The Sebastopol City Council has launched into a project. Their approach totally contradicts everything they do on 2nd Amendment issues. Peter Mancus makes very vitriolic and meritorious points as he once again assails the errant pedantry of his city management.
The Sept 9, 2002 issue of the local Press Democrat newspaper,
at page B7, has an op-ed titled "Laguna Vista project: Fallacy or
opportunity?" written by two of Sebastopol, CA's five city
councilmembers, Larry Robinson and Bill Roventini, both of whom
ex-mayors of Sebastopol. Mr. Robinson is a Green Party member.
Background: A developer wants to build a housing project in
town. The proposed new houses will carry a price tag of $500,000 to
$600,000. As I understand it, the city council has not yet
approved this project and is unlikely to do so because is does not contain enough "affordable housing." This appears to be code for this
apparent fact: Unless the developer agrees to "sell" a large
enough number of new houses at far below fair market rates and/or build enough less profitable smaller, more affordable houses, this city council is unlikely to grant final approval for this project.
Apparently, the city council has two major concerns regarding
this project: first, environmental/traffic and second, lack of
"affordable housing" arising from this project.
Sebastopol already has the highest housing cost in all of
Sonoma County. Most people cannot afford houses that cost $500,000 to
$600,000. Achieving "affordable housing" is a legitimate goal.
Coercing a developer to "sell" at far below fair market rates,
however, is not a legitimate goal. Reformulated, it is reality
check time: the council does not have a legitimate duty to impose
socialist norms on the developer by forcing the developer to build and/or "sell" anything below reasonable fair market rates. Arguably,
however, the council might have a legitimate role in refusing to
issue building permits unless the project contains "enough"
smaller, more affordable, houses.
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Roventini, if you want to do charity, do
so with your own resources. Example: let poor folk live in your
houses at below fair market rents and you go live in a tent or under a bridge.
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Roventini, in this article, take the
author of a prior Press-Democrat article to task about what is
In their article, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Roventini wrote,
"Sometimes The Press Democrat editorials read as if they had been
written by Lewis Carrol. The Red Queen in 'Alice In Wonderland'
may be able to make a word mean what she says it means, but an
editorial writer should exercise some semantic and journalistic
Go back and read--carefully--this excerpt from Mr. Robinson's
and Mr. Roventini's op-ed, which happens to be the begining of their
op-ed. Now, think about what I have told them about the Second
Amendment and how they have responded to what I have told them
about the Second Amendment. Then think about their sworn oaths of office and their duty arising therefrom and their new found sensitivity about the importance of a word's definition.
With those thoughts in mind, now read the following exact
quote of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Remember this: These are 2 of 5 of the same elected officials
who have done nothing to undercut or discipline Gordon Pitter, the
local Chief Serpent, who passes himself off as a Chief of Police.
Remember also that this Chief Serpent has stated, per Mr. Roventini, that since the Chief Serpent cannot tell who is "the best," no one gets a CCW [concealed carry weapon] permit from him. I repeat, "permit." In other words, Pitter seems to think that we have to beg him for his damn permission to defend our lives with a gun and, even if we beg him for such permission, he will never issue such a permit because he cannot tell who is the "best" person to get such a permit. To exacerbate matters, Pitter has taken this position, and sticks
with it, knowing that he has no legal duty to protect anyone and is
legally financially immune for failing to protect anyone.
Reformualated, we pay taxes for this BS: to support serpents who
have grown into alleged masters.
