http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=452763

Are we concerned about the right things?

The Arizona immigration law appears to have raised concerns. But ironically, the concerns are not for our fellow U.S. citizens in Arizona. Instead, the concerns are focused on how the law will impact the individuals who have crossed into the United States illegally, as well as the impact it might have on illegal labor, and the impact it might have on the Mexican economy should those same workers fail to send back their earnings to their relatives in Mexico.

Along the same lines, many concerns have been raised regarding how this law might be enforced. But surprisingly little discussion is focused on addressing how to best resolve the illegal immigration issue.

Now Rep. Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa has introduced immigration enforcement legislation here in Minnesota, prompting us to have the conversation on a local level. Because this measure was introduced so late in the session, it will most likely be shelved until next year. That gives us time to examine the issue and tell our representatives how we would like to see the legislation shaped to enact effective, moral, and reasonable immigration enforcement methods. Ideally, it should be in a manner that considers the human rights of all people, and places the rights of the U.S. citizens at the heart of the dialogue.

Thankfully, this debate is also helping to force federal engagement on the issue, which is ultimately necessary to resolve the national-level equities at stake. Disappointingly, initial comments from our president and from many of our elected representatives on both sides of the aisle have more to do with acknowledging Mexico’s concern regarding enforcement, than how to protect U.S. equities and U.S. citizens.

In any real debate, everyone must have an advocate; however, it would appear as if both the U.S. and Mexican leaders are planning to advocate for Mexican migration plans. These plans, if put in place, will help to manage the flow of illegal workers by legalizing their ability to work in the U.S.

So far, it appears they will do nothing to address the cost of educating, policing, or reducing the large numbers of illegal immigrants living in the United States, or ease the burden of the taxpayer in Arizona or any other border state. If politicians or their constituents oppose this Arizona legislation that enforces existing law, then they must design viable new immigration legislation that fixes the illegal immigration issue, addresses the associated fiscal impacts, and meets the needs of our citizens. Simply disagreeing with proposed methods of enforcement does not address the issue or resolve the challenge, and that is what we must do as a country.

Before we here in Minnesota leap in on one side or another of the issue, perhaps it would be good to remember the following:

• It is natural to have empathy for the people who are crossing into the country illegally because they live in a desperate situation. Many are hard-working people who clearly believe it is the best option for them and for their families. That empathy, however, does not require condoning any illegal actions that accompany their decisions.

• Illegal immigration is not just a Mexican issue, but given the number of illegal immigrants who are Mexican, it is a logical place to start the dialogue. Clearly any good legislation will address all illegal immigration originating from any country.

• There is a moral imperative to deal justly and humanly with all people, so we must find ways to enforce our laws in such a manner. Ignoring the law or not enforcing it because it “makes us look heartless” is dodging our responsibilities to uphold the law and find solutions to the problem.

• Saying we need illegal immigrants to work here because “Americans won’t take those jobs anyway” is neither accurate, nor just. Americans have a long history of rolling up their sleeves and taking the work that is available. In actuality, it is the employer who benefits from exploiting the undocumented worker. Why would we support or promote that practice?

• There is indeed a legal border and a legal means to enter this country. Many people have worked hard to enter the country legally and many, many more still hope to do so in the future. Whatever we do regarding this issue, we should remember them and their dreams of U.S. citizenship are part of what makes up the diversity we enjoy in this country.

Perhaps if we can remember these things as we discuss the challenges we face regarding this issue, we can then talk about how we can help the citizens of the United States as well as Mexican citizens in a manner that is legal, moral, and economically viable.

Senate Bill 6452 was a direct attack on Washington’s faith-run Crisis Pregnancy Centers by pro-abortion advocates diametrically opposed to their mission.  The bill was an
out-and-out assault on both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

As many of you know, CPCs are non-profit pregnancy resource centers generally associated with a religious community. They offer advice and support that encourages pregnant women to choose life – that is, to keep their baby or give it up for adoption rather than to abort it.

Senate Bill 6452 required Crisis Pregnancy Centers to submit to a series of state regulations that would completely undermine this mission. The regulations would define CPC’s as “Limited Service” Pregnancy Centers.

