Stayton, OR — Yesterday, a group of Democratic Congressmen staged a “sit-in” on the House of Representatives floor that disrupted the proceedings and forced Speaker Ryan to adjourn the House.
In a statement released today, 5th congressional district candidate Colm Willis blasted the protest. “This childish protest is not only counterproductive; it is stopping the people’s representatives from carrying out the business of the nation in the House of Representatives. After you lose a vote, you should work harder to win the next one rather than throw a tantrum on the House floor.”
The Democrats are staging the stunt to protest the lack of gun control legislation in the aftermath of the attack in Orlando. The gun control measures they wanted to pass had already been defeated in the Senate, and they did not have the votes to bring them to a vote in the House.
Willis slammed the action as a political stunt, not serious governing. “At a time when our nation is under threat from ISIS attacks and our economy is at risk of dipping back into recession, the Democrats would rather engage in legislative blackmail than work to solve our nation’s problems. This is an attempt to turn a republic into a mobocracy.”
“I call on my opponent, Kurt Schrader, to condemn this mob action and allow the House to return to its normal business.”
from Oregon Catalyst
Tragedy on San Francisco’s Pier 14
On Wednesday, July 1st, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was shot and killed on San Francisco’s Pier 14, “one of the city’s most scenic tourist spots.” The ABC affiliate in San Francisco reported San Francisco police said she “was walking along Pier 14 when a man came up and shot her in the upper torso.”
The ABC affiliate reported “Wednesday was supposed to be fun for Kate and her family. She met her father on Pier 14 that night. He was there to take her to Pleasanton, to learn if her brother and his wife were expecting a boy or girl. But tragedy struck instead.” The San Jose Mercury News reported “A bullet pierced Steinle’s aorta and she collapsed to the ground in front of her father, who desperately tried to save her life.”
April 2014 Oregon court ruling
Judge Stewart ruled on April 11, 2014 that holding Maria Miranda-Olivares for an immigration hold violated her constitutional rights. Miranda-Olivares had been held for 19 hours after completing a two-day jail sentence in Clackamas County for a domestic violence charge. According to the Oregonian “jail officials detained her until the next day, giving US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials time to pick her up.” As part of the ruling, the judge found that cities, counties and states could be held liable for unlawful detention for immigration detentions.
Salem, OR – Sheriff Joe Arpaio was the special guest speaker at a rally in Salem, Oregon, presented by the Oregon Republican Party. A large counter protest was organized by PCUN (Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste), CAUSA, Progressive Salem and a number of public employee unions.
After Arpaio finished his formal remarks he made his way over to the counter protestors who had been gathered on the opposite side of the street during the rally.
It’s worth noting that for the entirety of the rally, this counter protest was filled with loud chants calling to “Stop the Hate” and constant shrieks demanding that Arpaio to “GO HOME”.
by Dr. Mark Anderson | I Spy Radio
In the wake of the Garland TX shootings, much has been made and continues to be made, about the “appropriateness” of Pamela Geller’s “Draw Muhammad” event. As recently as this morning, Martha MacCallum of Fox News interviewed Lars Larson and Jehmu Greene who all agreed Pamela Geller had the absolute right to do what she did but debated the “appropriateness” of her actions to hold the event. Within that heated debate, Martha posed the question “What is the appropriate response to ISIS?” Sadly, due to the combative nature of the interview, it went largely unanswered. So allow me.
When responding to terrorists, it is exceptionally appropriate to demonstrate you are not afraid of them. That their threats of violence—to say nothing of their acts of violence—have done nothing and will do nothing to make you cower in fear. That you will not abridge your own speech out of fear they may do something violent in return.
Showing weakness emboldens terrorists. Unfortunately, weakness now passes as official U.S. policy. Even before he became president, Obama launched his apologetic world tour. He has since backed up those apologies by official actions, conceding time and again in the face of radical Islamic threats. When push came to shove in the “Arab Spring” he sided with the radical elements in Egypt and Libya. He sides with the more radical Syrian rebels (many factions of which evolved into ISIS) over the more secular and moderate (though despicable) President Bashar al-Assad.
Reminiscent of Palestinians throwing rocks at well-armed Israeli soldiers, Obama has launched just enough missiles and drone strikes from afar, to give the appearance of doing “something” to the American people. But absent is a bold, authoritative, and crushing offensive strike that would send the message that needs to be sent.
In this sense, Pamela Geller’s event was entirely appropriate. She—a woman no less—stood in the face of violence, shook her fist, and proclaimed, “We will not be silent!” Would Martha MacCallum question the “appropriateness” of a woman standing up to an abusive husband with a similar determination of “I will not be silent!”?