Now, how is all of this linked together? Here is how: First,
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Roventini, in their op-ed, object to The Press
Democrat writer making a word mean what he or she wants it to
mean, which is not what Mr. Robinson and Mr. Roventini want the word to mean. Second, like them, I object to any and all who try to make
certain words mean certain things--things they are clearly not
intended to mean and do not mean. Third, a clear, relevant example
of this [the importance of a word's correct definition] arises from
the Second Amendment. Fourth, Chief Serpent Pitter, and others, have
attempted to re-define certain words in the Second Amendment so
that it means what they want it to mean, which twists its true meaning beyond recognition to mean something that it clearly does not
state nor mean, which alarms me and many others. Fifth, a fair reading of the Second Amendment includes these elementary points: it does not state that one has to be a govt employee to enjoy the right
guaranteed; it does not state that the Militia is, or has to be,
govt regulated; it does state that the "right" belongs to "the people"; it does not state that "the right of the people" is a right of govt, of civil authority, of the armed forces, of the National Guard, of law enforcement, of the state; and it clearly states that this "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.";
"[I]nfringed" means no prior restraint, as in no prior regulation
and no permit system shall be condoned. It is logically impossible to
regulate a right without infringing it.
Notwithstanding these facts, Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter
arrogantly, pompously, foolishly, and dangerously believes that
"the people" [ordinary citizens] doe not have an individual "right to
keep and bear Arms, which shall not be infringed." Instead, Chief
Serpent Pitter believes he has the absolute, unfettered discretion to
implement this "right" as a gutted, "permit" system, which reduces
the "right" to a "privilege". To exacerbae matters, Mr. Robinson
and Mr. Roventini, along with their other 3 city councilmembers, the
city's legal beagle and the city's mismanger, support the Chief
Serpent in the Chief Serpent's frank, blatant making the word
"right" mean "privilege" and making the word "people" mean something else, such as some form of govt employee and/or agency.
To exacerbate matters further, all of Sebastopol's city
councilmembers have taken the formal position that they have
delegated responsibility for oversight of Sebastopol's Police
Department to the city's legal beagle and to the Chief Serpent
I have news for the city councilmembers: As a matter of law,
you cannot escape your duty to exercise legal control over the Chief
Serpent by merely proclaiming you are a bunch of no-nothings on
this subject and that you delegate responsibility for this subject to
your deparment heads who you assume are competent, experienced,
ethical, etc., and are obeying the law. You cannot duck this issue by
attempting to delegate away your responsibility. I do look forward
to cross-examing each and every one of you and making each and every
one of you pay a high price, in your individual capacities, for your
gross derelection of your sworn duty.
In your op-ed about The Press Democrat writer who criticized
your position regarding "affordable housing," you wrote, ". . . an
editorial writer should exercise some semantic and journalistic
responsibility." Similarly, you two, as city councilmembers, must
forthwith exercise full oversight control over an out-of-countrol
Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter who has twisted the true meaning of
the Second Amendment 180 degrees opposite of its real meaning, with
your approval, to date.
Mr. Robinson and Mr. Roventini, by your referenced op-ed, you
clearly demonstrated your recognition of the importance of a
single word and of the extreme harm that arises from words being
inapporpriately re-defined to mean what they clearly do not mean.
Thus, you are not brain dead. But, in context, you are something
worse. At a minimum, you are First Class Hypocrites. At worse, you
are Domestic Enemies of the U.S. Constitution, you are frauds, you
are political whores, you are American Taliban, you are my enemy.
Go to hell.
I challenge you to respond to this question: Why are you so
concerned about the true meaning of "affordable housing" but
apparently do not give a damn about the true meaning of "the right of the people"?
I challenge you to respond also to this question: What is your
best, principled, logical, rationale for how "the right of the
people" somehow, in your minds and in the Chief Serpent's mind,
means "the privilege of the people" and/or "the right of civil
Until you publicly support my orientation toward the Second
Amendment or until you convince me, on the merits, that the Chief
Serpent's views on the Second are correct, you remain where you
put yourselves: in the bottom of a steep, greased, shit can, with a
secured, tight lid.
Needless to say, some people were a bit upset over some of the more pointed suggestions at the end of Mancus'
essay, so he set out, with some truly spectacular sentences, to clarify not only the points, but the justification for using them
Those 2 sons-of-bitches [Robinson and Roventini] know the great
import of a definition and the horrific sheannigans, and worse, that can arise from playing too damn loose with a vitally important definition. They bitch against The Press Democrat critic of theirs about a definition issue but when I press them on a far more important 2AM definition issue, they stone wall, act dumb, remain mute, and/or try to escape accuntability by attempting to delegate away their responsibility to keep the Chief Serpent Constitutional.
Robinson fancys himself as a "social justice" advocate. Crap! Where is the "social justice" in tolerating a Chief Serpent and a City Council and a City Atty and a City Manager who, in effect, arrogantly, purport to repeal those parts of the Bill of Rights with which they disagree? The Bill of Rights is Mankind's greatest achievent. If anyone disagrees with that statement, they should try living without it.
Under these whores' reign, we cannot even protect our own lives
without risking getting pinched for packing without the Chief Serpent's damn permission. That is a total reversal of the Bill of Rights, which was intended to deny civil authority that kind of absurd, total, unfettered, discretion.
If I resorted to "offensive" language initially, you would have a
valid point. But I did not. I started out with professional, velvet glove, diplomatic, logical, restrained, language--years ago. That did not work with prior councilmembers, and some of the current ones are holdovers.
All these bastards really comprehend is naked power.
Arguably, I might now be "wrong" for the "Go to hell!" and "shit
can" inclusions. But, I have had it with these political whores. Cuddle them if you wish. Tolerate them if you wish. Hold out hope for them if you wish. I am way beyond that. I do not care any longer what they think--of their duty, themselves, me, or whatever. For Christ's sake, they are ultimately telling us we have to beg the Chief Serpent for his permission to defend our lives, knowing that if we beg, if we humilitate ourselves, such permission will
never be forthcoming, knowing that the Chief Serpent has no duty to
defend us, is immune for failing to defend us, and lacks the capability to defend us, and, in truth, in my instance, probably has no desire to defend me.
These whores are the homegrown enemy. One does not have to go to
the Middle East to find enemies. They are all around us, right here, in slime pit Sebastopol. Thus, I shant shed a tear regardless of what happens to them.
I will show them respect when they earn it. Until then, they can
drop dead. In many ways, they already are dead--in a Constitutional sense.
They are so damn dead they will not even defend themselves against my verbal blungeoning of them. All they do is clam up and cancel study sessions. In that sense, they know they are roaches. They run from the light, from the truth, from logic, from the Supreme Law of the Land. They run because they know they are defenseless to the light, the truth, logic and the Supreme Law of the Land, which they sure in hell are not.
Side-note: As to our current mayor, Sam Spooner, a Green Party
member, a recent article in The Press Democrat attributed this to him: Per Spooner, the Laguna developer must make more homes available "below market cost"! Says who? Spooner, in effect, is demanding the economic impossibility. Spooner, in effect, is demanding some form of socialism, communism, fascism.
I'd love to drive a Ferrari, Lexus, Mercedes, Rolls Royce, etc..
It'd be great to have a mix of 21 of such vehicles--so I could choose among 3 for each day of the week. Maybe I can get Spooner to have the manufactuers and dealers give me, you, and the other 7,800 residents of Sebastopol 21 luxury cars apiece, to promote "social justice."
"Social justice" appears to be code for trashing Constitutionalism and capitalism and putting "success" before "work,"--just "something for nothing" under a new, shit-like label, an excuse to rob Peter to pay Paul, in the hope that the Pauls will outnumber the Peters and all the Pauls will vote them back into office.
Chief Serpent Gordon Pitter, your CCW position is unconstitutional, dangerous, a sham, and a farce. You are a first rate, world class, grade A, stinking, flaming, whore, unprofessional, idiot--for adopting it, for sticking to it, for not abandoning it. I respect you not. I condemn your CCW position. Go to hell and burn, burn, burn.
Of course, these detached from reality shitheads will deny all of
In the interim, if any of these whores want to lock horns with me
cerebrally, I dare them to try. If they prefer to start a
war--literally, they shall be accommodated. Absent either one, in my mind, they are were they belong: at the bottom of a sealed, greased, shit can.
If they have the guts, the courage, and the wisdom, if they are
willing to admit they are wrong, and if they begin to function as
Constitutionalists, I will embrace them.
To return to our home page, click: