Monthly Archives: October 2010

FYI Blog Commenting Re-Commences Election Night

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

The Lawsuit Over Destruction of America’s Borders Will Be Televised

By REES LLOYD
            Due to the extraordinary level of public interest in the case of USA vs. State of Arizona, Case No. 10-16645, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has consented to live broadcast of Oral Argument on Monday, Nov. 1, 2010, at 9a.m. (PST). It will be broadcast  nationwide on C-Span 1, and streamed to remote viewing locations at courthouses, including in Portland.
            Opposing attorneys for the U.S. and the State of Arizona will argue before a three-judge panel the constitutionality of  Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, which authorizes local police to inquire into a person’s legal right to be present in Arizona, but only under certain strict conditions  imposed on officers which are greater than the conditions placed on federal officers for such questioning.
            The proceeding will be broadcast from the  U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco by C-Span 1. It will be video streamed to federal courts at the U.S. Pioneer Courthouse in Portland, OR; at the 9th Circuit Courthouse in Pasadena, CA; in Seattle, WA; Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona; New York;  and Boston.  It will also be streamed to certain law schools, but none in Oregon.
            The Obama administration first publicly attacked Arizona for adopting SB 1070, and then, through Attorney General Eric Holder, filed suit against Arizona to enjoin enforcment of it. A U.S. District Court granted an injunction against certain portions of SB 1070, and allowed other provisions to be enforced. Arizona and Gov. Janice Brewer appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.

 

            In addition to the legal briefs filed by the Obama administration attacking SB 1070 as preempted by federal law which gives exclusive authority over immigration law enforcement to the federal government, and opposing briefs filed by Arizona and Governor Brewer defending SB 1070 as not only constitutional but absolutely necessary to protect Arizona citizens from illegal alien violence and crime due to the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws, the 9th Circuit has received more than two dozen amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs. 
            The amicus briefs  have been filed on behalf of several States, many members of Congress, other office holders, many organizations, and even foreign governments.  The Court has denied the requests of various amici to make oral argument, but has granted the U.S. and Arizona thirty minutes each to argue their positions, from which they may grant time to amicus parties for oral presentations.
            Among the amicus curiae is the United Mexican States, which did not seek to intervene as a party  to the lawsuit, but did apply for and receive consent to file a legal brief attacking Arizona.  In it, Mexico argues that Arizona SB 1070 is an “intrusion in international affairs,” “impedes international relations and bilateral collaboration in cross-border issues;” and “will severely hinder Mexico-Arizona trade and tourism;” “derails efforts towards comprehensive immigration reform and collaborative border management;”  [and] “obstructs international and border collaboration to combat drug issues.”
            Mexico further argues that SB1070 “poses a risk of harassment by law enforcement to Mexican citizens;” and “dangerously leads to a patchwork of laws that impede effective and consistent diplomatic relations.”
            Appearing in support of Mexico and joining its brief as amicus curiae are: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru. It has been noted that all, or almost all of  them receive foreign aid or foreign loans granted by the Obama administration, and paid by the taxpayers of the United States, including the taxpayers of Arizona.  Those Latin countires now file briefs in support of the Obama administration in attacking Arizona.
            This has caused questions to be raised as to the propriety of a United States Court making constitutional determinations in whole or in part on the interests, wants, and views of a non-party to the litigation, Mexico, a corrupt and failed state whose greatest export is its own citizens who illegally enter the U.S. in violation of law, and the Latin American countries which seek and receive aid or loans from the Obama administration and have joined Mexico in attacking the State of Arizona.
            It has been noted that Mexico, which attacks and complains against the right of an American state to defend its citizens against violent and criminal acts by illegal aliens from Mexico, is itself building a wall on its southern border to keep out illegal aliens from those other Latin American countries which now join Mexico in attacking an American State.
            It has been further noted that  72 citizens of some of those Latin American countries joining Mexico were recently raped and  then murdered in the Mexican State of Chiapas, , after illegally entering Mexico from their countries.
            In addition, it has been noted that Mexico, while attacking Arizona, is the major source of illegal narcotics as well as illegal aliens entering the U.S., and is near collapse as a state due to out-of-control drug crime which has resulted in approximately 30,000 killings of Mexicans by Mexican drug gangsters in the last four years. Most recently, Mexican drug thugs brazenly attacked a small city’s police station with over a thousand rounds of gun fire,  and hand grenades, resulting in the entire police force resigning. Civil authority in the city has collapsed. This is manifestly evidence of a failing if not failed state.
            Thus, aside from the question of Mexico having any legal standing to complain against Arizona’s laws and policies protecting its citizens from illegal aliens from Mexico, including the Mexican drug thugs terrorizing Mexico, and thereby to have Mexico’s views, wants, and interests  shape American constitutional jurisprudence, there is the question of Mexico’s moral standing to attack Arizona and thus American citizens in light of Mexico’s own inability to control crime within its own borders,  the export of its own citizens to the U.S. illegally by which Mexico profits by remittances from illegal aliens, and Mexico’s own morally repugnant and brutal immigration policies and actions pertaining  to aliens who illegally enter Mexico.
            The briefs of the USA and the State of Arizona, and of amicus curiae, including Mexico, are available on the website of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
            It is unknown at this time whether the Obama administration and Attorney General Holder have decided to give some of its oral argument time to Mexico to attack Arizona on oral argument in the 9th Circuit.
[Rees Lloyd is a longtime civil rights attorney who writes for the Victoria Taft blog and  is a frequent commentator on the Victoria Taft Show.]

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Rees Lloyd: REPEAL IT. REPEAL THEM. REPEAL HIM.

by REES LLOYD

Do you know how your Congressional Representative, and all of the Members of Congress in every State, voted on the major legislative initiatives of President Obama, Senate Leader Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in the 111th Congress, by which America is being transformed, including most dramatically but without limitation the bureaucratization and  national socialization of American health care by what is popularly known as “Obamacare” ? If not, I respectfully refer you to the very useful data provided by the Voters Guide of the League of American Voters  (HERE and HERE ).

 

I refer you to this information on how your Representative, and all other Members of Congress voted  because I believe the elections on November 2, 2010, may be the most important midterm elections in our lifetime.  While there are many issues to contemplate in deciding for whom to vote, and while the relative merits of candidates will necessarily be weighed, a simple fact appears to be undeniable: This midterm election of 2010, is an election dominated by the question of what kind of America this nation is to be.  It is in essence a referendum on the agenda and policies of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, and acceptance or rejection by the American people of the transformation of America by that agenda and those policies. In short,  the American people’s decision of November 2   determines not only what kind of America we will know in our lifetimes, but what kind of America we will bequeath to our children, grandchildren, and posterity.


Therefore, it is incumbent upon us, I believe, if we are not to fail iin our duties as citizens, that we educate ourselves, at minimum, as to how those who represent us in Congress, especially all those seeking re-election, have voted on the very policies of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, by which the nation is being transformed. Whatever those seeking re-election may say now in campaigning, the evidence of who and what they are is writ in concrete by their votes.

The record of votes by members of all members of the House on four major issues is provided by American League Voters: Obamacare; Cap-And-Trade, the Obama-Pelosi Stimulus; and the non-legislative but extremely important issue of how they voted on establishing Nancy Pelosi in the powerful position of Speaker of the House, third in line for the presidency upon succession. Therefore, I respectfully refer that information to you as you consider as to your vote on November 2, and what you will do thereafter.

Further, I respectfully suggest that Obamacare is at the heart of the transformation of America by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. Therefore, I would respectfully invite you to consider, among the vast amount of information on Obamacre, two very readable writing by two very informed writers:  “The Truth About Obamacare,” by Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, who provides a very readable as well as thorough explication of that 2,700-page bill;  and the equally readable and informative columns and other writings of health care expert Betsy McCauhghey, Ph.D, particularly her Encounter Books Broadside: “Obama Health Law: What It Says And How To Overturn It.”  

Why these two books? Because they are written to actually be read by the American people, not to show off for elitist academics, bureaucrats, or preening liberal “progressives” who hold most Americans in contempt as intellectually inferior if they do not share their ultra-liberal “progressive views.” Pipes and McCaughey respect their fellow Americans who actually work for a living in wealth-producing instead of wealth-consuming occupations. This respect is shown in their non-condescending, detailed but eminently readable examination of Obamacare and its implications, which needs to be understood by citizens fulfilling the duties of citizenship a voters. Not for nothing did the Wall Street Journal describe the 2,700-page Obamacare Law “the worst legislation in history.”

I believe that the present crisis in governance in which the essential nature of America is being transformed is the result of a failure and betrayal of trust of those who have been elected to public office, in representative capacities. I believe these politicians who sought to be elected as “representatives” of  the American people, have upon assumption of office forgotten they are to represent,  not to rule over, the people who elected them, in our constitutional republic based on limited, constitutional, representative government.  They, and the bureaucrats who inhabit the vast bureaucracies, have transformed themselves from public servants into the publics’ masters. They are now about transforming the nation in its very essence in a kind of fatal hubris arising from their intoxicating assumption of power in the 2008 presidential election. They, definitely, have created this crisis in governance, this transformation of the nation, and they must be stopped by the American sovereign–the citizenry, the people.

But, I believe also that the present crisis in governance is also the result of a failure of citizenship. We Americans are free citizens under a limited government, and  have never been dependent serfs serving feudal lords, or commissars,  or czars. We Americans sucked in freedom with our first breath,  and never have been for a moment  “subjects” of expansive governments on the European model, begging for respect and rights from rulers.   Whether we will become subjects of an ever expanding government rather than free citizens under a limited government, depends, now and ultimately, upon us as citizens. It depends on whether we fulfill the duties of citizenship or acquiesce to politicians and bureaucrats of an ever-expanding national government.  Politicians, after all, are natural-born predators who feed on power. We, the people, after all, who are naturally drawn to freedom, not to domination, should not be their prey no matter how benevolent their rhetoric. We should never fear them; they should always fear us.  

I  confess that I feel a sense of my own failure of citizenship in that I did know, I did not research to find out how all the members of the House of Representatives had voted on these transformative issues,  before the League of American Voters guide was forwarded to me. I should have educated myself to all of the votes of all of the Representatives, because how they vote affects all Americans.

I confess also, by way of full disclosure, that I believe that Obamacare represents the greatest transformation of America since its founding by Founding Fathers who were much wiser, much more dedicated to God and Country,  much more willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish and preserve individual American liberty through limited, constitutional national government, than our contemporary politicians ruling America today who seek to transform us from a nation of free, self-reliant, and fiscally-responsible citizens endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, into groveling dependents of the government.  Our freedom has been bought with blood of Americans who came before us — over 1,500,000 American veterans have been killed defending American freedom in all the wars from the War of Independence through the generations. We of this generation should not and cannot surrender that freedom now with a whimper.

Thus, I believe that it is an absolute abuse of office, an absolute betrayal of trust, a reprehensible and irremediable failure of duty, for any Member of the House or Senate to vote for the 2,700-page Obamacare bill which fundamentally transforms our nation — without reading it! Nancy Pelosi’s arrogant articulation that “we have to pass it [Obamacare], so that you will know what is in it,” is a disgrace to her office, a disgrace to her as a person, and a disgrace to us as citizens if we allow her to continue to serve.

Thus, for me, I will follow on November 2, and thereafter, a simple policy based on what I believe is a legitimate litmus test: Any  “representative” in Congress who voted to pass Obamacare without reading it, does not deserve to be re-elected. Any politican seeking election who does not pledge to repeal Obamacare,  based on nothing more than the despicable way in which it was adopted by Pelosi’s House and Reid’s Senate and by Obama in signing it while knowing full well of the failure to read it and the despicable “deals” that were wrought in order to corruptly adopt it, does not deserve to be elected. Period.

Therefore, while respecting every American’s right to vote his or her conscience, I urge you to take that position and brake the transformation of our country from the land of the free into what it has never been and never should be, a land of trembling, hat-in-hand government dependents, subjects, if not serfs, to an all-powerful, all-invasive government of politicians and bureaucats, who believe themselves anointed to lead and rule, more wise, more just, more patriotic than the Founding Fathers who bequeathed to us the greatest gift: Freedom. Including freedom from government. 

In short, on November 2, and thereafter, and as long as it takes, I will follow, and urge,  the policy: “Repeal It. Repeal Them. Repeal Him.”

Rees 
REESLLOYD is a civil rights attorney, Veterans activist, author and writer for the Victoria Taft blog.



Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Bruce McCain: Getting Over the Oregon Blues

by Bruce McCain  [Also cross posted at The Northwest Connection]
Blue Oregon is more than just a political website popular with like-minded liberal lefties. It accurately describes the current political status in one of most Blue states in America. Yet many Oregonians may not grasp the extent and depth of what one-party Democratic rule has done to this state over the past three decades. So just how Blue is Oregon in November 2010?
Oregon’s current seven-member congressional delegation consists of two Democratic senators and four (of five) Democratic representatives. The 1st and 4th congressional districts have been Democratic since 1975. 

The 3rd district, dominated by Portland and Multnomah County, has not elected a Republican since 1955.

At the state level, Democrats own a super-majority in both the Oregon House and Senate. The last Portland resident elected as a Republican state legislator was John Minnis in 1991. In 2008 Democrats pushed Republicans completely out of east Multnomah County to beyond Hood River. Since 2006 metro area Democrats have expanded their legislative reach in suburban Clackamas and Washington counties.
Every state-wide office is currently held by a Democrat. The last three attorneys general and last four state treasurers have been Democrats. Only one Republican (Jack Roberts) has been elected labor commissioner in the past half century. The Secretary of State, which oversees elections, has been held by Democrats since 1985. And of course, Democratic governors have occupied Mahonia Hall for 24 consecutive years.
Democratic one-party rule is not limited to the legislative and executive branches. Under Article V of the Oregon Constitution, the governor has sole authority to appoint judges to fill judicial vacancies at both trial and appellate levels. Under our federal system, the president nominates a candidate, which the senate must confirm. But under our state system, the governor does not merely nominate a judge; the governor makes the direct appointment, which is not subject to any legislative confirmation.
As a result of 24 consecutive years of Democratic governors, Oregon’s judicial branch is populated by dozens of judges who got their start as Democratic appointees to elective offices that are almost never contested. For example, all seven Oregon Supreme Court justices must run for re-election as nonpartisan candidates. As of January 2011, every member of the Oregon Supreme Court was originally appointed to their appellate position by Democratic governors Goldschmidt, Roberts, Kitzhaber and Kulongoski. Thus the last four Democratic governors have literally hand-picked every Oregon Supreme Court justice with no legislative confirmation.
Besides judicial appointments, Oregon’s governor also makes direct executive appointments to over 220 boards and commissions. Heads of administrative agencies, other than those headed by other elected officials, are likewise filled by gubernatorial appointments. The constitutional gubernatorial appointment authority is a critical, but all-but-ignored reason why Oregonians need to break one-party rule in the executive branch. Another four years of one-party governance equals four more years of Democratic judicial and commission appointments.
Democratic one-party domination also extends to regional and local governments, particularly in the greater Portland metro area. All five of Multnomah County’s nominally nonpartisan commissioners are and have been liberal Democrats for decades. Many of those county commissioners began in the state legislature before seeking political promotion to the Portland city council, long dominated by the Portland liberal Democratic base. Democrats also control the county commissions of suburban Clackamas and Washington counties, which have slowly become more like Portland than Pendleton – particularly since 2006.
Democratic one-party rule in Oregon has resulted in near total domination of all three branches of state government – including state administrative agencies – as well as control of the county commissions, city councils and regional bodies serving a majority of Oregonians. Often, these career Democrats simply recycle from one job to another. The current Secretary of State (Kate Brown), BOLI Commissioner (Brad Avakian) and Superintendent of Public Instruction (Susan Castillo) are all former Democratic state senators. Governor Ted Kulongoski has served as a state legislator, attorney general, insurance commissioner, and Oregon Supreme Court justice
A generation of one-party Democratic domination is enough to make some conservatives see red or slip into a deep blue funk. But if the November 2010 election shows anything, it’s that there has never been a better opportunity to begin to reverse that long-term trend. But that will have to wait until after November 2 when we look at: Purple Oregon – Within Reach?
 
Bruce R McCain LLC

www.brucemccain.com
Bruce McCain is an attorney in private practice and former Multnomah County Sheriff’s Captain. He writes for The Northwest Connection and is a new blogger for the Victoria Taft blog.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Requiem for Pelosi and the Democrats

Brian Baird, Democrat Representative for Washington State 3rd Congressional District and retiring after 6 terms in office, is following in the footsteps of many who went before him. He wrote a book about his time in office, , “Character, Politics and Responsibility: Restarting the Heart of the American Republic.”

Baird, well known for “official” congressional trips to exotic locales takes some pretty controversial stands in his book.

Of the Pelosi led Congress Baird says, “It’s been an authoritarian, closed leadership.”

On “cleaning out the swamp” as many Democrats campaigned on throughout 2006, Baird states, “We abandoned all that work after the election, and leaders told us we should trust them to clean things up. I don’t know a single member of the Democratic caucus who saw the final rules package before they voted on it.”

On energy reform Baird claims, “With cap and trade we wound up with a bill that didn’t accomplish much, was enormously complicated and expensive.”

Towards Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac he says, “When I was first elected I was puzzled why they were holding events in my honor as a mere freshman. I asked myself, why is a federal entity so involved in political activity?”

On health care reform he said, “What the hell were we doing voting on this? I had labor groups come to me and insist the bill was so important we couldn’t wait to know what was in it,” even though he still stands by his voting for the bill.

With the claims made in his book, all I can ask is why now? Why did he not speak out earlier or stand up against this mess? Where were you when you should have been representing us, Mr. Baird, not those special interests you rail against today.

Read more at Wall Street Journal

Baird says what he would say to incoming freshmen Republicans, if they win as big as expected, “Governing isn’t as easy as you think.”

To the Reflector’s Marvin Case he claims, “elected leaders do not always tell the truth and refuse to take responsibility for solving problems. They focus more on party or personal power than common good. As a result, people lose faith in and respect for government. Honesty means making decisions through reason, not blind obedience, wishful thinking, fear, anger, intimidation or raw power.”

Maybe if he had avoided some of those exotic trips or stood by constituents, it might not be as hard as it has been made.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Crist Issue. Let’s Play, "If an ‘R’ Did This."

The white president (Clinton) goes to a black candidate (Meek) to pull out of the race so the hispanic candidate (Rubio) will lose to the other white guy (Crist). And WE’RE the racists?
I know it’s all about politics, but you and I both know if it were done by the Republicans it would be all over the mainstream press. 
I think I’ll check to see the latest reportage about this HERE.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Rees Lloyd: REPEAL IT. REPEAL THEM. REPEAL HIM.

by REES LLOYD

Do you know how your Congressional Representative, and all of the Members of Congress in every State, voted on the major legislative initiatives of President Obama, Senate Leader Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in the 111th Congress, by which America is being transformed, including most dramatically but without limitation the bureaucratization and  national socialization of American health care by what is popularly known as “Obamacare” ? If not, I respectfully refer you to the very useful data provided by the Voters Guide of the League of American Voters  (HERE and HERE ).

 

I refer you to this information on how your Representative, and all other Members of Congress voted  because I believe the elections on November 2, 2010, may be the most important midterm elections in our lifetime.  While there are many issues to contemplate in deciding for whom to vote, and while the relative merits of candidates will necessarily be weighed, a simple fact appears to be undeniable: This midterm election of 2010, is an election dominated by the question of what kind of America this nation is to be.  It is in essence a referendum on the agenda and policies of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, and acceptance or rejection by the American people of the transformation of America by that agenda and those policies. In short,  the American people’s decision of November 2   determines not only what kind of America we will know in our lifetimes, but what kind of America we will bequeath to our children, grandchildren, and posterity.


Therefore, it is incumbent upon us, I believe, if we are not to fail iin our duties as citizens, that we educate ourselves, at minimum, as to how those who represent us in Congress, especially all those seeking re-election, have voted on the very policies of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, by which the nation is being transformed. Whatever those seeking re-election may say now in campaigning, the evidence of who and what they are is writ in concrete by their votes.

The record of votes by members of all members of the House on four major issues is provided by American League Voters: Obamacare; Cap-And-Trade, the Obama-Pelosi Stimulus; and the non-legislative but extremely important issue of how they voted on establishing Nancy Pelosi in the powerful position of Speaker of the House, third in line for the presidency upon succession. Therefore, I respectfully refer that information to you as you consider as to your vote on November 2, and what you will do thereafter.

Further, I respectfully suggest that Obamacare is at the heart of the transformation of America by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. Therefore, I would respectfully invite you to consider, among the vast amount of information on Obamacre, two very readable writing by two very informed writers:  “The Truth About Obamacare,” by Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, who provides a very readable as well as thorough explication of that 2,700-page bill;  and the equally readable and informative columns and other writings of health care expert Betsy McCauhghey, Ph.D, particularly her Encounter Books Broadside: “Obama Health Law: What It Says And How To Overturn It.”  

Why these two books? Because they are written to actually be read by the American people, not to show off for elitist academics, bureaucrats, or preening liberal “progressives” who hold most Americans in contempt as intellectually inferior if they do not share their ultra-liberal “progressive views.” Pipes and McCaughey respect their fellow Americans who actually work for a living in wealth-producing instead of wealth-consuming occupations. This respect is shown in their non-condescending, detailed but eminently readable examination of Obamacare and its implications, which needs to be understood by citizens fulfilling the duties of citizenship a voters. Not for nothing did the Wall Street Journal describe the 2,700-page Obamacare Law “the worst legislation in history.”