It’s not just Martha MacCallum but many of the Fox News team. Bill O’Reilly, Greta Van Susteren, and others have scolded Geller over the “appropriateness” of her event—while conceding her right to hold it. The only two who seem to get it are Megyn Kelly and Sean Hannity. In an on-air exchange, Megyn absolutely dismantled O’Reilly pontificating with a single question: “You know what else the jihadis don’t like? They hate Jews. Should we get rid of all Jews?”
It’s also highly appropriate to know the mindset of the people you’re fighting, to know your enemy. And judging from the self-righteous comments of those on Fox News and others like Jehmu Greene in this morning’s debate, I would guess none of them have actually read the Qur’an. I challenge them to do so; I invite you to do so. There is a highly respected English translation, fully searchable, electronic version of the Qu’ran available on the page for Show 5-04 (see the “Links Mentioned” section). Take a look. See for yourself about the treatment of Jews and Christians and the absolutely permissible act of killing them if they do not submit to the superiority of Islam. The difference between moderate and radical Islamic beliefs is that moderates view the killing of Jews and Christians as “permissible”; radical Islamists view it as a commandment.
If the Fox News crew actually knew the mindset of radical Islamists, they would know that the “appropriate” response against radicalized violence is strength. On I Spy Radio, I have interviewed multiple guests on radical Islam and ISIS, from Brigitte Gabriel (Act! for America) to Dr. Andrew Bostom to Joseph Klein to Dr. Bruce Thornton to, most recently, Raymond Ibrahim. In discussions with them both on and off the air, all of them underscore that the Middle Eastern mindset is one that respects strength. This has existed for centuries. The Muslim incursions into Europe did not stop because Christians the world over apologized. The incursions stopped because of strength, because of the Crusades, which proclaimed via actions that Christians had had enough and were also willing to die for their faith.
The Fox commentators have also used the infamous “Piss Christ” (an “artwork” of a crucifix in a jar of urine) as an example to counter Geller’s event in that they agreed the artist had a right to do it but that it too was “inappropriate.” They are correct that it was inappropriate. But it’s a false comparison because his rights as an artist were not being threatened. If Christians were dragging atheists or artists out into the streets and beheading then, yes, “Piss Christ” would have been an absolutely appropriate response. Instead, it was an artist with a cushy fat taxpayer grant thumbing his nose at Christians, whose tax dollars helped fund it. The only way you can compare “Piss Christ” to Geller’s event would be if there had been no radical Islamic killings of Westerners, no threats of violence, no implied or overt threats of forcing America to abide by Sharia law—and that Muslims had funded Geller’s event to insult them.
Another common refrain among the Fox News commentators is that Pamela Geller should not have “provoked” the radical Islamists. Our very existence “provokes” radical Islamists. To echo Megyn Kelly, the very existence of Jews and Christians “provoke” them (unless they were to admit the superiority and ultimate authority of Islam). Our way of life is an insult to them. They hate that our women flaunt themselves and walk around half naked—to say nothing of their demands of equal rights with men.
Our entire existence as a nation “provokes” them. They hate us for our freedoms and not just freedom of speech but all of them. The very fact that we’re free to worship who we want and how we want throws it in their face that we have not submitted, that we have not turned our society on its head to follow the dictates of Islam. And they hate that we have even enshrined all of this in the Constitution that guarantees us these rights and this ability to thumb our nose at radical Islam.
So many of our Founding Fathers proclaimed the price of Liberty was so high and so precious they were willing to die to defend it. Do you think Pamela Geller or those attending the “Draw Mohammed” contest—or the former Muslim who won it—weren’t all keenly aware that they were putting their own lives at risk for standing up for freedom? In decrying the “appropriateness” of Pamela Geller’s event, the Fox News crew admitted her right to free speech. Just as they have the right to criticize. And yet it makes one wonder whether they too would put their lives on the line to defend it?
Standing up with strength and resolve, and knowing that it is the correct response in the face of those who would do violence against you simply because you dared to stand up is appropriate. Because the price of freedom is that, at some point, you will be offended. Some are willing to pay the ultimate price for freedom. Others take the safety of the newsroom.
The I Spy Radio Show is not your typical conservative talk radio show. They are a one-hour show and not just news but actual analysis. Host, Mark Anderson, and top-level guests give a more in-depth insight in one hour than most shows do in three.
Don’t get yelled at. Get informed.
At least one state senator and two members of the house may have to fight for their seats due to a grass roots push by local voters to show them the door.
Among those targeted is Sen. Chuck Riley, D-Hillsboro, a lead sponsor of SB 941, a proposal that would expand background checks to include most private gun transfers. The freshman senator came to the chamber last fall as part of a $600,000 influx of cash from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund that allowed him to narrowly unseat a GOP incumbent who was against expanding checks.