All “Limited Service” Pregnancy Centers must:

1. Offer “medically and scientifically accurate” reproductive health information. (They would not be able to teach abstinence only.)
2. Deliver pregnancy test results immediately without any counseling or intervention. (Essentially silencing any efforts to offer abortion alternatives.)
3. Protect any medical information, including pregnancy test results (no parents can be notified).
4. Post notices in at least 30 pt. type in English and Spanish explaining that the center does not provide medical care, abortion or comprehensive birth control services. The notices must be posted on entry doors, inside the building at the registration desk and on the Web site and any advertisement for the CPC.
5. Be subject to the Consumer Protection Act. That means anyone who is “injured” under this Act can bring a lawsuit to prevent future violations and recover actual damages, including the cost of the lawsuit and attorney’s fees. The court can also award triple punitive damages up to $25,000. One successful lawsuit would shut down the average CPC.

The Crisis Pregnancy Centers have always aimed to reduce the need and desire for abortion by encouraging women to consider the long-term ramifications of continuing a pregnancy or ending it…to think more deeply about what’s at stake. They show new mothers that their pregnancy is not just a collection of cells, as some believe, but a living human being.

CPCs provide an alternative to abortion-centric Planned Parenthood. It’s clear their mission is succeeding if abortion proponents are willing to introduce legislation this malignant.

SB 6452 was introduced quickly, under the radar, at the instigation of the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. These agencies aim to force the above regulations on CPCs, but specifically exempt themselves on the basis of their willingness to provide abortion services. Since CPCs are largely affiliated with religious organizations, it is unlikely that they could, in good conscience, accept these regulations.

This bill was an assault on religious liberty, which is absolutely protected by Article 1, Section 11 of our state Constitution and freedom of speech, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Thankfully, the Crisis Pregnancy Centers learned of the bill early and hundreds of CPC supporters showed up to the hearing, clearly shocking the Democrat committee chair who expected to sneak this bill through committee unchallenged.

Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, testified eloquently against it. You can hear his testimony by clicking on his photo. It’s well worth a listen.

Because of this avalanche of opposition, the bill died in committee.

If this malicious legislation had become law, it would have shut down the efforts of religious organizations to encourage women to choose an alternative to abortion. Then how long would it take before another bill was introduced to muzzle what can be taught at church-related events, and later, in our churches?

It is unlikely that we have seen the last of this bill. I expect it to surface again in 2011, but this time we’ll be ready.

Please commit to speaking out against legislation like this, even if it means coming to Olympia to register your displeasure in person.

Sincerely,

WHEREAS,  on April 17, 1952, the Congress of the United States approved the Joint Resolution to provide for setting aside an appropriate day as a National Day of Prayer (Public Law 82-324; 66 Stat. 64); and

WHEREAS, the history of our nation is indelibly marked with the role that prayer has played in the lives of individuals and the nation; and

WHEREAS, historically our greatest leaders have turned to prayer in times of crisis and thanksgiving; and

WHEREAS, the virtues of prayer reflect a common bond: hopes and aspirations, sorrows and fears, remorse and renewed resolve, thanks, joyful praise, and love;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of the State of Washington, do hereby proclaim May 6, 2010, as the DAY OF PRAYER in Washington State, in keeping with the wishes of Congress, and I invite Washington residents to join me in this special observance.

Signed this 22nd day of April, 2010
Governor Christine O. Gregoire

ARLINGTON, WASHINGTON – 22 MARCH 2010

The federal takeover of 1/6th of the U.S. economy won’t fix health care, it will harm it. A majority of the American people have made it clear that they strongly oppose a government healthcare takeover. Rife with partisan backroom deals, the process leading up to the passage of this socialized medicine bill has violated every rule of good statesmanship and sound economics.

The indifference and arrogant dismissal of the legitimate concerns of millions of Americans by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and my opponent, the incumbent Rick Larsen, is unacceptable at best. If my campaign for the United States Congress is successful, I will do everything within my power to repeal this legislation and work to advance free market solutions that increase choice and accessibility to Health Care.

John Koster, Candidate
2nd Congressional District

Today let’s take a closer look at two recent lone dissents by Justice Sanders. He believes the court is there to protect people’s legal rights and will stand for them, even if he stands alone. He sees a dissent as an epitaph on a tombstone for a legal right violated. Although dissents have no immediate effect on the rights of the parties, hopefully they will stimulate further thought and perhaps reconsideration in future decisions. After all, Plessey v. Ferguson (separate but equal), was ultimately replaced by Brown v. Board of Education (separate is not equal) — but it took a while.

Justice Sanders was most gratified when he visited Seattle’s new city attorney-elect in December to see that Peter Holmes had a quotation on his computer from Justice Sanders’ lone dissent in Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776 (1997). That decision denied a dying man his right to use medical marijuana in his final illness. Perhaps this was to remind Mr. Holmes of the potential consequences of misused government power. Justice Sanders believes the people of Seattle have a very fine public servant in Peter Holmes. That dissent was also reprinted almost verbatim in the Seattle PI as well, and may have laid some of the groundwork for the medial marijuana initiative later passed by the people. Ironically the most recent lone dissent deals with the same subject. But some things need to be said repeatedly before people are able to hear the truth.

State v. Fry, 2010 WL 185857 (2010)

Stevens County sheriff deputies went to the Fry residence to check out a marijuana growing operation. Tina Fry met the officers at the door and told the officers her husband Jason had a legal prescription for medical marijuana. Nevertheless the officers obtained a search warrant based on the smell of marijuana despite the statute’s injunction that medical marijuana users “shall not be penalized in any manner, or denied any right or privilege,for such actions.”

Fry moved to suppress the evidence obtained arguing that there was no probable cause to issue the warrant since he presented evidence of the legal prescription to the police indicating he had a right to smoke before they sought the warrant. Justice Jim Johnson upheld the search in his majority opinion; Justice Tom Chambers concurred in result while Justice Sanders wrote a lone dissent.

After the opinion was published, the Seattle Times quoted a representative of CannaCare as saying it is “a disaster for us…It basically says that no matter what, they can arrest you at will, prosecute you at will, put you through the system, and cost you thousands in legal fees, even though they know you’re a legal patient. That’s just wrong. We are guilty until we can prove ourselves innocent.” The Olympian also provided a very good explanation of the opinion and dissent. And, Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times posted an article siding with Sanders.

State v. Pugh 2009 WL 5155364 (Dec. 31, 2009)

Bridgette Pugh called 911 to say her husband beat her up and was now walking away from her apartment. The police arrested him for assault; however when he was tried the wife didn’t show up to testify. Over Mr. Pugh’s objections the court allowed the prosecution to play the 911 tape without live testimony to support conviction, and he was convicted based on the tape, which, of course, he could not cross examine. Although the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution provides the right of the accused “to be confronted with the witnesses against him”, Justice Madsen writing for the majority held the right to confront the witness against you was not violated because the tape was not “testimonial.” Justice Sanders countered in the dissent that it was a narrative of past events so of course it was testimonial and therefore a 6th Amendment violation.

But the state constitution provides even more rights than the federal Bill of Rights. One reason Justice Sanders writes so many dissents is that he follows the express language of our state constitution. In this case, the language is very clear: “In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right…to meet the witnesses against him face to face…”

In his dissent, Sanders wrote “What is there about ‘face to face’ that the majority doesn’t understand? ‘The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right names.’” [Ancient Chinese Proverb]

In the opinion Justice Sanders explains that the people ratified our state constitution by popular vote in 1889 and we must apply it by its plain language as it would have been understood. Apparently this view is now radical thought, and “thinking outside the box” to say the Constitution means what it says, and says what it means. Unfortunately, only Justice Sanders brings this view to the court. But at least someone reads the text and will apply it as written.

AT WHAT POINT DO WE GO BANKRUPT?

Frankly, I’m worried for our nation and for the state of Washington.

Within the next 12 months, the United States Treasury must refinance $2 trillion in short-term debt, along with additional deficit spending, estimated at $1.5 trillion.

This is simple economics: The Treasury can’t borrow $3.5 trillion in only one year. That’s nearly 30 percent of our entire Gross Domestic Product! Where will the money come from?

