Letters to the Editor - March 24, 2014

  • Written by Readers


When Ethical Woodinville began circulating literature about Mayor Talmas, it angered people because many of the statements made about the Mayor were blatantly false. We tend to forgive some campaign rhetoric as being self-serving, one-sided or biased. Normally, putting your name to campaign literature helps to keep comments within acceptable limits. Ethical Woodinville took extraordinary efforts to hide the identity of people behind some very vicious, and in my opinion, slanderous commentary presented to Woodinville voters. Anonymity allowed an election to be influenced by money and lies that could not be traced to an individual. Campaign spending limits were ignored, reporting was not done and the political process was compromised.

Months after the Woodinville council election was over, the Public Disclosure Commission published information that shows Lucy DeYoung is personally responsible for accusing Mayor Talmas of being a Peeping Tom, of having operatives spying on a council member’s home and of trespassing. These allegations are lies. For a former Mayor and prominent citizen like Lucy DeYoung to masquerade as Ethical Woodinville, hiding behind the scenes, making a mockery of campaign laws, and spending thousands of unreported dollars trying to unseat a political candidate in this manner is wrong, really wrong. The Public Disclosure Commission is responsible for disciplinary action against Lucy DeYoung, but the damage done to the reputation of Mayor Talmas cannot be erased.

Lucy DeYoung is a defendant in a federal lawsuit regarding her dealings with Frontier Bank. Lucy has failed to follow campaign reporting regulations. Lucy’s anonymous comments about our Mayor were ethically and morally wrong. Is this the type of behavior we should expect from a community leader?
Dale Knapinski


I received several messages of support from my 3/3/14 editorial. Many asked if Ms.DelBene had responded. Yes, her office did a cut and paste of Wikipedia’s “Executive Orders” description. And to M. Wallace, your editorial rebuttal was also very similar to Wikipedia. I only wish that you had argued the issue vs. the tired old excuse of what Bush did/did not do during his term.
For anyone that is concerned/confused about what is going on, let me give you a simple and specific explanation so that you can do your own homework and gain the knowledge you need to monitor your government, and president. First, it doesn’t matter if Obama uses an executive order, action, directive, or privilege – he has used them all to do whatever he wants regardless of the law. To quote Professor Turley of George Washington University Law School, “The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he is becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid: that is, the concentration of power in any single branch.”

Obama is no longer upholding his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the law. As he continues his pledge to “fundamentally transform America,” we are losing our checks and balances among the three branches of government. We no longer teach this in our public schools, but we DO have three distinct branches of government and the concept of separation of power is specified in the first three articles of our constitution. For much of our history, this balance has been maintained. But no more; Obama and his Senate are ceding power to the executive branch and the balance has shifted in a dangerous way.

Whether you consider the lawless implementation of Obamacare, IRS intimidation, illegal spying by the NSA or the lost lives in Benghazi, the list of Obama’s illegal actions is staggering. This president rules through an unchecked bureaucracy which Professor Turley refers to as “this rising fourth branch.” There is no greater danger to us as citizens, and our liberty, than his continued illegal actions.
Patty Franklin

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter