For years, the GOP had been the minority party – and it appeared the upper end of the party were satisfied to remain that way, as long as they kept their seat at the table. The one message the ousted chairman preached was if the Republicans ever became the majority party, they would not be in a position to lead.

In 1994, that theory was tested, as the Democratic Party was run out of DC on a rail. With the Contract For America, and the rising tide of conservative speech, it appeared that lowly chairman had been a misguided voice of doom. But it took less than a year to prove him right. The conservatives were soon beat down by the liberal media. Instead of remaining faithful champions of their cause – the reason the people elected them in the first place, they slowly migrated into the party of conservative big government.

While I do not believe George W Bush was as bad a president as the public mantra would attest, I fault him for this: his refusal to confront Congress allowed the reigning party to further evolve into supporters of bigger government and the party of big spenders – in the name of conservatism. Had he held the members of his party in check, we would have never seen the crazy-talk election of 2008 and the victory of a no-name to the head office of the free world.

It appears we are at a similar crossroads again as we faced in 1992. We have a minority party, harassed by the media that, with few exceptions, is unwilling to stand up and proclaim its core principles. The goal is still the same: to win elections. To this end, the Republican Party is now reaching out to all political, immoral and religious tides that appear to have momentum at the cost of principle – long held, grassroots principles.

Please explain to me how winning elections will promote the cause of freedom.

This lowly has-been maintains, as he has always maintained, the important thing is to stand true to principle – and declare it to the masses. Once the principles are understood, elections will take care of themselves. Our responsibility is to protect our God-given rights and our heritage of Biblical law. It is God’s responsibility to “win” the elections.

Now comes Dino Rossi into the race for the senate seat occupied by Patti Murray. He is a conservative – at least he claims to be. In his earlier years, he appeared more conservative than he does now. However, while serving as a Washington State Senator, Dino Rossi supported and voted for SB6537, which forces health care workers to prescribe or dispense an abortifacient to victims of rape and incest. In fact, Dino Rossi publicly supports abortion for victims of rape and incest – as if killing an unborn child resolves the crime. Who instructed this man on justice?

With every election cycle, Dino has evolved to the left – though, to his credit, he is still in the middle. This election cycle, he has avoided right-wing appearances, such as Tea Party rallies and has distanced himself from his conservative base while reaching out to the Rational, Reasonable Republicans – that is, the RINOs.

When his primary opponent dropped the gauntlet that Rossi support the principles of the Republican Party Platform, Rossi refused to pick it up. Of course, the media and talking heads accuse Didier of creating division. We need to remember, just as Christ said He did not come to bring peace but a sword, so standing for principle will appear to divide – but the division is created by those who refuse principle to promote themselves.

The GOP, for that matter, the conservative cause – the cause of freedom – is at the same crossroads as pre-1994. The nation is in turmoil and confused by the multitude of talking heads. This is the time for statesmen to rise up and champion the cause of freedom. We need statesmen who are willing to sacrifice their own election to get their message out. If we become sold on the strategy of winning elections and majorities, we will sacrifice the cause of freedom.

What if we get a majority GOP elected to Congress – what could possibly be bad about that? Remember Bill Clinton was such a left-wing, radical president that the people turned the Democratic Congress back over to the Republicans two years into his term. This Congress did not lead on principle though they did contend with him politically. Yet, Clinton was so artful in his handling of them that he appeared to be a compassionate liberal-conservative and easily won reelection. If we repeat this process, Obama will handily win reelection in 2012.

So, I posit the theory, this election is not the cycle to work for majorities. This is the time to work for principle – elect those who will stand up for freedom, majority or not. If there is no conservative contender, let the rest stay in place. This will set the tone for freedom’s cause in 2012.

If we elect those who, like Dino Rossi, are only interested in their careers, we will be promoting more big government at the expense of our cause and these members will be entrenched and immune from true conservative contenders in future elections. Therefore, it is better to allow Patti Murray another six years – let the people see the difference between her and the conservative message, rather than allow a weak, big government conservative to create confusion and turn the people against the cause of freedom.

As it stands right now, there is not a lot of public difference between what Patti Murray and Dino Rossi appear to be – they both frame themselves as centrist. Put your efforts into electing conservative statesmen that will not be ashamed to display their differences. This will eliminate all confusion for the election cycle of 2012 – which is the campaign we must win.

