September 10, 2009
HATERS DENIED A FOURTH TIME! R71 Signatories to remain private.

Wow.... things are looking bad for the gay activists and their fringe-left allies!

Earlier, the clowns who despise democracy were doing their best to intimidate people by threatening to publicize their names and addresses if they dared to exercise their right to request to vote on the "Everything but gay marriage" issues our leftist legislature rammed down our throats.

Like tens of thousands of others, I didn't give a rip WHO knows that I support the right of the people of this state to vote on this, or any other issue confronting us at any time... precisely like the Constitution of this state says we can.

That said, others may, in fact, be frightened by these scum. Others may be concerned for their safety or that of their families. I don't share that concern, because I'm pretty good with a .45.

That said, the foes of democracy took it in the chops AGAIN when a federal court judge ruled that the names be kept private for now, since those interested in attempting to engage in voter intimidation provided absolutely no compelling reason to release those names and addresses.

Judge shields signatures in gay-rights referendum A federal judge has continued to keep private the names and addresses of those who signed Referendum 71, saying they likely are protected under the First Amendment and that the state failed to prove a compelling public interest in their release.

By Janet I. Tu

Seattle Times staff reporter

A federal judge has continued to keep private the names and addresses of those who signed Referendum 71, saying they likely are protected under the First Amendment and that the state failed to prove a compelling public interest in their release.

Gee... It must really suck to be an enemy of democracy today...

And, by the way... like our esteemed, lying Cowardman who assures us he hasn't made up his mind how he's going to vote on Obamacare... *I* haven't made up MY mind how m*I'M* going to vote on R 71.

There... see how that works?

Posted by Hinton at September 10, 2009 10:40 PM | Email This
1. Public disclosure is an essential part of democracy. People who demand public disclosure are not enemies of democracy. That's just so odd to even suggest!

It's important to note that at issue here is the constitutionality of the state public records act. Corruption is very real in this state. If we weaken these laws so that religious conservatives can stay in the closet, there will be repercussions in other areas that are MUCH more important.

Posted by: AD on September 11, 2009 03:16 AM
2. Public disclosure has to do with the public right to know about the doings of Government and our elected Politicians. It has nothing to do with the privacy of the Citizenry. There are certain privacy laws that protect the Private Citizenry and how a Private Citizen votes on any public issue is to remain private at the discretion of the Private Citizen. To do anything less would open the Private Citizen to Coercion and a threat to Liberty. Get it? Naah...You're a Lying Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on September 11, 2009 09:25 AM
3. @2: It's not a vote, and AD is not a liberal.

Posted by: demo kid on September 12, 2009 08:14 AM
4. Well if it isn't...demo Shit! The poster boy of what Liberals are all about. Confused chronic Liars and much more on the downward side of depravity. This forum is all about the Vote and the Left wanting to know the names of voters and how they voted. A serious and Coercive Freedom threatening invasion of Privacy. Plus, you claim AD is not a Liberal. What a Joke!

Posted by: Daniel on September 12, 2009 09:27 AM
5. Wow, Daniel. Calm down. It's best to show not tell. Instead of just labeling people "You're wrong! You're depraved! You're a liberal!" you should actually try and show it through reasoned argument.

I will make my point in a reasoned, calm fashion.

We have a lot of problems with corruption in politics. Often, public disclosure and FOIA requests are our only avenue for catching corrupt politicians in the act. Do you know what made THIS website so popular? It was Sharkansky's reporting on the 2004 election problems, many of which he pursued with public records requests. We shouldn't gut these laws without a good reason.

Signing a petition is not the same as voting and you should know that. As our Republican Attorney General, Rob McKenna, explains "In all states with initiative or referendum systems, the ballot measure represents the people substituting themselves for legislatures. We don’t conduct the legislative process in secret, and it doesn’t make sense to conduct this legislative process in secret either.”

Posted by: AD on September 13, 2009 10:56 AM
6. Get Real! Nobody, is gutting the law requiring public disclosure. For you to suggest that I'm for such action, in no way, can such intent be gathered from my previous comment. Public disclosure deals with the Right to Know of the doings of our so-called public servants and Government as a whole. You are deliberately misrepresenting my position and therefore...Lying through your Teeth. The people exercising their Right to petition are not paid Legislators. Whether, the people who cast their Votes or Sign petitions, it is essential for their Votes and Signatures to remain private. The people should, at all Cost, remain Free of any Threats upon their property, reputation and person in exercising their Rights to oppose or support those who are governing over them. To expose the people's Votes and Signatures is to deliberately put the people at Risk from personal predations of those, which includes Government itself, who oppose their Vote or signed petition. One of the fundamental protection of a Free People is their Right to Anonymity in their Vote and petition signature. This is America. We are not running a Police State.

For you to want to require the names of the signers of any petition to the Government to be made public makes you an anti-Liberty, anti-American Marxist Fool. Needless to say, that makes you a Liberal...PERIOD!

Posted by: Daniel on September 13, 2009 12:17 PM
7. Nobody is gutting the law requiring public disclosure? The federal judge that kept these names secret did so based on the reasoning that the public disclosure law that makes their release mandatory is unconstitutional. Please read up on this issue. It will have broader implications than just 71.

That's why McKenna believes it's so important to protect the disclosure laws. These names have been public for decades and now, all of a sudden, disclosure means we live in a police state?

Maybe next we can keep donor names and amounts secret? Donors need to be protected, too. Right?

Posted by: AD on September 13, 2009 12:48 PM
8. If that was the conclusion of the Federal judge, which I question being the case at all because, you have shown yourself to be a Liar, doesn't change the fact that the Voters and petition Signers have the well established Right, the Right of Anonymity. Anything, the judge may have Blabbed beyond that is mute.

Your twisted Liberal mind can't grasp what the disclosure laws are all about even when, it has been explained to you more than once. So, it is futile to review again.

Donor names and amounts are governed by law as to the amounts and source. They go to supporting various politics in one form or another. Therefore, it is aligned in matters of support for paid public officials and their parties/support groups that have bearing on how the peoples will be served and the cost to the peoples thereof. Therefore, donor names and amounts are open to public disclosure. Get it? Naah...You're a Liberal.

Posted by: Daniel on September 13, 2009 02:00 PM
9. You don't have to believe me. Please, go research it yourself. I want you to understand what is happening here!

From the Seattle Times: "A federal judge [Benjamin Settle] has continued to keep private the names and addresses of those who signed Referendum 71, saying they likely are protected under the First Amendment and that the state failed to prove a compelling public interest in their release. ... Indeed, Settle said that Protect Marriage is likely to succeed in its claim that the public-records act is unconstitutional as applied to the disclosure of referendum petitions."

Read how you describe donations. You say they are "governed by law" and "go to supporting various politics." How is that different from signatures? It's not the same as voting, as AG McKenna explains. Most states west of the Mississippi don't have referenda and initiatives because that's what the legislature is for. These mechanisms exist in our state because it gives an opportunity to the People to act AS the legislature. What if someone wanted to keep the votes and actions of our state reps secret? That is RIDICULOUS!

You think I'm a liberal.. fine. You're not a conservative, though. Conservatives support open government and the right of everyday people to know what is going on in our government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It's truly sad that so many are frightened of it!

Posted by: AD on September 13, 2009 02:27 PM
10. In the first place, judges whether, they be Federal, State or County are not the pinnacle of all knowing to begin with. There are plenty of wrongful, faulty, incomplete opinions handed down all the time from judges. You can build whatever phony scenario you want to support a position. You position is seriously Wrong in you wanting to have the signatures revealed. Example: The Criminal Unions wanted the names of who voted for the Union and those who voted against Unions. They did not want a secret ballot. Why? So, the Union could use the power of Coercion/Threats to muscle the vote to their satisfaction. Do you understand any of this? If that example is not enough to make you realize the value of secret ballots or the names on a petition not being revealed....I give up! You're just too damn Dumb to realize where it is at. But then...You're a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on September 13, 2009 10:28 PM
11. Totally agree with you that there are faulty judges who make bad rulings. This is one of them.

I understand exactly what you are saying. I disagree. This is not an election with a private ballot. Citizens who sign a petition are saying "The legislature made a big mistake and I am going to act in their stead by enacting this law." It is regular citizens acting as legislators. This is a cherished right, of course. But it doesn't mean you can do it in secret!

If a bunch of Seattle liberals started an initiative against conservative Christians, I don't think you'd be so protective of their rights to privacy. I think this is just partisan for you and you have a hard time seeing the broader issue, which is open government and public records.

I support the initiative process. I just don't want it done in the dark, behind closed doors.

Posted by: AD on September 14, 2009 04:22 AM
12. And I also want to ask you, why do you need to insult me? Does that help your argument? Have I insulted you? I'm trying to be reasonable, but you seem very angry..

Posted by: AD on September 14, 2009 04:23 AM
13. You are Totally Wrong in your Opinion and Statement "The legislature made a big mistake and I am going to act in their stead by enacting this law" That is a LIE! The petition signers merely want to put the matter to the Vote of the people. They do not themselves want to be the deciding factor. They want the will of the people to decide as a whole and not just, their so-called Representatives. The Right to Petition is a Sacred Constitution Right and should not be Abridged nor Threaten by any means...PERIOD! As I've explained before, the Right to Anonymity is Paramount to a Free Society. I have given you the example of the Unions being against the secret ballot yet, you still don't get it. There is only so much I can do to show you where it is at. If you haven't got enough of GOD'S given light to see the Truth in the matter then, there is nothing further I can do.

Christians may wish to know who the signers of a petition against them are but, Christians have the respect and the awareness of the Right to Anonymity and would respect the fundamental Right to Anonymity in its use in protecting the signers of petitions on both sides of an issue.

Your statement "I support the initiative process I just ,don't want it done in the dark behind closed doors" is just, another one of your LIES! It is not being done behind closed doors. The petition is put before the public as aggressively as funds would allow. There is nothing secret about the petition itself. For you to try to create the illusion that the petition is secret is Ridiculous! But then...You're a Liberal!

Posted by: Daniel on September 14, 2009 08:21 AM
14. The people who gathered the signatures put it on the ballot because they want the law repealed. They aren't disinterested third parties who just love referenda. Seriously. Come on, guy.

The "Right to Anonymity" (just FYI, no such "right" exists, but please tell me if you can find it somewhere) does not apply to the legislative process. If it did, we would keep all voting records of senators and representatives secret.

Posted by: AD on September 14, 2009 09:08 AM
15. Your full of Lying Liberal CRAP as usual. No surprise. The people who gathered the signatures to put the Initiative are very interested and I never said otherwise. Again, your Lying. You have reduced yourself to incessant mindless Blabbing.

The Right to Anonymity is based in Common Law and has been held up by the Courts many times...IDIOT! Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. I think it has been proved that reality and facts will never dissuade you from clinging to your demented beliefs and positions. What a Joke you are. But then...You're a Liberal and you're a Waste of any further time spent. Take a Hike!

Posted by: Daniel on September 14, 2009 10:01 AM
16. Part of me just wants to keep this argument going because anyone who happens across it will be put off by your anger. :)

Seriously, buddy, it's politics. It's fun to argue about. It matters, of course. But it's all intellectual. Don't get too emotionally wrapped up in it.

Posted by: AD on September 15, 2009 03:42 PM
17. Some may be put off by my pointed response to your Wrongful positions and rhetoric. However, others will be in agreement with my rebuttals and defense of what is Right.

Arguing about politics is much more that just, showing off skills of debate and intellectual acuity. Most important, it is about Principles and what is Right. It's about bringing to the forefront what is best for Mankind and the Governing of Mankind. It's about defending Freedom from the predators who choose politics to advance their avarice. It is certainly more than just, an intellectual exercise.

Posted by: Daniel on September 15, 2009 06:09 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?