Typically, to minimize its interest burden, the Treasury borrows for short durations and then “rolls over” the loans when they come due. In theory, as long as they can extend the debt, there’s no problem. And that has led to ever greater amounts of debt for ever shorter durations at ever lower interest rates.

PAYDAY IS SOMEDAY

Sooner or later, creditors start asking themselves: What are the chances I will ever actually be repaid? And that’s when the trouble starts. Interest rates soar. Funding costs skyrocket. And bankruptcy is certain.

In fact, economists Alan Greenspan and Pablo Guidotti created a formula to accurately predict when a country will go bankrupt, or “default.” The Greenspan-Guidotti Rule is simple: If a country does not have enough in reserves (savings) to cover all of its foreign short-term debts when they become due, it will default.

When this happens, we become a terrible credit risk, and speculators target our bonds and currency, making it impossible to refinance the debt. Then default is certain. Using this scale, the U.S. has reached guaranteed default.

BIG DEBT, LITTLE SAVINGS

The U.S. holds 8,133.5 metric tons of gold worth about $300 billion, 725 million barrels of oil reserves worth roughly $58 billion, and $136 billion in foreign currency reserves. Altogether that’s about $500 billion of reserves.

Foreigners own 44 percent of our debts, which means we will owe them at least $880 billion in the next 12 months – an amount far larger than our reserves. With $1.5 trillion more of deficit spending slated for this year, our total funding requirements will top $3.5 trillion.

As the United States continues to move closer to defaulting, creditors hesitate to buy our bonds knowing the value of the payback is uncertain. If the U.S. defaults, our state’s ability to borrow and our businesses’ ability to borrow and grow local economies will also be at risk.

We will only become solvent again when the government stops spending – both at the state and federal level.

Sincerely,

Are the homosexuals finally going to take control of our culture and push their depraved lifestyle on our children and families?

Ballots were mailed last week to over 3 million voters in Washington State asking them to either approve or reject Senate Bill 5688. Passed last spring in the legislature, SB5688 would strip away the protections of traditional marriage that were ensured with the passage of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) just a few short years ago.

What kept SB5688 from being signed into law by a very willing governor were a few courageous people who came together to file a referendum to allow the voters to make the final decision – to REJECT this bill.

Frankly, it was nothing short of a miracle that R-71 qualified for the ballot.

Amidst harassment and even death threats by the homosexual radicals pushing this into our faces, just enough signatures were gathered to give you the final say on the upcoming ballot.

And now, we need one more miracle to stay the course and ward off – what could be – the final assault on our families and American culture by the homosexuals.

You may just be that miracle…

Do you realize what is going on here? Consider the following:

- In 1970, (on the heels of a “free love” 60′s radical culture) sodomy laws were repealed in Washington State, with government turning a blind eye to a behavior commonly considered perversion – and still the case with a majority of Americans.

- Organizations, such as NAMBLA, (North American Man Boy Love Association) appeared on the horizon seeking to repeal “age of consent” laws (NAMBLA is still in business today).

- Various pro-homosexual websites (most now taken down) have shown that homosexuals’ real intent is to “normalize” homosexuality – which means pushing the lifestyle through public schools, beginning with elementary school-aged children. They will settle for nothing less than your full-scale acceptance – whether you like it or not!

- After 27 years of relentless pursuit, homosexuals finally received protected class status from the Washington State Legislature in 2006, making it illegal for you to refuse to rent them a house, or hire them on account of their homosexuality.

- Canada already has laws making it illegal to speak against homosexuality on the streets. Bills exist presently in the U.S. Congress to do the same. In the last few weeks a Canadian church pastor was arrested for speaking against homosexuality.

Now do you see what’s happening? Like the proverbial frog who ends up paralyzed and unable to get out of the water as he waits too long and the temperature reaches boiling – the homosexuals have been winning incrementally, taking their time, while we’ve been asleep at the wheel.

But it’s still not too late … and I want this to be a wake up call.

And I hope you will put up a clarion call to your friends and family and let them know that we are on the verge of losing the battle of our lifetimes if we don’t stand up now!

Or … if we do stand up now … we’re on the verge of victory. It’s up to us.

This is a fight we cannot afford to lose – but one we can win now. And the only thing standing in the way of an easy victory on November 3rd is a few miserable dollars to reach the voters with the truth – that silent majority of people who, for whatever reason, won’t stand and fight.

To date (you can look it up your self on the Public Disclosure Commission website) the homosexuals have amassed over $1 million to sell this re-invention of marriage to an unwitting population.

That $1 million is in stark contrast to the paltry $60,000 we have raised.

Meanwhile, if we lose on November 3rd, people will approach me on the street and ask me how it happened!?

My reply? “How big was the check you wrote?” (Most will have given nothing… )

We don’t have to lose. Every piece of research says that a large majority of people want to see our traditional definition of marriage remain intact. If the election were held before the media began, the homosexuals would lose by 7 to 8 points. That’s why they are raising so much money to sell this as something it is not and overcome the deficit.

That’s also why it is so very important that we raise enough money to reach voters with the real story and to combat the following:

- Ads cloaking this as a “fairness” bill – not being about marriage. (Senator Murray, one of the bill’s homosexual sponsors said marriage is the end game. It is a Trojan horse from homosexuals who seek to overturn thousands of years of sacred family tradition).

- Ads showing homosexual couples with children trying to appear as normal American families. (The sociological effects of fatherless homes are clear from every study, and from experience as we see the devastation in Scandinavian countries where this is rampant. It also continues the objective of the feminization of the male in our society).

- Ads showing older couples in support of SB5688. (Citizens aged 62 and older were included in the bill only to help the homosexual community garner their support. Yet, there is little of consequence in SB-5688 that heterosexual domestic partners 62+ cannot get now from a simple power of attorney. Seniors are being used.)

WILL YOU STAND UP NOW AND COME TO THE AID OF MARRIAGE?

Larry Stickney, who is leading our effort, has put his life on hold to fight this fight on our behalf. His household bills have at times gone unpaid, while he has remained faithful to this cause. Now it’s our turn.

As a long time sitting State Senator, I’m asking you to join this fight – a fight easily winnable if we can just reach more people with the message you’re reading now. So far, we cannot even afford to buy TV ads at all.

Perhaps you’re a miracle person who can give many thousands of dollars for our TV ad campaign. Or, if you’re like a lot of us, you can only afford to give $1,000, $500 or less. No matter where you are, or what you can give, every amount large and small will help us save the sacred institution of marriage we hold so dear.

We have faced several defeats on this front in recent years. This is one we can win and set the homosexual agenda back. Will you help us?

Sincerely,

Val Stevens, State Senator

P.S. With just two weeks until Election Day, time is running out. Can you stop right now and send your most generous contribution? When you’re finished, will you commit to calling at least two friends and asking them to help? The homosexuals are betting you won’t. I’m hoping you will. Thank you!

Protect Marriage Washington PAC
PO Box 501
Arlington, WA 98223
http://www.protectmarriagewa.com/index.php/donate-online

Since January, the federal government has taken over America’s largest banks and financial houses, our automobile industry, and now it seems determined to get control of our health care system. I am concerned about Washington state citizens’ loss of freedom. Our best hope is the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says that the states are entitled to all rights not specifically delegated to the federal government.

Already, more than 30 states are studying the Arizona Health Care Nullification Bill that prohibits the federal government from forcing its version of health care on the residents of Arizona. The bill declares that Arizona citizens are free to choose any form of health care they desire.

WHY A HEALTH CARE NULLIFICATION BILL?

Constitutional Law professor Michael Connelly recently reviewed the entire text of President Obama’s proposed “public option” bill, The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. He says the bill is far worse than he imagined. Not only does it indeed provide for rationing of health care, free health care for illegal immigrants and free abortion services, the bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government-run system.

He says the bill eventually results in all decisions about personal health care being made by federal bureaucrats, most of whom will not be health care professionals. In addition, hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

BUT THAT’S NOT THE WORST OF IT -

As bad as that sounds, it gets much worse. According to Connelly, “This legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead, it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.”

In effect, he says, the Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is the Constitution does not grant members of Congress the authority to regulate health care or businesses.

The Obama bill would give his administration access to your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician and hospital. This is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. Your right to privacy will be nullified regardless of what the Third and Fourth Amendments may provide.

Finally, if your private health insurance is not deemed “acceptable” to the “Health Choices Administrator” appointed by President Obama, you will be taxed. They’re calling it a “tax” instead of a fine because they want to avoid the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. However, that won’t work because since nothing in the law allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of a tax, it definitely deprives you of property without the “due process of law.”

LAST RITES FOR YOUR RIGHTS?

The 10th Amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under Obama’s health care bill, neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

Clearly this is a federal government takeover – not a reform. It is a way to seize almost 20 percent of the economy and the final ownership of your body. The bill mentions no real cost-cutting measures, such as lawsuit reform. There’s nothing about stopping the tens of billions of waste, fraud and abuse of Medicare and Medicaid.

Decades ago, Ronald Reagan warned us how socialized medicine was a carefully calculated path to socialism, which is the ruling of a country by a few powerful elites. Reagan’s exceptional speech is well worth your time, and it’s a real wake-up call for us today.

I plan to demand enforcement of the 10th Amendment – State’s Rights. In 1997 I introduced Senate Joint Memorial 8002 – a letter from the State of Washington to the President of the United States and the U.S. Congress claiming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The memorial reads, “Let this serve as a notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.”

While it did not pass, we are introducing it again in January. Rep. Matt Shea, R-Mead, will introduce House Joint Memorial 4009, and I will support it. You can follow this bill – and its progress at www.states-rights.org. Most importantly, we need you to write your state senator and representatives and tell them to support this legislation. With strong state’s rights enforcement, we can keep our freedom to control our lives – and your health care – exactly the way we want.

Sincerely, Val Stevens

As a private practitioner he championed the civil rights of his clients and still regards protection of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties as the first duty of our highest court. Justice Sanders believes the court must protect all the legal rights of all the citizens who come before it all the time. “We have no second class citizens,” he adds.

Since taking his seat on the Supreme Court, Justice Sanders has served as an adjunct professor teaching appellate advocacy at the UW School of Law; has written articles for professional journals; and has presented lectures to legal and civic organizations on diverse topics including civil liberties, land use, the Washington State Constitution, legal ethics, and Abraham Lincoln, among others.

Date: Tues. September 1, 2009
Time: 5:30 pm
Place: San Juan Island Grange Hall

Agenda:
5:30 Dinner
6:00pm – Introductions
6:10 – Guest Speaker Justice Richard Sanders
Seating is available. RSVP to iwp@rockisland.com or Call 360-378-6473BBQ Tri Tip dinner

Donations accepted for dinner
includes salad/potato/garlic bread
tea/coffee/water

Citizens Alliance For Property Rights was organized in 2003 as a non-partisan political action committee where individual citizens and existing organizations can work together defending property rights.

After observing environmental conditions around the world we have concluded that private owners are far better stewards of this earth than collectivist central planners are.

We want to be part of our children’s and grandchildren’s lives. They should not have to move elsewhere in order to afford a home of their own. Laws protecting property rights are useless if the relevant courts ignore or misinterpret their clear meaning.

Therefore, our MISSION is to protect property rights by:

- Establishing a single coordinated voice dedicated to preserving and protecting property rights.
- Electing legislators pledged to protect, not destroy, property rights and electing judges pledged to uphold our constitutionally guaranteed right to own and control property.
- Promoting legislation to preserve and protect property rights while opposing excessively burdensome legislation.
- Reducing the regulatory cost of living in Washington State.

The founders of America and of the state of Washington understood that without an individual right to own and control property, no other rights can be protected from government tyranny. Homes, personal possessions, personal safety, unrestricted travel and free speech are all placed in jeopardy once government has established the power to control or confiscate private property through general edict. Property rights are really human rights and the very foundation of a free society. That is why the founders included the Fifth Amendment in the federal constitution and Article 1, Section 16 in the Washington State constitution. Secure property rights have been a major cornerstone of the American experiment that has resulted in the highest standard of living and the most personal freedom of any people in the history of the world.

CAPR Website – http://capr-sanjuan.org/

CAPR supports Environmental policies and regulations that are intellectually honest, fair, grounded in real science, and that do not force private property owners to pay for public benefits enjoyed by all.

“The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.” – George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.