Not all the Cominus’ picks have solid credentials. Some are lesser of evils. So, this year, we have begun a star rating system. 5 stars means the candidate is at least 90% solid; 4 stars, at least 80%; 3 stars, at least 70%, 2 stars, at least 50%, 1 star is less than 50%, but better than the opponent. If we are not sure, but the candidate is favored over the other evil, we will guesstimate a 2 or 3 star rating. Hope this is helpful.

Please feel free to leave comments if you believe I am in error or you may have additional information. All comments are moderated. The moderation is to prevent wacko-attacks and vulgar postings. However, if you leave out all the cuss words and unwarranted defamation attacks on candidates, I will authorize your comment, whether you agree with me or not.

STATE OF WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: JIM JOHNSON (5 star)

In his campaign material, Jim Johnson states, “I promised to uphold our state constitution as written and to never legislate from the bench.” In 2002, Judicial Forum endorsed him for his hard work on Initiative 601, car tabs and such and the fact he had done much to reduce the size of civil government and uphold the rights of the citizen. Two years later, he was elected to the Supreme Court. He has not failed his mission and we continue to endorse him.

Jim Johnson’s campaign website is http://jimjohnsonforjustice.com

Running against Jim Johnson is Stan Rumbaugh. Stan is a board member of Planned Parenthood and a board member of the globalist World Affairs Council, which is indoctrinating our school children and “dedicated to providing everyone opportunities to practice global citizenship.” He is proud of endorsements from environmentalists and claims to have fought cases for “legitimate” [not all] property rights and equal benefits for domestic partners. He is a champion of social justice and all other feel-goodisms. “He found his passion in applying the law as he believes it was intended — to help every day people and build a more fair and just society.”

Stan Rumbaugh’s website is http://rumbaughforjustice.com

STATE OF WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: RICHARD SANDERS (5 star)

Richard Sanders is the champion of liberty on the high court. In the days when Judicial Forum was reviewing cases and rating them, his percentage of PASS was 93% for 57 cases reviewed. He is libertarian and pro-life.

One of his most popular quotes is, “Appropriate constitutional analysis begins with the text and, for most purposes, should end there as well.” [Malyon v. Pierce County] In Island County vs. State, Justice Sanders wrote, “While the majority may justly claim the Legislature speaks for the people,’ it is the [C]onstitution, and only the [C]onstitution, through which the people speak for themselves. Their voice is fundamental, and it is only by their consent that we are governed.” A vote for Richard Sanders is a vote for our State and Federal constitutions and a vote for liberty.

Richard Sanders’ website is http://friendsofjustice.com

Running against Sanders is Bryan Chushcoff who claims to be “a guardian of the law, the rights of the people and of the Constitution.” Yet upon deeper examination of his words, you will discover subjective matter will always trump objective observation – it is more important to uphold feelings rather than the law. He states on his website, “Legal scholarship is important to correctly apply the law. But with experience one learns that more than legal scholarship is required. Good judgment and an understanding and empathy for the human condition are essential. Also required is thoughtful consideration of the practical implications of how the rule of law will impact people and trial courts.  It’s important that judges remember that the decisions of any court are made for flesh and blood people for whom the outcome will often have a profound and lasting effect.” He is not the worst liberal to come down the pike, but he does lack any grasp of what is the rule of law and somehow thinks it has something to do with people’s feelings.

Chushcoff’s website is http://chushcoff4justice.com

Also running against Sanders is the more experienced than Chushcoff, more liberal than Chushcoff and more dangerous than Chushcoff, Charlie Wiggins. He is a former appellate court judge. He claims to have “helped to establish the nonpartisan award-winning web site votingforjudges.org.” Voteforjudges.org purports to be a non-partisan, non-biased endeavor and they give no endorsements to candidates, however, the only outside information and analysis they do include are from liberal newspapers and other liberal organizations; of course, favoring liberal candidates. Call it what it is – it is a liberal website disguised as centrist and educational.

He claims to be active in his Presbyterian church and is also proud of his high rating from Q Law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender bar association. In Harland Maylon v Pierce County, he ruled against allowing voluntary chaplains in police and fire departments. Fortunately, he was overturned by the Supreme Court. His legal foundation and his religious foundation are worlds apart.

Charlie Wiggins’ website is http://charliewigginsforjustice.com

COURT OF APPEALS, DIV 2, DIST 3, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: JOSEPH DAGGY (3 star)

Joe Daggy is an attorney with thirty years experience. He is running against Jill Johanson, who has been in the legal profession for twenty-four years, eight years as a judge.

In an interview with the Daily News, he was asked, “As a court of appeals judge, would you be willing to overturn a case where it was clear the trial court had erred significantly, but you knew a dangerous defendant would be freed into the community?”

Joe Daggy answered, “I’d have to. It’s not a matter of if I would be willing to. That’s the job of the appellate court.”

Jill Johanson answered, “If it was a significant error, then yes, absolutely. Those are probably some of the most difficult questions. That’s where personally you might feel that morally or personally you don’t want him in the community, but the law requires it. And as a judge, we’ve taken an oath to uphold the law.”

Joe Daggy understands the rule of law. Jill Johanson prefers the law of men and how they feel – or the law of women. She demonstrates she would have to wrestle with hard questions and depending upon which side the political pressure came from, feeling could trump the law.

Another question by the Daily News: “Should judicial candidates discuss specific issues such as gun control and abortion?”

Joe Daggy replied, “The judicial code of conduct discusses the ‘need to protect the voters from people campaigning by selling ideas.’ It’s ‘entirely inappropriate’ for a candidate to promise to make specific changes to the law if elected. But the rules don’t prohibit a candidate from talking about their beliefs. . .  That would interfere with the only method voters have of getting to know the candidate.”

Jill Johanson replied, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be discussing our personal opinions. Personal opinion is not relevant, because we can’t use our personal opinion when we’re on the bench. It could give the appearance of impropriety, that I might lean one way or the other if I were to express my personal opinion.”

Joe understands all judges have opinions and they don’t need to hide them. Voters have a right to know the foundational beliefs of whom they elect, regardless how that translates into decisions. Jill believes a judge should pretend he does not have any opinions, that way nobody can accuse him of bias. Jill is a deceived liberal who is bound by feelings and cannot see the law.

Joe Daggy’s website is http://joedaggy.org – not working at the time of this writing.

Jill Johanson’s website is judgejohanson.com

COURT OF APPEALS, DIV 3, DIST 1, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: HARVEY DUNHAM (5 star)

Harvey is a solid, pro-life conservative. He has practiced law for over thirty years; been a district court judge for two years and a judge pro-tem for seven.

Harvey says, “I believe in old-fashioned justice. I believe that a judge should not make new law. I believe that the legislative branch should make new law. I believe a judge should follow the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Washington and not ignore them. I believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I believe in the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. I believe that no person should be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. I believe that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation. I believe that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused should enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”

Harvey Dunham’s website is http://votedunham.com

Running against Harvey is the very liberal, Laurel Siddoway. She was appointed in May by Governor Gregoire so she could run as an incumbent. She is endorsed by all the liberal judges.

She withheld critical information and correspondence to the City before recommending the Spokane City Council settle with the developers in the Riverside Park Square parking garage dispute. She duped the council into making a very expensive settlement – a huge cost to the taxpayers – against the advice of other attorneys on the case by not allowing their voices to be heard and representing herself as consensus – as the liberals always do.

She led the fight against the badly needed Lincoln Street Bridge because of a potential to block a view of the Spokane Falls from a certain direction. Feelings (of a few liberals) are more important than the needs of people, transportation and commerce.

Laurel’s website is http://retainjudgesiddoway.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, SHORELINE, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: DENNIS MCCURDY (3 star)

Dennis McCurdy has been a King County Deputy Prosecutor for seventeen years, now a Senior Deputy Prosecutor.

His website is http://mccurdy4judge.com

Marcine Anderson is running against him to keep her seat. She is a former King County Deputy Prosecutor. She was appointed by Metropolitan King County Council, on 22 February, so she could run as an incumbent. She has affiliations with minority organizations and capitalizes on her Asian descent. She is endorsed by liberal judges and rated highly by Q Law, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Her website is http://marcineanderson.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NE, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: JOHN L O’BRIEN (2 star)

John O’Brien has been an attorney since 1981. He is endorsed by the moderately liberal Citizens for Judicial Excellence.

“O’Brien endorses the philosophy that the District Court upholds the current law and holds individuals accountable for their actions. He has seen the glow of pride in a defendant who has successfully completed a probationary counseling program, but has also sentenced defendants to maximum confinement for failed efforts at personal reform.” – as told to Citizens for Judicial Excellence

John’s business website is http://obrienlawfirm.net/team_jobrien.html

Michael Finkle was appointed to the bench on 22 February so he could run as an incumbent. He, also, has been an attorney since 1981. He has worked on the Seattle-King County Racial Disparity Work Group and is endorsed by liberal judges, officials and Democratic Party organizations. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law, the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Finkle’s website is http://retainjudgefinkle.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SW, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: SUSAN MAHONEY (1 star)

Susan Mahoney is an Assistant Des Moines City Attorney, Judge Pro Tem and former prosecutor. She is endorsed by Democrats and liberals.

Her website is http://mahoneyforjudge.com

Judith Eiler is the incumbent and has served on various courts since 1992. Prior to being elected to the bench Judge Eiler practiced law in Federal Way for 12 years. She is known to be “rude, impatient, undignified and intimidating treatment” of attorneys and people representing themselves.

We could not locate a website for this candidate.

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SE, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: DARRELL E PHILLIPSON (2 star)

Darrell Phillipson has spent twenty-seven years on the bench. He is involved at his Lutheran church and endorsed by Democrats and liberal judges.

Phillipson’s website is http://darrellphillipson.com

His opponent is David Meyer, who has been practicing law for twenty-five years. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations and the SEIU. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender).

David Meyer’s website is http://davidmeyerforjudge.com

KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SE, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: DAVID TRACY (2 star)

David Tracy has been a Municipal Court Judge for six years and served three years as a District Court Magistrate. He has thirty years legal experience. He is the Dean of Washington State Judicial College. Although he is a member of Diversity Task Force for Kent School District, he is also a volunteer at Second Harvest. David is endorsed by liberal judges and Democratic Party organizations.

His website is http://electdavidtracyjudge.com

His opponent is Matt Williams, who has twenty-seven years experience as an attorney, prosecutor, defense attorney and arbitrator. He is a program director for National Institute for Trial Advocacy, which means he gets paid while advancing his skills (rather than having to pay for the instruction). He states his reason for running is, “I want to give back to the community in which my wife and I raised our daughters by keeping our neighbors and our community safe.” That said from a man who does little without remuneration. He, also, is endorsed by liberal judges and Democratic Party organizations.

Matt’s website is http://electmattwilliams.com

KING / SNOHOMISH COUNTY, NE JUSTICE COURT, POS 7 – COMINUS’ PICK: LARRY MITCHELL (2 star)

Larry Mitchell has spent the last sixteen years as the City of Redmond Prosecuting Attorney. He is endorsed by King County Democrats and highly rated by the King County Bar Association and Washington Women Lawyers.

His website is http://electlarrymitchelljudge.com

Larry has two opponents. Donna Tucker is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bar associations and Q Law, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

Her website is http://donnatuckerforjudge.com

Ketu Shah is the other opponent and is an immigrant from India. He wants to make the judiciary “more engaged with our entire community.” Does he mean the judiciary should step aside from the practice of law and begin a dialogue with criminals and gangs? Liberals are so dependant on what sounds good and forget the rule of law. Mr. Shah has fifteen years experience in immigration and civil issues. He is rated well to exceptionally well by King County Bar Association, the minority bars and Q Law, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender bar association.

His website is http://k2forjudge.com

KLICKITAT COUNTY EAST DISTRICT COURT – COMINUS’ PICK TIM O’NEILL (2 star)

Tim O’Neill has been practicing law since 1978; part of that time as an elected prosecuting attorney. In 2002, O’Neill and Gwendolyn Grundei ran against each other for the position of county prosecuting attorney. O’Neill won that contest. An incidental fact: His wife kept her maiden name.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Running against him again, but for a different position, is Gwendolyn L Grundei. She has been both a prosecutor (deputy?) and a defense attorney.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Rick Hansen is the third candidate in this race. He has twenty-five years in law practice and is a public defender.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

PIERCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: KEVIN MCCANN (2 star)

Kevin McCann is a Pierce County Deputy Prosecutor. He has raised almost as much money as Sussman with limited personal funds and loans. He is running because, “Pierce County has suffered too many embarrassments by public officials whose behavior has resulted in admonishments, a loss of the public’s faith and even criminal charges” True – this seems to be a decades old, perennial problem. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations and unions.

Kevin’s website is http://electkevinmccann.com

Claire Sussman has raised the most money in this race, but that includes over thirty thousand dollars of her own money. That has to be worrisome when someone is willing to buy the office. Formerly, she spent six years as a prosecutor in the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office and seven years as a pro-tempore judge. She is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations as well as Brian Sonntag and Rob McKenna.

Claire’s website is http://clairesussmanforjudge.org

Karl Williams is the former president and vice president Pierce County Minority Bar Association. He spent the last twenty years practicing law; fourteen years as a pro-tem judge. Aside from working to further minority interests, we know very little about Karl. He appears to have the energy for the position but we think it will be tainted by his minority pursuits as opposed to his interest in law.

Karl’s website is http://karlwilliamsforjudge.com

Finally, Lance Hester has his own private practice, the Hester Law Group. He volunteers with Young Life and Chapel Hill Church. However, he takes no stand on any issue and a perusal of cases seems to indicate that most his clients are cop killers, wife beaters and rapists. Sorry if I got this wrong.

Lance’s website is http://electlancehester.com

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, POS 1 – COMINUS’ PICK: ED MCKENNA (1 star)

Ed McKenna has spent more than twenty years as an Assistant City Attorney for Seattle; now as a Senior Assistant. He is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations. He is running because, “In the 2010 King County Bar Association survey, [the incumbent, Edsonya] Charles ranked last – 47 of 47 judges rated.  She received lowest ratings in the Demeanor, Temperament, and Communication category, which includes being attentive to court proceedings, treating people with courtesy and respect, acting with patience and self-control and using clear oral communications. It’s time for new leadership on the Municipal Court.”

Ed’s website is http://edmckennaforjudge.com

Edsonya Charles is the incumbent and has been a Seattle Municipal Court Judge since 2004, appointed by the very liberal Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. She was formerly a deputy legal council to Seattle Mayor Nichols and his senior policy advisor on public safety. Before that, she was a federal prosecutor specializing in fraud cases. She states, “My proudest achievements including receiving the United States Department of Justice Special Achievement Award and twice receiving Al Gore’s Government Reinvention Hammer Award for my work in prosecuting criminals who lied and stole from working people.”

Her website is http://reelectjudgeedsonyacharles.com but it is not active.

SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: KAREN DONOHUE (1 star)

Karen Donohue has twenty-five years in private practice. She has been general counsel to an international telecommunications firm, assistant city attorney and judge pro tem for the past 16 years. She is endorsed by Democratic Party organizations. She states the reason she is running is because, “Judge Michael Hurtado, received average ratings of ‘acceptable.’ His legal decision making skills were rated between ‘poor’ and ‘acceptable.’ In addition, Judge Hurtado has been admonished twice by the commission on judicial conduct, most recently for failing to treat attorneys with patience, courtesy and dignity.”

Her website is http://karendonohueforjudge.com

Michael Salvador Hurtado has been twice disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. In both cases, the facts were agreed upon by all parties.

CJC No. 3790-F-100 (October 4, 2002) Receiving and acting upon improper ex parte (one side of the case) communications while serving as a judge pro tempore of the Des Moines Municipal Court. Judge Hurtado received ex parte information from one of the parties’ counsel and witness, and acted on it without hearing from the other side, vacating the order entered earlier. This is no small travesty and the Commission only admonished the judge.

CJC No. 5775-F-141 (December 5, 2008) He failed to treat two different attorneys with patience, dignity and courtesy. As soon as the Commission brought this matter to Respondent’s attention, he openly acknowledged the acts occurred and recognized their impropriety. The Commission admonished the judge.

To his credit, he has received numerous community service awards.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

SPOKANE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 6 – COMINUS’ PICK: TIMOTHY NOTE (3 star)

Timothy Note is a criminal defense attorney with seven years experience. [Update 16 July] “I own my own law office and am running on a work ethic platform.  District Court Judges make $141,700 plus benefits, they owe it to the people they serve to show up as required for work and put in a full day when they get there. Beyond that they need to treat all parties with dignity and fairness without prejudging individuals or cases.  I will do that. Unlike the the current bench, I vow to make my attendance record a matter of public record, that way the the public will know they are getting what they are paying for.  I am widely endorsed by the people who actually practice law in Spokane County as well by David Stevens and Frank Malone, candidates for Spokane County Prosecutor.  I think this shows that I have support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. I believe that District Court should be where Rising Stars in the legal community go to hone their judicial chops in preparation for greater service, rather than operating as a pasture where mediocre attorneys wait out their retirement at public expense.”

His website is http://noteforjudge.com

Debra Hayes is the incumbent and a former deputy prosecutor. However, she lacks focus on the law. On her Facebook fan page she posted several Spokane Review news stories of various crimes – cases in her court, giving the impression she had determined the guilt or innocence based upon the story. She demonstrates lack of discretion by posting the articles of interest; these are not her adventures, she is responsible to judge these cases on their merits, not the drama. Furthermore, two years ago, her son was arrested on drug charges. Maybe her fault, maybe not; we will give her the benefit of the doubt as kids from good homes sometimes go bad.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 2 – COMINUS’ PICK: GLEN WARREN (5 star)

You gotta love this guy, Glen Warren. He describes himself as a “lifelong taxpaying resident of Yakima county.” He has over thirty-two years of experience in criminal, traffic, civil, and other cases. He is a member of Grandview Christian Church and an “advocate of 2nd Amendment rights” He is endorsed by scores of businessmen and police. “Glen’s decades of experience, local Christian values, and upbringing will contribute to his responsible running of this office funded with taxpayer money.”

Glen’s website is http://warrenforjudge.com

Brian Sanderson is running for this position also. He has been a Selah Municipal Court Judge since 2004 and was a former Washington State Assistant Attorney General. He has all the establishment endorsements.

Brian’s website is http://sandersonforjudge.com

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 3 – COMINUS’ PICK: DONALD ENGEL (3 star)

Donald Engel is the incumbent and appears to be an acceptable judge.

We could not find a website for this candidate.

Steve Keller is opposing him and has twenty-eight years experience as a deputy prosecuting attorney.

Steve’s website is http://stevenrkeller.com

YAKIMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, POS 4 – COMINUS’ PICK: BRONSON FAUL (3 star)

Bronson Faul is a Yakima assistant city attorney and formerly a deputy prosecuting attorney with the county. He appears to be a standup guy with a respect for law and is endorsed by Washington State Patrol Troopers Association and GOP politicians.

Bronson’s website is http://bronsonforjudge.com

Michael L Everett would be our second choice and has been practicing law since 1974 including six years judge at Wapato District Court. He is an unhappy looking fellow but very patriotic. Regarding his previous stint on the bench, he states, “During my time on the bench I never lost sight of the fact that each individual who came before me was a person worthy of respect who deserves to be heard and that the community deserved everyone be held accountable for their actions”

Michael’s website is http://everettforjudge.com

Doug Federspiel is the hands-on establishment favorite. But that is disturbing, because he appears to be the most liberal in a conservative area. He has been practicing law since 1989. He has done some mountain climbing and at age thirty-five took a month long trip in the Himalayas. In liberal fashion, he has a feel-good vision, “Make sure everybody feels like they’ve had their day in court, that they know the judge listened to their arguments and worked hard. That’s what people expect from somebody on the bench.” When I go to court, I want to know justice was administered according to the law – not feel like I had my day in court. If we are going to “make sure everybody feels like they had their day in court,” what do we do with the losers?

His website is http://dougfederspiel.com

This is the end of the report. I hope you find it helpful and useful. Feel free to pass this on with credit back to the source.

- cominus

In his article for the Monroe Weekly entitled, CONSERVATIVES: MAKE EVERY VOTE COUNT, Paul Elvig wrote:

Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition (1989-97), asserted in the June 12th issue of the New York Times that, ‘If the pro-family movement bolts the Republican Party, they will become the cultural equivalent of a Perot movement. They will enter a no man’s land in which they lose influence and lose the ability to use a major political party as a vehicle to highlight their issues and their agenda and their concerns.’

The liberal community with its family-hostile agenda would get their biggest break in twenty years if even five percent of pro-life/pro-family Republicans leave the party for a third, forth, or fifth political party this year.

To lose Republican majorities we now have in Congress, would mean that the successful July 23rd House override of the President’s veto on the late-term abortion ban would never have happened. It would mean an obstacle-free path for the homosexual agenda . . .

He goes on to describe horrors and statistics that await our nation because of the actions of disgruntled conservatives. You see, conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, have been the scapegoat of the GOP whether within or without the Party. When we were in the Party, it was our ideals that alienated the Republicans from the voters. And now that we are gone, it is our fault they have lost their voting base.

Those who believe that the political process will be the salvation of our nation would like to have it both ways. But we know better, don’t we. We know that God alone raises kings and deposes them. Our strategies have neither won elections nor lost them.

Remember the story of Joshua in Joshua chapter five. As the Israelites were preparing to take the city of Jericho, Joshua saw a man with a drawn sword and he asked if he was for them or their enemies. And the commander of the Lord’s army told him that he was for neither and it was Joshua’s responsibility to submit to God’s authority.

The same holds true today: God does not fight for us because we are the American Heritage Party. No – we are called to submit to His laws and look to Him for victory. And for those of us who have read the end of the Book, we know that God will have His victory!

If one could presuppose that human strategy was ever responsible for an election victory, they may choose the election of 1994 – the “Republican Revolution” brought in by the “Contract With America.” That was the year it appeared that principle was more important than winning. The GOP had a vision to win the hearts of the American people and the people responded.

But the vision was short lived and the “Contract With America” became the “Contract On America”. No longer was the vision to raise the flag and wave it. Instead, they exchanged the flag for strategies and they substituted leadership for approval.

When I was chairman of the Snohomish County GOP in the early nineties, I wrestled with Party leadership because I could see they had no intention of winning; and if they should win, they had no intention of leading. Their only concern was protecting their seat at the table. Be that as it may, many people saw the 1994 election victory as the salvation of our nation.

But what did we receive? Instead of rolling back civil government:
•    bureaucracies have increased;
•    funding for obscenity and abortion have increased;
•    federal authority over education has increased;
•    many crimes have been reclassified as federal crimes;
•    we have multiplied treaties and increased the rise of globalism;
•    mandates have been sent to the States impeding our first and second amendment rights;
•    environmental restrictions have increased, impeding property and inheritance rights;
•    Executive Orders have increased in exponential fashion and have gone unchecked;
•    Posse Comitatus has been ignored as federal agencies have engaged in police and sheriff work with the aid of military forces;
•    Our Republicans representatives have given us national ID cards;
•    and this list could go on.

Did the Republican Congress finally balance the budget? Or did they strip Ninety-Five Billion dollars from the Social Security trust account to appear to “balance” an over-weening general budget that they did not have the intestinal fortitude to grab hold of. And then, to boot, the returned Five Billion back to the account to give us the impression they were rescuing it! God save us – they are no different than the Democrats!!

What about our problems in Washington State? Some time ago, I was reading an account in the Seattle Times and my heart went out to Dale Foreman, the fearless leader of the State GOP – or rather, the fearful leader of the State GOP. He related his problem to the reporter: He will receive a letter from a liberal, or moderate, member of the Party and then he receives a letter from a conservative member and he has to give the same deference to both. How troubling life can be.

His problem is not the diversity of opinion within the Party. His problem is that Dale Foreman, the Harvard graduate, the man of letters cannot, or will not, lead. He lacks conviction because he has no guiding principles. How can you expect him to lead us out of socialism when he has no principles to lead with?

Clyde Ballard, the Republican Co-Speaker of the House: That is a safe position to be in and much more comfortable than when he was Speaker because now he has authority and notoriety but no accountability – he can always blame the bad results on his co-Democrats. When he was the Speaker, he would not lead. He would facilitate, blend, mix and serve up something palatable for his liberal detractors and the media. The closest he came to leading was to beat conservative representatives into submission. Therefore, our conservative bills would go down to defeat but he looked good.

It was under his guidance and leadership that the Partial Birth Abortion ban destroyed as he orchestrated the removal of the referendum clause and then the final gutting of the bill altogether and finally defeat. He has put compromise ahead of principle. He has put public perception ahead of principle. How can he lead us out of socialism when he has no principle to lead with?

I fought long and hard for a principled platform within the Republican Party. The battle grew tougher every year as leadership determined to make the tent wider and wider. The GOP wants to include everyone so that there is no room for principle and the big tent becomes a three-ring circus.

But lack of principle serves a two-fold purpose: Not only can the leadership claim they are making a bigger tent, but they remove the benchmark. There is no longer a standard by which to judge the candidates and evaluate their actions. And they become like the Democrats. How can the Party lead us out of socialism when it has no principle to lead with?

Now we come to the question: Are you throwing away your vote by voting for a third party candidate?