In the House, Rep. Susan McLain, D-Forest Grove, and Majority Leader Val Hoyle, D-Eugene, who have voiced support for SB 941 and are now tasked with guiding it through that body, are also facing similar recall votes, The Oregonian reported.
Posted by Fred Elbel at Oregonians for Immigration Reform on Thu, 04/16/2015
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been described as a “stealthy delivery mechanism for policies that could not survive public scrutiny,” and focuses on curtailing government at all levels. In addition, it encourages trade that would harm communities and the environment. Recent revelations expose the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a transnational corporate coup.
The TPP is a multinational trade agreement, negotiated in secret meetings dominated by governments and 500 trans-national corporate interests. Although still under negotiation, the media has virtually blacked out coverage of the TPP.
It has been reported that former US Trade Representative Ron Kirk stated that if the people knew what was in the TPP agreement, it would raise such opposition that it could make the deal impossible to sign.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a fundamental component of President Obama’s continuing economic agenda. It would grant a broad range of powers to trans-national corporations based overseas. According to the New York Times:
Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations… critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.
The TPP is the largest pending economic treaty in history and includes countries that represent more than 40 per cent of the world´s GDP. Current TPP negotiation members include the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei.
The TPP is a “docking” agreement, which means that any country in the TPP region (e.g., China) can add themselves just by signing on. The TPP would be forever. Unlike domestic laws, it would have no expiration date. It could be altered only by a consensus of all signatories.
Ongoing TPP negotiations have been conducted in secrecy since 2008 and are now in the final stages. The Obama administration is attempting to “fast-track” the treaty through Congress so that elected officials will have no ability to review or comment on provisions. Fast track is implemented by Congress passing Trade Promotion Authority, which means that Congress surrenders all rights to amend the TPP treaty and is only allowed to vote yes or no on Obama’s final deal.
From The Dana Show
On September 10th, 2001, did anyone think that the United States would be attacked the following day using our very own infrastructure as a weapon? That this attack could bring such devastation and death? On that fateful day, I was a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy, only reading about the history of warfare and counting down the days until I would contribute to that rich history.
As a plebe (or freshman if you are unfamiliar with the Service Academies) at the Naval Academy, one of the first concepts introduced to me was the OODA Loop. As described by Colonel John Boyd, this common business and military strategy is the practice of observing, orienting, deciding, and acting. OODA is a proven, effective tool that, when performed at a faster rate and in a more concise manner than the competition (in business) or the enemy (in warfare), one will not only survive, but thrive. In the context of the enemy, Boyd is talking about gaining the advantage through anticipating their next move and having a solution in place that mitigates their action.
As it pertains to national defense and protecting the Homeland, having been a nation at war for the vast majority of the past 15 years, we have many lessons from the recent past to reference. The recurring theme and the question to ask is this: what can a small group of dedicated actors do to create mass destruction, death, and fear in the population? Several thoughts come to mind, many of which can be carried out with relative ease and accomplish exactly this.
from Heritage.org and AMAC.US
Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers. Government provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue:
- Direct benefits. These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.
- Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
- Public education. At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.
- Population-based services. Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.
The cost of these governmental services is far larger than many people imagine. For example, in 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.
The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. For example, in 2010, in the whole U.S. population, households with college-educated heads, on average, received $24,839 in government benefits while paying $54,089 in taxes. The average college-educated household thus generated a fiscal surplus of $29,250 that government used to finance benefits for other households.
Oregon governor John Kitzhaber may have announced that he will resign, but a sweeping FBI investigation of him and his fiancée, Cylvia Hayes, is only getting started. While the story involves personal failings, the green-energy lobbying scandal that brought them down has national lessons and implications. If oil companies and pharmaceutical concerns shouldn’t exercise undue influence in government, the same is true for green energy — which can’t yet survive in the marketplace without giant subsidies or special tax favors.
While Hayes was living in the governor’s mansion with the self-bestowed title of “Oregon’s First Lady,” she collected a series of consulting contracts and “fellowship” money from people with an interest in shaping state energy and environmental policy. She then ordered state employees to help run her private business and take actions in accord with the wishes of the green-energy groups that were paying her.
Economists (the good ones, anyway) are often frustrated by the difficulty in explaining economics to people who put their good intentions or, in some cases their partisan political agendas, ahead of clear thinking.
Perhaps no issue provides a better example of this than the minimum wage. President Obama, in his State of the Union speech in January, reiterated his longstanding call for raising it-this time from the current $7.25/hour to $10.10.
If you’re a lay person and are wondering how a good economist sees the way the minimum wage advocate thinks, the following will explain the matter. The good economists can’t help but conclude that minimum wage believers are guilty of one or more of the following errors: