and the governing Palestinian group Hamas of committing war crimes during their conflict in December of 2008 through January 2009.”

The report, known as the Goldstone Report named after Justice Richard Goldstone, Head of the UN Fact Finding Mission received the sanction of the U.N. Security Council.

Shortly after the Goldstone Report was released, Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida’s 19th District introduced House Resolution 867, “Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ‘Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’.”

Showing strong bi-partisan support, the bill had 202 co-sponsors and passed by a 344 to 36 margin. Of particular concern to several House members was the report equating Israeli Soldiers, protecting and defending their homeland, to Hamas terrorists.

Our Representative from Washington State’s Third District, Democrat Brian Baird, bucking his own party members was not one of the 344, but was instrumental in gaining 35 others to join him in voting against the measure.

Unbelievably, Baird appeared on Al Jazeera TV defending his opposition to the House Measure and chastising his colleagues. (he appears about 1:40 into the video linked).

Prior to the vote on HR 867, Baird submitted a statement to the Congressional Newspaper, Roll Call titled “Israel and Gaza Deserve Better Than H.Res. 867.” He placed the same statement on his website, “Israel and Gaza Deserve Better than a Misguided Resolution.”

Of particular concern to this blogger, as a U.S. Army Veteran of Viet Nam, is Baird’s claim of, “I have seen firsthand the devastating destruction of hospitals, schools, homes, industries and infrastructure. Much of that devastation was wrought using U.S. manufactured and paid for weaponry.”

Baird, to his credit, did travel to Gaza, but AFTER the fighting ceased. Apparently, he is unaware of the tactics of the Palestinians and Hamas in securing world sympathy in their ongoing efforts to “push Israeli’s into the sea” and revealed in the documentaries Hamas Militant Palliwood and Pallywood.

David Castillo, Republican challenger running against Baird issued a statement criticizing Baird for his stance.

Castillo, who served at the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush said, “Brian Baird is practicing moral equivalency as a strategy in this volatile region and what we need is moral clarity. It is unconscionable to compare Israeli soldiers defending their sovereignty as a nation and the cowardly act of terrorists indiscriminately shooting rockets into innocent civilian populations.”

The Centralia Chronicle ran an article, Baird, Castillo Spar on Israel, Hamas addressing Castillo’s concerns over Baird’s stance and subsequent appearance on Al Jazeera TV, “the ones that run the tapes of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda,” said Castillo.

While I appreciate Baird traveling to Gaza, seeing the destruction on a guided tour after the battles cease gives any real insight other than there was a battle there. Seeing what tour guides wish you to see and carefully guiding you to those they wish you to speak to can leave you thinking you got an accurate view of what happened, when you just got scammed.

Israel has been making concessions for decades and still, Palestinians deny their right to exist, still firing rockets randomly into civilian populated areas and crying when retaliation comes.

Israelis have the oldest known claim to the land, dating back to early Biblical Times and achieved state status in 1948, followed immediately by attacks from neighboring Arab countries. Initially, at the end of World War One and upon the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, Israeli’s were told they would receive all land west of the Jordan River in what is known as the Balfour Agreement.

By the time they achieved statehood in 1948, they received barely a sliver of land originally promised that they continue to defend and cultivate.

Castillo is correct in criticizing Baird for his stance. Israel has been in agreement several times and has signed on to all sorts of peace agreements between the peoples. Palestinian leadership has reneged on every single one, firing rockets into Israeli settlements and sending in suicide bombers. Israel has often showed great restraint but fights back when need be.

Castillo, a Veteran of the US Navy, member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the American Legion says, “I have defended and served this country for most of my adult life. I will not stand by quietly as an elected representative of the people subtly suggests that America is wrong for supporting a friend and ally.”

Instead of seeking out reasons to condemn Israel and going on Al Jazeera to placate leftist anti-Semites, Baird might recall the words spoken by former Israeli Golda Meir, “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”

There lies the solution, congressman Baird. Not in condemning America, Israel or colleagues in the House that can clearly see how wrong you are.

Baird continues to come down on the wrong side of issues important to the well being of America and our allies. He has clearly lost touch with citizens and the time has come to replace him as our Representative.

We finally have a strong challenger facing him that has served America, does come from humble roots and has a clear vision for Washington State and America. David Castillo is that challenger and is ready to be sent to Washington D.C. to give us the strong representation we deserve and need and to have a representative on the right side for America.

David Castillo’s Statement On Baird’s ‘NO’ Vote

Received in email;

In light of Congressman Baird’s statement declaring he will vote ‘No’ on the House version of the Health Care Bill, the Castillo campaign will not hold the previously scheduled press conference tomorrow, November 7.

David Castillo’s statement on Baird’s release:

While I am pleased that Brian is choosing to do the right thing for the voters of the 3rd District, and all Americans, I am still deeply concerned about his reasoning and lack of vision and leadership in this national debate. Even if his concerns with this bill are addressed, the legislation will still do nothing to control the soaring cost of health care in this country.

The Congressman’s ‘no’ vote is not because he opposes the public option or a move toward Universal, government-run health care. His statement is dangerously silent on this issue and his past positions have been favorable toward such a move.

In addition, he does not oppose the tax on insurance premiums for those of us who already have insurance coverage. Instead, he is only concerned that there are no ‘reliable estimates’ on how high this premium penalty will be.

In this economy, any increase – whether you want to call it a tax, fee or premium increase – is unacceptable and detrimental to our families.

Mr. Baird is clearly not supporting free-market solutions to address health care reform. Which means he is willing to support Speaker Pelosi’s bill in some form. His actions right now are purely political and doing nothing more than putting off his support of this legislation until – as he says himself – “the House and Senate together produce one bill.”

To put it in football terms, the Congressman just punted.

Congressman Baird’s announcement may be read fully here

No comment found at the time of this posting from Jon Russell.

VOTERS WANTED JACK BACK?

Submitted by reader;

Jack Burkman’s narrow margin of less than 7% against his opponent, Bill Turlay is not a voter mandate to “ Bring Jack Back”.

Let’s examine Jack’s tax and spend voting record.

Jack’s vote contributed to our current city debt of $212 Million with debt interest payment at $10 Million per year.

Jack’s voted for SIX (6) downtown parking garages with a LOSS of revenue of $280,000 in 2008; Hilton hotel construction $ 72.5 million with $1 Million per year in debt interest payment and $800,00/yr Hilton management fee. Also Jack voted for a TEN-year property tax break for downtown Heritage condo owners.

Jack’s campaign brochure states he will wisely manage our community’s funds. If Jack really managed funds well during his years in office, why have Police and Fire always been used as the pawn to extract more taxes out of the public’s pocket?

Jack’s campaign brochure also states he wants to keep our city safe and secure. Where was Jack’s concern about safety for library patrons when he served simultaneously as a Vancouver Library board member and City council member? Jack consistently voted to keep unfiltered porn in the library, even after the Mayor recommended library board members filter out porn.

Jack’s voting record shows he voted in lockstep with the mayor and never showed any independent thinking of his own. Can you imagine, two years and never finding any issue with which you disagree with anyone else on the council? Is this leadership?

During his time on council Jack demonstrated his inability to interface with the citizens and showed contempt for citizens when they voiced their disapproval on certain issues. Jack had the audacity to say to a constituent – “you are not smart enough to understand how to run the city”. After a public forum at a local school in April 2000, Jack wrote part of a letter to The Columbian where he pitched a fit at the questions being asked by citizens. Now, he wants us to believe he is a thoughtful leader who brings people together (as stated in his campaign brochure)?

Sooner or later the real “Jack” will show up and the voters will realize they have reelected the same Jack who did not serve them well the first time on City council.

Fran Rutherford
Vancouver, Wa.

Russell’s Apologists Cover For Poor Council Performance

Washougal City Councilman Jon Russell, eager to run against current congressman Brian Baird for Washington’s Third Congressional District, recently made news along with the defeated mayor of Washougal, Washington.

Russell Shows Lack of Experience on City Council

Apologists for Russell now claim Jon was unable to convince “progressive council members” that the actions of the mayor were inappropriate over the two years he claims he saw what was happening and what brought about the current state audit that broke in the last week of the campaign, helping bring about the defeat of the Republican mayor by a Democrat candidate.

Expressing disappointment in what apologists label “political opponents within the Republican Party,” they fail to recognize that in apologizing for Jon, they freely admit to the very claim made by this “political opponent within the Republican party.”

That being, Jon was unable to stand up to a small town mayor of some 9,000 people.

If Jon indeed did see the inappropriate conduct and improper actions of the Republican mayor and brought it up to the rest of the city council, how is it he was unable, in two years, to rally support, although remaining vigilant and voicing his concerns with a greater position of strength?

Personally disappointing is that after admitting Jon’s inability to rally support, we are told Jon is exactly the sort of person we should send to Washington D.C. to stand up to the likes of Nancy Pelosi or whoever would replace her as Speaker of the House.

I would also ask the apologist, if Jon was unable to rally support amongst 6 fellow council members over a 2-year period, how would he rally support amongst 434 fellow congressmen in the House, the majority of which are also “progressive?”

Showing naiveté, or wishful thinking, apologists expect that Nancy Pelosi will be gone in 2010 and the Republican Party will regain a majority within Congress. I certainly hope they are right, but realistically, to regain a one-seat majority in the House, Republicans would not only have to retain every single one of the 177 seats currently held, but gain 80 seats as well.

No thoughts are given from apologists on just how to accomplish such a tall order in such a short time.

Possibly due to being prior to their moving to Clark County, no mention is made just how it is that Jon is now uniquely qualified to defeat a 6 term incumbent congressman, after 2 years of inability to rally support amongst fellow council members or how that translates into a qualification when Jon was unable to make it past the first round to gain the seat on our state legislature vacated by scandal ridden Richard Curtis in 2007 and now occupied by Representative Jamie Herrera.

Also left unexplained is just how Jon came to leave his position as a Legislative Assistant that he so proudly lists as a qualification, after a short time.

In classic Ron Paulian speak, apologists warn, “you should be giving more sober thought to how your words and especially your actions, fit in with the current political landscape,” after a brief reminder of the backing of New York’s conservative candidate over the liberal claiming Republican who backed the Democrat.

I don’t think I need remind anyone that the Democrat won the race, as much as I dislike it.

Fronting an inexperienced candidate with dubious qualifications and who is willing to throw others under the bus instead of accepting responsibility and standing on their own record is far from any “new political landscape,” it just the age-old politics we have all grown tired of.

Is this “new political landscape” standing on a candidates inability to “rally support” as needed? Last I heard, a good legislator must be able overcome the partisan rancor and engage those across the aisle to “rally support” for proposed legislation, not just follow lock step with a majority.

Attacking those who support a more qualified candidate and accusing them of manipulating direct quotes is also more of that old tired political tactic we have grown tired of.

It isn’t manipulating to point out direct quotes. It is, however, manipulating voters to exaggerate a resumé and provide cover for a weak candidate’s inability to rally support on a small town city council or stand up to the mayor of that same small town of 9,000 over a 2-year period.

For newcomers to our community I will only say, maybe you should listen to those who have nearly three decades in the community before you assume to know better for us. This isn’t Los Angeles.

If all your candidate has is ad hominem against others and tearing down opponents at every chance, perhaps he is not so uniquely qualified as you think.

David Castillo is running on his own merits without engaging in ad hominem or taking convenient slaps at others and exaggerating a resumé.

When will Jon Russell?

Election Results

My congratulations to all candidates who won their race and to those who didn’t win, thank you for running your campaigns as you did.

Clark Election Results

Unsung Heroes That Won The Cold War

Once again we prepare to honor those who have served in all of our wars, paying special homage to those who did not return from our wars. Nearly all of us who served in combat zones over our history view those whose names are etched in stone on the many Veterans Memorials as the true heroes of our conflicts.

Viet Nam is labeled as “America’s Longest War” due to our involvement in that country from 1950 to the fall of Saigon in 1975. That 25 years pales when considering that after World War Two, we began engagement in a much longer war, but a more quiet war, a war where our Troops did not fire weapons at the enemy but stood at the ready nonetheless, training for a battle that never materialized.

The “Cold War” was fought with political conflict, military tension, and economic competition with the increasingly threatening build up of the most brutal weapons known to mankind that never were used.

That war lasted 46 years, 1945 to 1991 and was manned by many millions of heroes who often fought boredom in lonely outposts in the Arctic, walked along a fenced border in Europe or flew many hours circling in pre-staging areas armed with nuclear weapons awaiting the order to return any attack against our nation from the very formidable enemy we fought against, the Soviet Union and the oppressive stranglehold that ideology had on so many European countries as they attempted to spread their influence on peaceful nations.

While the world sat on the brink of nuclear annihilation and moved as close as it ever has during the early 1960’s, it never saw the feared nuclear confrontation between the two superpowers, in spite of our engagements in both the Korean and Viet Nam wars.

On November 9, 1989 the world witnessed the beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire as a wall built to divide the city of Berlin Germany came crumbling down, opened by citizens of the divided city who longed to be free and to freely visit relatives who lived on the free side of the city.

President Ronald Reagan’s famous speech where he uttered the ominous words, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” two years earlier, saw their fulfillment. The wall dividing Berlin and the fence dividing the country opened up and freedom returned to that half of the country.

By December 1991, the world watched as the Soviet Union itself collapsed

Much credit was given to President Reagan for winning the Cold War, with some preferring to grant credit to President Jimmy Carter for starting the collapse in the late 1970’s.

Truth be known, all presidents who came along during the time of the Cold War continued policies set in motion by President Harry S. Truman shortly after World War Two. It was he who initiated the Berlin Airlift in 1948 to break the blockade of Berlin initiated by the Soviets to force allied powers out.

While we tend to give accolades to presidents and generals for victories, it is the hard work and extraordinary efforts of the common soldiers and officers who flew those planes, loaded and unloaded them and who directed aircraft safely in and out of Berlin that broke the blockade.

Likewise, as we feared invasions from communist nations close and far away or nuclear annihilation from ICBM attacks, it was the common soldiers who again manned sub-freezing temperatures across the northern hemisphere in lonely radar stations in what was called the DEW Line that kept vigil should a Soviet launch begin.

It was common men and women who sat in offices in front of monitors and screens watching 24 hours a day 7 days a week in undisclosed locations watching for any warning sign of a pending attack.

It was ordinary people who joined a peace-time Air Force and who manned bombers armed with nuclear weapons circling the edges of our nation 24 hours a day 7 days a week, leaving their posts only when a relief flight came up top take over.

It was people from all over the country, all races, all colors, descendants of all nationalities who enlisted out of high school or answered the call of the nation in the draft and who served their two years along the borders of Europe, the DMZ of South Korea, Japan, the Philippine Islands and lonely posts spread across the globe and prepared to fight off any enemy that would be foolish enough to try to conquer our nation from outside.

Some of these same people joined in the silent service of our Naval Forces, above and below the surface of the world’s oceans who, like the Air Force’s Strategic Air Command kept constant vigil far away from their homes to keep America and her inhabitants safe from oppression.

Many protected those of my generation who fought in Viet Nam and those who served elsewhere as we grew into adults and learned from their sense of duty to stand up to the oppression of communism and carry forth their vigilance.

As we approach this 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is to those Cold War Warriors who never had to face the enemy head-on, who didn’t have the chance to earn medals of valor, who may have never collected hazardous duty pay, but stood at the ready should they have been called that I dedicate this Veterans Day to this year.

It is to their service and sacrifice that supplied the deterrent we all took for granted that I recognize this year.

Whenever we may feel their contribution to our greatness as a nation was not worth as much as ours, remember the famous photo from 1961 of the East German Soldier leaping across the wire in Berlin to the free west as the city was being divided by the communists.

To all my brothers and sisters who served throughout the Cold War, standing watch on cold and miserable nights around the world, well done. Your steadfastness and readiness is what won the Cold War. Your combat may have been boredom, but you stood watch, keeping America safe, always at the ready.

“A veteran – whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve – is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The ‘United States of America’, for an amount of ‘up to and including my life.’” (Author unknown)

Thank Your Military

Thank you too all who served.

Russell Shows Lack of Experience on City Council

Any who have been following the Columbian the past few days have seen the problems unearthed in the city of Washougal, Washington where their mayor, Stacee Sellers is accused of some improper use of tax dollars on personal trips pertaining to charges on her city credit card resulting from an accountability audit.

Audit critical of Washougal spending

Sellers’ Las Vegas expenses questioned

Whether or not Washougal’s mayor is guilty of anything remains to be seen and I am not here to judge her. That will all be settled soon I hope for the citizens of Washougal.

However, this matter has brought something more important to light that must be addressed and placed in front of Washington State voters within the 3rd Congressional District. That being, city councilman Jon Russell who is campaigning for the nomination to run against 6 term Democrat congressman Brian Baird in next years election.

Washougal is a small town with a population of less than 9,000 people, just east of Vancouver, Washington. Jon Russell occupies a seat on the city council comprised of 7 citizens. As in any city council, their duties are to provide oversight of the mayor and to ensure matters pertaining to the city are not just rubber stamped through, but openly discussed and whatever is done is for the benefit of the city’s residents, not individuals.

With the revelation of possible improprieties by the mayor, Stacee Sellers, Jon unwittingly has shown his immaturity or lack of experience for such a seat in his effort to distance himself from the mayor and the accusations against her.

From the first article linked above we read,

“Council member Jon Russell said he believed the findings showed that the problems were bigger than oversights.

“I don’t think these are cracks, they’re craters,” he said. “It looks like a pattern that is not being dealt with and that is not being brought to the attention of the council.”

Russell said he wants the council to hold a special meeting to look into each problem and discipline responsible parties, even ask for resignations if necessary.

“I don’t see how we can trust this administration in moving forward with anything,” he said.”

Does Jon not realize the city council IS part of the administration?

Further eroding confidence in Jon is the second article linked where we see,

“The people responsible for that oversight are members of the city council. Three council members — [Jon] Russell, Lou Peterson and Paul Greenlee — make up the finance committee tasked with approving city employees’ and officials’ receipts and spending.”

Jon appears to be the head of the oversight committee charged with overseeing city expenditures. But he also says he doesn’t recall whether he saw details of the Las Vegas trip expenditures claiming,

“It’s not at all a perfect system.”

The real rub comes in the explanation,

“The committee members do not meet to discuss the expenditures; that practice ended several years ago in favor of council workshops. Instead, members are told to go to Sellers with questions, Russell said.

“We have been told by the mayor not to talk to department heads to get answers, that everything has to go through her.”

Jon has been on the council for at least a couple years now and surely must know his duties were to provide oversight alongside the other council members. If what he says is accurate, why has he sat back until now and tolerated such orders from the mayor?

If Jon is unable to stand up to the mayor of a small town of some 9,000, how would he ever stand up to the likes of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Washington D.C.?

I take no pleasure in bringing this out and in fact, from meeting Jon in person, I like him. But, we in the 3rd District that see congressman Baird has lost sight of who he is supposed to represent want a strong candidate to run against him and someone who will stand up for us and take on the established power base back in Washington D.C. We do not want someone who will go there, collect their salary and perks and just do as they’re told.

I still think Jon is a good guy and has a future with government if he continues. But, at this time, he simply is not ready to tackle the likes of Brian Baird or Nancy Pelosi in campaigning. He just doesn’t have the experience yet.

On the other hand, we also have a candidate that has experience in Washington D.C. with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security, David Castillo of Olympia.

Jon, you look almost as bad as the mayor in this. If she is exonerated of all charges, you remain looking bad in not standing up to her or seeing the excessive expenditures. It is either your naiveté or inexperience.

There is no shame in deciding to wait and gain some valuable experience for a future run at higher office.

Join us Jon. Get behind David Castillo and let’s get Baird out of office this time and get an experienced conservative in office to represent the 3rd Congressional District.

Remember Jon, if you couldn’t stand up to a small town mayor, how would you ever stand up to Nancy Pelosi?

Royce Pollard’s ‘Concrete Canyon.’

The following video was shown to the City of Vancouver planning meeting in regards to mayor Pollard’s dream for Vancouver’s Columbia River Waterfront development.

Sort of reminds me of waterfronts along Chicago, New York, Miami and other such overgrown cities plagued with high unemployment, ultra high taxes, out of control crime and street pan handlers.

Is this what “Boss” Pollard wants for our community, to out Portland Portland?

Add to this his other dream “cap” over I-5, most likely destined to be a haven for the homeless or drug dealers to hide out.

Should “Boss” Pollard’s “dream” for the community come to fruition, how long before we are more like sections of Detroit?

Vote Tim Leavitt for Mayor.

U.N. Rapporteur To Probe Affordable Housing In U.S.

Raquel Rolnik, a professor of urban planning at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil will be touring first New York then 6 other cities and will “report” back to the U.N. about housing rights violations and advances within the U.S.

Rolnik plans to “hear the voices of those who are suffering on the ground,” in the U.S.

Shouldn’t Ms. Rolnik be more concerned about the poor housing and poverty within her native Brazil, before she attempts to “teach” us?

Has Obama begun ceding our sovereignty to the United Nations now?