Remember the story of Joshua: Our strategy and our power will not win elections – we must submit to God’s law and His authority. In the book of Daniel we are told that God alone raises kings and deposes them.

Speaking against unGodly alliances, God tells us in 2Ch 16:9 “For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.” This was God’s rebuke to King Asa for doing a foolish thing by trusting in his alliance with the king of Aram. God does not need coalitions and Repbulicans to accomplish His plan. For that matter, He doesn’t need the AHP. He only needs a remnant whose hearts are fully committed to Him – and He will have it!

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. If you are willing to compromise your principle for the sake of winning, don’t be surprised when the candidate you voted for compromises his.

Many so-called conservative candidates would have you believe they must vote for bad bills in order to win re-election to save us from candidates who would vote for the same bills. What is happening is most politicians are swayed by campaign finances, global interests and their pensions – they are looking for a seat at the table.

The GOP wants you to believe they are the saviors of the nation, or in the alternative, they are necessary for conservative Christians to have a voice in the political arena. Don’t be fooled, unless they return to principle, they will go the way of the Whig Party before them. But do not gloat, keep a sober mind – the American Heritage Party will go the same way when they lose their principle as well. We must remain vigilant – and we must pass our vigilance on to the next generation.

Principle – attending to the laws of God, must be the absolute goal. Our convictions dictate that we cannot win using the same strategies as the moderates, liberals, Democrats and neo-conservatives.

We are not commanded to win. Throughout Scripture, we are commanded to stand firm. And the Apostle Paul tells us in Ephesians chapter six that after we have done everything to stand our ground, we are to stand and stand firm.

We must raise the standard:
•    the troops will rally; and
•    the voters will have something to hale to.

If God is willing we will have victory in the election of candidates. Nonetheless, our victory is not in winning elections – our victory is in changing the hearts of the people and we can only do that by standing firm.

We must be willing to lead while yet a minority if we expect to lead as a majority. This is the Achilles heal of the Republican Party – they never expected to lead!

If we never become the majority, don’t minimize for a second what a “leading” minority can accomplish. Remember our Founding Fathers were not in the majority, they had less then a third of the people on their side. Yet they were not discouraged, they didn’t succumb to building coalitions and making bigger tents. They were victorious because they stood firmly for principle and they were willing to lead – even if it cost them their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. They did this with a firm reliance upon God, their Creator and Lawgiver.

If you want to return our nation to our Common Law, constitutional foundation;
If you want laws that are just;
If you want to reduce civil government intrusion into our lives,
Then you must be willing to stand for Biblical principle.

What is the conclusion? Are we wasting our vote by voting for a third party, specifically the American Heritage Party?

We have enough facilitators to drag our nation to hell itself. We have plenty of kinder, gentler politicians who are self absorbed in their own well-being and public appearance. Our nation is void of leadership. God has given you a vision – Raise the standard, wave the flag and lead!!

God save our nation,
Dean Isaacson
27 March 1999
Snohomish County American Heritage Party Convention

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

Spokane, Washington

Dave is running for Spokane County Prosecutor to ensure our communities are kept safe and to hold all criminals accountable for their actions. Dave’s record as Deputy Prosecutor demonstrates his passion for justice and his unwavering integrity. As Prosecutor, Dave will carry a caseload and not just be a full time administrator. Under his leadership, the Office of Prosecuting Attorney will once again be representative of open and honest government. According to Dave Stevens, “the significant amount of support and enthusiasm surrounding the campaign this early on is really exciting, and we’re just getting off the ground.”

Dave has received the endorsement of the Spokane County Republican Party and has already seen an early wave of support from individual law enforcement officers and deputy prosecutors.

Dave began his career as an Assistant City Prosecutor and then cross-deputized as a Spokane County Deputy Prosecutor in 2001. He began his work in the Domestic Violence Unit and currently works in the Property Unit. He specializes in prosecuting career criminals. As a prosecuting attorney, Dave has completed more than one hundred criminal jury trials, argued hundreds of motion hearings, and prosecuted thousands of cases. Dave has prosecuted a range of cases, including DUIs, domestic assaults, meth labs, and drive-by shootings. In the past, Dave has regularly argued cases before the Washington State Court of Appeals.

For more information on Dave Stevens and to keep up to date with the campaign, please visit his website at www.electdavestevens.com and follow the campaign on Facebook and Twitter.