Major Earthquake Destroys Seattle - Democrats to Blame

Seattle has been warned.

The Washington State Department of Transportation released a video under the Freedom of Information Act depicting the annihilation of the Seattle Waterfront during the next large scale seismic event. The release was in support of an ongoing (8 year) debate about how best to resolve the question of fixing or replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct following the 2001 Nisqually earthquake.

The Nisqually earthquake was an intraslab earthquake, occurring at 10:54 a.m. PST (18:54 UTC). on February 28, 2001, and was one of the largest recorded earthquakes in Washington state history. The quake measured 6.8 on the MMS and lasted approximately 45 seconds. The epicenter of the earthquake was under Anderson Island, about 17 km (11 mi) northeast of Olympia. The focus was at a depth of 52 km (32 mi).

During the Nisqually event, which I remember as if it were yesterday, the ground shook for 45 seconds at a magnitude 6.8 at epicenter located 30 miles southwest of Seattle. During that event the Alaskan way viaduct and Seattle waterfront seawall suffered considerable damage. As well, it was discovered that the seawall was infested with microbial sea life called "gribbles". It was determined after the event that the structure was not safe, would need temporary repairs, and would need to be replaced as soon as possible... the event took place 3163 days ago - more than eight and a half years.

What is more important is that the event occurred on a minor fault south of the metropolitan area, NOT on one of the major faults commonly suspected to be "overdue for the big one". For those from outside the area, there is a major fault running directly beneath the business center of downtown Seattle. The Puget Sound region is home to multiple daily quakes of 3.0 or smaller as the Juan de Fuca plate continues to subduct beneath the Continental plate, fuelling our massive volcanoes and defining a way of life in the region. In short, it is widely accepted in the area that a major earthquake is likely imminent and could occur at any moment.

As such, the scenario used by the WDOT is the likely occurrence of near future events - not the exception to the rule. What you are about to see is a dire warning to the elected Democrat officials of Seattle and King County that their years of inept leadership will most likely result in mass casualty and severe property damage.

There are many alternatives to the Viaduct, some improving the waterfront district and some furthering the "feel" of the concrete wall that is the viaduct. Many options are on the table and many more have been rejected. What is troubling is that it is the inability for the elected leadership to LEAD, causing a series of rejected funding votes from the citizens, and a continuation of an operating death trap in the middle of a major city.



Seattle, King County, and Washington State are all led by Democrats... career politicians whose focus has been social engineering rather than civil engineering. Their lack of leadership, inability to perform the basic function of government, and their absolute mishandling of this most crucial issue is in dire need of national attention, and should be used as a perfect case opposing government run ANYTHING!

Maybe that case will be made once the body count comes in?

Michigan Congressman blasts Healthcare - oldie but relevant

This video is from July, but it is coming to my attention today. Listen to the 4 minute blast this Michigan Congressman gives the health care proposals... listen carefully, then DONATE to this man. We need to identify the congressmen who "get it", like Joe Wilson, and support their campaigns, as well as candidates who are contesting ultra-liberal democrats across the nation.



Re-emphasizing what Rep Rogers says, the Congress is attempting to "give up" on American innovation... this is the best description I have heard to date on the ongoing struggle. And he clearly points out that this declared failure of the American innovator is THE CLEAR CHOICE OF DEMOCRATS... go get 'em, Rep Rogers!

h/t to West Sound Politics for linking the video, and to the 4.3 Million viewers on YouTube who have already seen this video and passed it on! We cannot all watch C-SPAN all of the time, so these videos are sometimes slow to spread... but the message needs to be heard.

PJTV - Board Certified Doctors discuss Health Care Reform

PJTV is a great resource for deeper investigative reporting. If you want facts, check out PJTV.

This episode gives you real life exposure to Insurance companies, Healthcare, and the problem behind them... and offers solutions -


Let's listen, let's think... and let's talk solutions!

These are the recommended insurance changes:

1. Insurance companies offering coverage across state lines
2. Affinity Groups should be allowed to purchase group insurance
3. Employer Insurance should be constant if employee released

My opinion about the proposed changes:

1. Many insurance companies are forced into state specific policies due to varying state laws (at least for automobile insurance). If states take the role of fixing the health system away from the Federal Governemnt (which they should), they should begin by relaxing or eliminating any "required" coverages. Insurance companies should be able to establish universal packages that can be modified to suit the needs of the individual... and in a cyber age, there is no reason why a Bronx NY citizen should have to pay more than a Boise ID citizen for healthcare... plans should be available should a national carier so choose to cover all areas (like cell phone companies).



2. Group insurance is the best tool for lower rates... so why not allow, say, city councils and mayors to establish "City Plan". For instance, Seattle, with a population of ~600,000, could create "Seattle City Health" where citizens and residents of the city of Seattle can purchase insurance and join a group insurance which is not job specific, but region specific. Am I advocating for government control of healthcare? NO. Not on a federal level anyway. What I am suggesting is that towns, cities, and people within regions with the same interest (regional health) band together to offer affordable group rates for the benefit of the cities/regions. This is well within the operational bounds of the 9th and 10th amendments to the US consitution, allowing states and people to regulate themselves at a local level... National healthcare, however, is unconstitutional - in violation of the 9th and 10th.



3. I disagree to an extent. An employer negotiates on behalf of their workforce, and often times has to cover certain costs for arbitration with the Insurance Companies. I think that if we were to have "lay-off coverage" it should be for no more than 3 months after a lay-off or until the employee finds another job or signs up for regional coverage, whichever is shorter. The coverage should NOT be rolled over if an employee is fired.

The idea here is focussed around local control, not national control... about universal personal freedoms, not government mandates under threat of fine/imprisonment... about doctor/patient relationships, not doctor/insurance company relationships...

Reform for reform sake is not progress. Progress is only so when it is universally beneficial.

US Ranks LAST on "Greendex" test... but Really?

The National Geographic Society conducted a survey in 14 countries in an attempt to determine the environmental consumption habits in relation to "Green Living".

"Americans were least likely to choose the greener option in three of four categories — housing, transportation and consumer goods — according to the assessment"

At a 50,000ft level, I can see how this survey's results have any intrinsic value... and I am sure that the results will be further used by the Global Warming Gestapo to show, yet again, that Americans are the source of the worlds ills.

However, as was reported in the article revealing the results:

"Brazil ranked high, for example, because the average household is physically small, most homes aren't heated, few are air-conditioned and Brazilians tend to use on-demand water heaters."

Brazil is ranked at the top because their citizens live in hovels. That may be a bit extreme, but when most homes are unpowered, unheated, lacking air conditioning or other amenities that a first world country enjoys, one must consider the intended outcome of such a survey. Is the National Geographic Society suggesting that Americans return to pre-industrial revolution lifestyles?

Perhaps.

But let's look at the other countries that "beat" the US (in order of ranking):

1. Brazil
2. India
3. China
4. Mexico
5. Hungary
6. Russia
7. Great Britain
8. Germany
9. Australia
10. Spain
11. Japan
12. France
13. Canada

We've discussed Brazil. Now the next two are India and China, both developing countries in their own Industrial Revolutions, and both with a majority of their citizens living in poverty without power or other first world amenities.

Mexico, ranking fourth... where 1/10 of Mexico's population is living within the borders of the United States. The northern towns are in destitution, poverty and lawlessness is the norm.

Hungary, a nation whose goal is to "become a developed country by IMF standards". The IMF is the International Monetary Fund. Hungary is a self described "less than first world" country.

The top 5 finishers in the "Greendex" survey, then, come from undeveloped and poverty stricken countries... mostly where there is no free market choice of consumption, and often times little to no consumption choice even available.

My summary is that the survey, which is soon to be another tool in the belt of the Al Gores of the world, is little more than useless data decrying advances in the modern world.

Can developed countries do better to "be green". Yes.

But don't try to use a survey to show that the US ranks last, when the outcome of the survey is based on the general poverty level of the citizens... A green ranking should not be given just because the citizens live in unpowered mud huts in the swamps. A more accurate ranking would take into account level of technologies, and our ability and willingness to use said technology to ensure higher standards of living in conjunction with green living.