Among the myriad falsehoods, fabrications and distortions spread by Ruth Gibbs in her 9,607 word attack on me (Doug Parris) and 25-40% of the active members of the Republican Party for supporting Ron Paul, she attacked one of the most articulate defenders of freedom and our Constitution in Washington State.
I am not exaggerating when I say that the future success of the Republican Party in Washington State depends on our ability to assimilate the small government conservatives that have come in to our Party this year because of the candidacy of small government conservative, Ron Paul.
Ron Ewart, despite not being a supporter of Ron Paul's candidacy, recognized this very early and has recognized that the success of the Party depends on coalitioning and integrating with the many groups that share the majority of Republican principles, the core of freedom and justice that has made America Great: Social Conservatives who might favor income re-distribution schemes but recognize the greater good in the GOP; Pro-choicers who realize that the benefits of small governent and freedom outweigh their natural affinity with the right to kill; Constitutionalists who doubt the Iraq War. We all support the majority of the platform and allow personal disagreement on a point or two.
Ron Ewart has always understood this and his performance as a conservative activist has been nothing short of EXEMPLARY. This is his open letter to Ruth, as published at www.TheReaganWing.com:
Ms. Gibbs:
A couple of years ago I ran into a lady in Federal Way who was a victim of your vitriol and over-bearing personality. I had never met you before but this lady's description of you made an indelible picture of just who you are. Upon occasion we all run into a person who has a mean spirit, ugly on the outside and the inside and that is also over-enamored with their own importance. They are rare, but they do exist. They build themselves and their inflated egos up, by tearing others down. Somehow it empowers them, in their own mind. It probably stems from an unsettling childhood. In fact this characteristic is more prevalent in young children.
I ran into you in person at the Eastside Republican Women's Club in mid March, where Dino Rossi was the guest speaker. I was seated at the Head Table with Mr. Rossi and his wife. You came up to me, presumably to introduce yourself and when you found out who I was, you beat a hasty retreat. Now I know why.
At that time I was not aware that you were going to take me to task on Sound Politics because of some beef you have with Doug Parris and the Reagan Wing. Your attack on me personally and the National Association of Rural Landowners, was totally unwarranted and a further indication of your true character. But let's be clear about one thing. I, nor the National Association of Rural Landowners has ever endorsed any presidential candidate, nor will we. Your allegation is without basis. However, we have endorsed Dino Rossi for governor. On the other fronts that you attacked me on Sound Politics, I admit, I am either an agnostic or an atheist. But the jury is still out because I don't have enough information and I am incapable of taking things, just on faith. I have read well over 100 science books in all disciplines and it is within the scope of that knowledge that I base my observations and my beliefs. But then, so what Ruth? I haven't attacked you nor will I, because you are a Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Muslim. I have no idea which and I don't care.
The second issue where NARLO is calling for a rural landowner boycott the week of July 4th, is a form of protest against what the tyranny of the majority (city folk) do to rural landowners, a distinct, unrepresented, minority. Closing the roads is a form of protest and has been very effective in redress of grievances that others have sought. It is neither anarchy, nor are we hatching some diabolical plot against the government. We merely want to send a powerful message to those that would oppress us.
The final issue you brought up was a disagreement we had with the Financial Securities Department way back in 2001, seven years ago. We had invented a specific product and used the U. S. Mail to seek funds for its development. It turns out that we were in error and were not authorized by law to do what we did. We were immediately notified by the state to cease and desist, which we did. No money was raised and no one was hurt. Unfortunately, Google has seen fit to keep the Order from the State as a listing under my name for these seven years. I have tried to have it removed, but to no avail. We made a mistake and we have paid dearly for that mistake and will probably continue to pay.
I won't dignify your personal attack on me and NARLO with any further discussion. You are what you are and it is quite clear that you can't help being what you are. It is indeed unfortunate however, that you find yourself a conservative and a PCO in the Republican Party. The Democrats must rub their hands together knowing that you are not a PCO in the Democrat Party. It would be easy for me to conclude from your behavior, that you are an infiltrator, or a spoiler.
And I have used up way more of my time on this exchange than it warrants. There will be no further exchange.
Respectively,
Ron Ewart, President
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS
P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA 98027
425 222-4742 or 1 800 682-7848
(Fax No. 425 222-4743)
Website: www.narlo.org
The defense of private property rights should and must be front and center of the Republican Party. Since it appears you are ashamed of that, what are you for?
What has happened to the party of the blue collar citizenry?
You and the rest of you elitists better come clean. While I don't agree with the Parris branch of the Republican party on many things, I most certainly don't agree with most of your principles. You had better start educating us. And you is not just you personally but the other elitists that have run the R party into the ground.
Posted by: swatter on April 24, 2008 03:15 PMBlocking rural roads is NOT private property rights. The rural roads do not belong to private property owners. They are PUBLIC roads for the benefit of ALL citizens of the United States of America.
The land is titled and deeded to government agencies for the common good of all Americans, and as such cannot be shut down by extremists like Ewart who think that to block the roads is making a statement.
Article # Section 8 of the Constitution even calls for Congress to provide finances to establish post roads for the delivery of mail.
Neither you, I or any other citizen has the legal right noq or ever has to block roads so others cannot use them.
Ewart is not talking on his website about driveways on PRIVATE property. He is talking about blocking roads that belong to ME, YOU and everyone else. That is anarchy whether he wants to admit it or not.
In 1970 when the University Bridge was shut down by left wing communist types, the National Guard was called out.
Why? Because the road across the University Bridge does not belong to 'city folks' anymore than the rural roads of America belong to 'rural folks'.
If someone in New York City wants to drive cross country and view the scenery in rural King County, that person have ever constitutional right to do so, and no one has the right to barricade roads to stop that person.
I am tired of people who rant and rave and holler Constitution, but are determined to deny the Constitutional Rights of others to make 'statements'.
Get a clue Swatter.
Ruth Gibbs
That is Article 1, Section 8. Typo.
Ruth Gibbs Posted by: Ruth Gibbs on April 24, 2008 06:15 PM
I do not know who you are, but you obviously know NOTHING about the Republicans. We are far from elitist. Multitudes of us (MOST of us) WORK for a living. Many, many are blue collar. We work to support families and children. We give to churches and charity.
I will quote here from the KCGOP Platform just passed. I was a member of the committee and signed the document. Property Rights are fundamental to the Republican Party. Read the DEMOCRAT platform. No mention of Property Rights.
That STILL does not negate the fact that there are roads that are for the benifit of all, and cannot be blocked at the whim of an Ewart extremist.
I have strongly opposed the Growth Management Act ever since it was passed into law in the early 90s. Are you a Republican? What county? What is your real name?
You wanted to be educated, here is some education for you:
KCGOP Platform passed in 2008:
Property Rights Plank:
We believe that increasingly onerous and unjustified land-use regulations are affecting our ability to maintain a sustainable economy. Washington State and local governments have responded to rapid population growth by devising a Growth Management Act that violates the property rights guaranteed to state citizens under its Constitution. The implementation of this act, such as the Critical Areas Ordinance in King County, has taken property and violated usage rights without just compensation. The resulting regulations and fees have substantially increased the cost of housing.
We support:
Repealing the Growth Management Act and replacing it with sensible legislation that balances property rights and responsible stewardship of the environment;
Respect and protection of individual property rights, including restriction of eminent domain to public works projects, as opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London;
Full market compensation for reduction in use rights by the government;
Property tax reform that does not force people from their homes and property due to spiraling property tax increases; and
Preservation of historic water rights.
A Portion of the Citizens Rights Plank:
We declare that:
The fundamental right to own property must never be abridged.
Pro-property Rights enough for you without anarchy? If so, and you are NOT a Republican, I suggest you join.
Ruth Gibbs
A Proud, law abiding, 5th Generation Republican
I'm curious about your take on the Boston Tea Party. Anarchists? Posted by: Doug Parris on April 25, 2008 12:02 AM
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition:
civil disobedience :
Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.
Note: In the nineteenth century, the American author Henry David Thoreau wrote "Civil Disobedience," an important essay justifying such action.
Note: In the twentieth century, civil disobedience was exercised by Mahatma Gandhi in the struggle for independence in India. Civil disobedience, sometimes called nonviolent resistance or passive resistance, was also practiced by some members of the civil rights movement in the United States, notably [Republican] Martin Luther King, Jr., to challenge segregation of public facilities; a common tactic of these civil rights supporters was the sit-in. King defended the use of civil disobedience in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail."
Dictionary.com unabridged:
an ar chy ~noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
Ron Ewart is suggesting "civil disobedience" and it has nothing to do with "anarchy," and that is crystal clear to anyone who is both honest and intelligent.
I would have been there with Ron Ewart blocking a county road as a measure of civil disobedience. I didn't know about it.
There are county roads and there are private roads and there are county roads on easements. I'll take your word it was a county-owned road.
Ron Ewart has a good mission. Too bad you turn your back on him and revert to worthless paper (i.e. your platform).
My original comments stand. Grow up and lead, if you would, please.
Posted by: swatter on April 25, 2008 07:49 AMCould it be because you're not only stupid, but arrogant, self-righteous, a know-it-all, and totally uninformed? Could it be because you spend all of your time attacking other Republicans? Could it be because you blame the failure of every single thing you do on some sort of conspiracy of party leaders that actually accomplish something, other then you who rant like a child?
Nah, couldn't be.
Must be because you're white. Or something.
Posted by: The World on April 25, 2008 07:20 PMCould it be that you're too ashamed to put your name on such a mindless and hateful comment while simultaneously accusing your political opponent of attacking other Republicans? Could it be that your own words here might work against your political aspirations, so you've gotta hide behind something much bigger than yourself? Could it be that you're actually in a tiny minority, but you need to make it appear as if you're speaking for everyone?
Nah, couldn't be.
Must be because you're round. Or something.
Posted by: Michelle on April 25, 2008 11:41 PMI'm not attacking other Republicans. I'm attacking Doug. A specific Republican. Big difference. Doug attacks everybody who isn't him. I've never seen anybody with an ego his size, and that includes Eliot Spitzer.
And if by "hateful" you mean "accurate", then yes.
Posted by: The World on April 26, 2008 08:25 AMYou say (of yourself) "I'm attacking Doug" but I don't really take it that way. I realize you're just lashing out at your own personal darkness.
I even regard your posts as helpful. For instance, since, as you've noted I "attack everybody who isn't me," would you please quote something from my attack on Ron Ewart?
Please?
And if, by "stupid, arrogant, self-righteous, a know-it-all, and totally uninformed" you mean "Intelligent, humble, self-effacing, unassuming and well-informed," well, what can I say, but thank you. You are too kind.
But, you know, creative adjectives of praise or condemnation are rather shallow expressions of esteem, or, alternatively, what would you call it? (not "hate" you tell us) Why don't you allow me to respond to your graciousness with something more substantive? I'd like to take you and your domestic partner out to dinner some time. How could we arrange that?
I also wouldn't allow you to operate heavy machinery.
Posted by: The World on April 29, 2008 10:47 AMJust how "other" are we talking about? Posted by: Doug Parris on April 30, 2008 12:16 PM