From the Chair...Dick Pilling

February 2012

Principles or pragmatism. More often than not, these are opposing points of view. There are times where principles should, perhaps, outweigh pragmatism… where a principled stance, regardless of its practicality, should take precedent. However, there are also times – many times, actually – when a pragmatic approach will – and should – be chosen even though such an approach may run counter to one’s principles.

You see, an impractical stance based solely on principle will likely make one “feel good” but, in many cases, will not achieve the desired result. This can be compared to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
On the other hand, deviating from principle may cause some initial moral “uncertainty” but frequently allows progress towards the stated objective as reflected in the comment “losing the battle but winning the war.”

I have always been a “winning the war” kind of person and I make decisions accordingly and will continue to do so.

This philosophy has allowed me to “sort the wheat from the chaff” when I am required to choose a political candidate to support. Because, to be honest, no one candidate seems to reflect my every preference. And the same can be said for political platforms because, while I may agree with the majority of a given platform, I may not be totally and enthusiastically supportive of every single plank therein.

I try to determine if I agree with more of a candidate’s – or political platform’s – positions than I disagree with and then take every action to support him or her or it. Failing to do so shows a party disunity and may well lead to “splitting” the vote or, even worse, a third party candidate. And remember, the last time that happened, we had eight years of Clinton!!

As we are increasingly exposed to the political clamor reflective of the election season, I would encourage each of you to make logical and intelligent decisions relative to the candidates and then work to support the candidate of your choice.

Ronald Reagan once famously said “You do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with…” I don’t know about you but I want to be a majority party and am willing to make decisions – sometimes very difficult ones that run counter to my own principles – in order to achieve that goal. And you will likely have to do that as well.

The Democrats, seemingly unburdened with the heavy baggage of principles, have a much easier job of choosing their candidates and sometimes I envy them.

But only sometimes…

Dick

PREVIOUS ISSUES

January 2012

With the haughty self-importance for which it is famed, the Department of Ecology has summarily dismissed the request by the City of Port Angeles to be named to the Council of Trustees – a body which may determine the ultimate fate of the Rayonier property.

“It is not appropriate for the city to be a trustee,” declared Rebecca Lawson, Ecology’s Southwest region manager for toxic cleanup. “They don’t have any ownership of the land,” she continued.

Of course, only a lifelong minor functionary, steeped in a governmental bureaucracy immune to logic, could possibly conclude that the trustees now serving on the council have an ownership and whereas the city does not. Check it out… the six existing trustees are the Department of Ecology, the Department of US Fish and Wildlife, the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, and the Lower Elwha, the Jamestown, and the Port Gamble S’Klallam tribes. They have ownership of the land? Really? Can you show me a deed?

Get it straight… the only true landowners are Rayonier – who has actual title to the land – and, oh yeah, the City. Because the City owns the land beneath the storm water overflow tank. The tribes and the various governmental agencies own squat and, accordingly, the fact that they have a voice and the City does not is, at best, nonsensical.

Moreover, given the huge economic impact that this property had on Port Angeles – providing direct employment for hundreds of employees, indirect employment for thousands of citizens, as well as pumping millions of dollars into our tax coffers – it is ludicrous to contend that the city – with or without an actual ownership – should be excluded from this decision-making body.
(Although, quite frankly, given the many years that have been devoted to the Rayonier property without actually reaching a decision, the term “decision-making body” may be, at best, inappropriate for any group that includes the Department of Ecology.)

Furthermore, Ms. Lawson’s arrogant assumption of power in this matter is irritating in the extreme. Just who the heck does she think she is? Must she be reminded that the City Council petitioned the Governor for a trusteeship and not her? That the Governor appoints trustees, not her? That, at best, she is merely a member of the Trustee Council and therefore lacks the authority to determine Council membership?

And, by the way, where is the Governor in this action? Does she agree with this high-handed action? Has she no voice of her own? Or has she delegated this very important action to this lowly underling. If so, perhaps the governor’s office should be advised of the difference between delegation of tasks and abdication of responsibilities.

Oh, wait, we the people have a chance to proffer this advice – and similar wisdom – in November. But only if we vote. And convince our friends to vote. And their friends to vote.

And many will be reluctant, stating that they have no interest in politics. At which point, we must remind them that even if they take no interest in politics, politics will certainly take an interest in them.

Dick

December 2011

WE WON!! The man we now respectfully refer to as Commissioner McEntire will assume his office immediately after the first of the year!

And a hearty well done to Jim and his campaign staff who worked their butts off during the campaign. Jim himself spent untold hours, wore out a pair of shoes, and lost 10 pounds while knocking on nearly 4000 doors to spread his message.

But it wasn’t just Jim and his staff that did it. It was the PCOs who also knocked on doors… it was the many contributors who dug deep to support his campaign with donations… it was the individual “campaigners” who talked to their neighbors, their friends, their acquaintances to spread the word… and most important, it was you, the voter, who checked the appropriate block on your ballot and put him over the top.

And now, I have a confession to make… After Jim lost his bid for the legislature, I was not as unhappy as I perhaps should have been. I am a great believer in karma and fate and the fact that things normally work out the way they are meant to. I was already looking towards our next opportunity.

Had Jim become our legislative representative, he would have been the “new kid” in Olympia. He would have had to quickly educate himself on the problems of other counties and political districts instead of concentrating on those pertinent to Clallam County. Most importantly, he would have been only one of 117 lawmakers and heavily outnumbered by “the other side.” I mean, truly, how much effect could he possibly have had?

As a Clallam County commissioner, however, he is on his “home ground” and intimately aware of the issues that are affecting this county and so no “learning curve” is necessary. And he lives here and is therefore available to us. We can accost him at Safeway… berate him at the gas station.. chastise him before and after church… maybe during church, for that matter…

The best thing, however, is that he is only one of three on the Board of Commissioners. He therefore has to convince only one person of the logic of his position… the rationale for a given decision… the need for a specific action and then a decision will be made with a mind to fiscal conservatism, limited government, and self-reliance. And that’s really a good thing.
Yessir, Jim lost one election but he came back and won the next one. He made the best of a bad situation thereby proving the veracity of that old proverb… When you have salmon, make salmonella.

Dick

- Dick Pilling, Chairman
Clallam County Republican Party

November 2011

It is election season once again and the candidates are in full cry. And again, the age-old question arises as to which has the greater advantage: the incumbent, comfortable in the position and striving for yet another term, or the newcomer, determined to unseat the incumbent and, perhaps, pursue their objectives.

Many would say the advantage is with the incumbent because a sitting legislator, pointing with pride to a number of achievements, can make a telling argument which may well be rewarded with yet another term.

It is necessary, of course, to determine if the accomplishments were well and truly due to their efforts. Did they really do something or are they like the rooster who crows at dawn and then tries to take credit for the rising sun. So you, the voter, must decide if they are “goers” or just “crowers.”

The newcomer, of course, will likely attempt to underscore the failures of the incumbent to produce a desirable outcome. Or, better yet, highlight instances of inappropriate behavior or poor judgment. Accompanied, of course, with many confident statements as to how well they will serve and how much they will do should they be rewarded with your vote.

Continuing the chicken-farm analogy, newcomers cackle and flap their wings but they have yet to lay any eggs. And it is the electorate’s task to determine if they are “layers” or “liars.”

But don’t forget… we are electing leaders. So can they, do they, will they lead? Will they listen to the people, become familiar with the subject, assess the situation, and make a decision based on what they feel is right regardless of whether their decision will be applauded or decried?

Or do they put their whetted finger in the air to determine the direction of the political winds and decide accordingly? Do they just do what they think the people have directed them to do?

True leaders make their decision, stride off in the direction that they have determined is best, and say “Follow me.” Would-be leaders try to gauge which way the herd is moving and then jump in front and say “Follow me.”

Appearances can be deceiving. Choose carefully.

Dick

- Dick Pilling, Chairman
Clallam County Republican Party

Chairman Dick Pilling’s remarks at the Clallam County Board of Commissioners’ meeting held on August 30th:

As most of you know, on behalf of our party, I submitted a resolution to our Board of Commissioners that demanded that they withdraw from The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) due to its incompatibility with both the Washington State and US constitutions and its hostile attitude towards basic property rights.

Well, believe or not, this resolution – painstakingly authored by our secretary, Sue Forde – has traveled well beyond Port Angeles. Steven’s County UN researcher Rene´ Holaday was quite enthusiastic about it, stating, “.… the fact that your party has written and submitted this resolution is outstanding. That means you guys are ahead of our county by a mile, but maybe not for too much longer, because as it is, everyone over here is pretty excited about what you have just done.”

Ms. Holaday goes on to say, “…I am working to bring the other County Republican parties together on this action so we can all follow suit and turn their efforts into a statewide effort that actually has some bite to it.”

Lastly, she says, “So far this resolution has been forwarded to the Stevens County Republican Party, asking them to follow suit, to the Spokane Republicans Party, and John Hammill of Whatcom County is considering bringing it to that Republican Party as well. It’s kind of like we're showing them that they need to get on the ball and keep up with the more progressive people in their party. I think it might just work.”

We have also been given kudos by Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Karl Spees who said the Clallam County Republican Party “… took a giant step to protect/reserve our private property rights/our liberties.”

There have been other congratulations and kind words but nary a word of complaint or criticism. Seems that, thus far, most people are in agreement.
Maybe, just maybe, we can awaken the sleeping giant! Maybe Clallam County can take the lead in this very important matter.

But we need to keep the pressure on. Please take the time to write to our County Commissioners, our Legislators, the newspaper, etc., and reiterate the need to disassociate ourselves from all things ICLEI. Please do it today!

Dick

- Dick Pilling, Chairman
Clallam County Republican Party

For more information about the event, read "Clallam County, WA: Local citizens against ICLEI / UN Agenda 21 voice their concerns"

To read the Resolution and information about it, go to: http://clallamrepublicans.org/news_items/resolution_ICLEI.html

September 2011...

Chairman Dick Pilling’s remarks at the Clallam County Board of Commissioners’ meeting held on August 30th:

Re: ICLEI RESOLUTION

Some three years ago this Board of Commissioners joined a group called “The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives – otherwise known as ICLEI.

ICLEI is an association of some 1200 local government entities who are committed to what they refer to as “Sustainable Development” whose concepts are laid out in United Nations “Agenda 21,” “Habitat Agenda,” “Earth Charter” and other associated documents.

Upon investigating various aspects of ICLEI, the Clallam County Republican Party has determined that goals, aspirations, and agenda of ICLEI are not consistent with the principles set forth in the US Constitution or the Washington State Constitution. Moreover, they are incompatible with the precepts of freedom and individual choice which have been the cornerstones of our country throughout its history. We have therefore drafted a resolution calling for the withdrawal from ICLEI which I have provided to you prior to the meeting.

Possibly you decided to join this group – ICLEI – without knowing much about its concepts of Sustainable Development. After all, one of our legislators famously said that we must “pass the bill so we can see what is in it” and perhaps that is the case here. If so, perhaps you should “read the bill” as it were. Therefore, for your ready reference, I have provided some background information for you also in the provided packet.

Time does not permit me to speak to every aspect to which our party objects but some of the more egregious items are as follows:

· ICLEI and its associates attack private property ownership, stating that Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals as this contributes to social injustice. (See UN Conference on Human Settlements, Vancouver Action Plan, D1) Their publicized agenda is to move people out of rural areas into cities so as to decrease their environmental footprint. (See unhabitat.org/docs The Habitat Agenda) Have you guys really signed on to an organization that would eliminate our property rights??

· They would “make this place an insecure and hostile place for capitalists,” and further stating “we must return to the wilderness tens of millions of acres of presently settled land” (Dave Foreman, Earth First).

· They contend that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involve high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable and are to be eliminated. (Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit) Are you kidding me? We can’t eat meat? We can’t have labor saving appliances?

· They would eliminate or curtail ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction and more. (UN Biodiversity Report) Really guys? Really? As representatives of this county, is that what you really think is in our best interests?

· They envision turning 50% of America into Core Wilderness reserves wherein no human activity would be permitted. (See Wildlands Project)

· Most damning, they say that the individual right must give way to the collective. And in order to accomplish all of these goals, the members are reminded that they must be prepared to commit to radical action.
All this comes from legions of faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrats who would aspire to dictate, in the most minute detail to us – a free people – as to how we comport ourselves in our daily lives.

While we have no control over these far-off agencies whose goals are so inimical and hostile to our way of life, we do have a measure of control over you, our elected representatives who have been chosen to represent the best interests of our county.

Gentlemen, this is not a partisan issue. Both Republican and Democrat organizations reject ICLEI. For instance, see the web site Democrats against UN 21. Cities and counties across the USA are awakening to the hostile aspects of ICLEI and are demanding that their legislators cease to associate themselves with ICLEI. Neither Republican nor Democrat, this is an American issue.

Accordingly, on behalf of the Clallam County Republican Party and in accordance with our resolution, I demand, in the strongest possible terms, that this body resign from ICLEI forthwith, immediately withdraw any support for its agenda, and without delay, disassociate yourselves with any and all of its program now and in the future.

- R.A. Pilling, Chairman
Clallam County Republican Party

Previous Issues...