I believe that the present crisis in governance in which the essential nature of America is being transformed is the result of a failure and betrayal of trust of those who have been elected to public office, in representative capacities. I believe these politicians who sought to be elected as “representatives” of  the American people, have upon assumption of office forgotten they are to represent,  not to rule over, the people who elected them, in our constitutional republic based on limited, constitutional, representative government.  They, and the bureaucrats who inhabit the vast bureaucracies, have transformed themselves from public servants into the publics’ masters. They are now about transforming the nation in its very essence in a kind of fatal hubris arising from their intoxicating assumption of power in the 2008 presidential election. They, definitely, have created this crisis in governance, this transformation of the nation, and they must be stopped by the American sovereign–the citizenry, the people.

But, I believe also that the present crisis in governance is also the result of a failure of citizenship. We Americans are free citizens under a limited government, and  have never been dependent serfs serving feudal lords, or commissars,  or czars. We Americans sucked in freedom with our first breath,  and never have been for a moment  “subjects” of expansive governments on the European model, begging for respect and rights from rulers.   Whether we will become subjects of an ever expanding government rather than free citizens under a limited government, depends, now and ultimately, upon us as citizens. It depends on whether we fulfill the duties of citizenship or acquiesce to politicians and bureaucrats of an ever-expanding national government.  Politicians, after all, are natural-born predators who feed on power. We, the people, after all, who are naturally drawn to freedom, not to domination, should not be their prey no matter how benevolent their rhetoric. We should never fear them; they should always fear us.  

I  confess that I feel a sense of my own failure of citizenship in that I did know, I did not research to find out how all the members of the House of Representatives had voted on these transformative issues,  before the League of American Voters guide was forwarded to me. I should have educated myself to all of the votes of all of the Representatives, because how they vote affects all Americans.

I confess also, by way of full disclosure, that I believe that Obamacare represents the greatest transformation of America since its founding by Founding Fathers who were much wiser, much more dedicated to God and Country,  much more willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish and preserve individual American liberty through limited, constitutional national government, than our contemporary politicians ruling America today who seek to transform us from a nation of free, self-reliant, and fiscally-responsible citizens endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, into groveling dependents of the government.  Our freedom has been bought with blood of Americans who came before us — over 1,500,000 American veterans have been killed defending American freedom in all the wars from the War of Independence through the generations. We of this generation should not and cannot surrender that freedom now with a whimper.

Thus, I believe that it is an absolute abuse of office, an absolute betrayal of trust, a reprehensible and irremediable failure of duty, for any Member of the House or Senate to vote for the 2,700-page Obamacare bill which fundamentally transforms our nation — without reading it! Nancy Pelosi’s arrogant articulation that “we have to pass it [Obamacare], so that you will know what is in it,” is a disgrace to her office, a disgrace to her as a person, and a disgrace to us as citizens if we allow her to continue to serve.

Thus, for me, I will follow on November 2, and thereafter, a simple policy based on what I believe is a legitimate litmus test: Any  “representative” in Congress who voted to pass Obamacare without reading it, does not deserve to be re-elected. Any politican seeking election who does not pledge to repeal Obamacare,  based on nothing more than the despicable way in which it was adopted by Pelosi’s House and Reid’s Senate and by Obama in signing it while knowing full well of the failure to read it and the despicable “deals” that were wrought in order to corruptly adopt it, does not deserve to be elected. Period.

Therefore, while respecting every American’s right to vote his or her conscience, I urge you to take that position and brake the transformation of our country from the land of the free into what it has never been and never should be, a land of trembling, hat-in-hand government dependents, subjects, if not serfs, to an all-powerful, all-invasive government of politicians and bureaucats, who believe themselves anointed to lead and rule, more wise, more just, more patriotic than the Founding Fathers who bequeathed to us the greatest gift: Freedom. Including freedom from government. 

In short, on November 2, and thereafter, and as long as it takes, I will follow, and urge,  the policy: “Repeal It. Repeal Them. Repeal Him.”

Rees 
REESLLOYD is a civil rights attorney, Veterans activist, author and writer for the Victoria Taft blog.



Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Bruce McCain: Getting Over the Oregon Blues

by Bruce McCain  [Also cross posted at The Northwest Connection]
Blue Oregon is more than just a political website popular with like-minded liberal lefties. It accurately describes the current political status in one of most Blue states in America. Yet many Oregonians may not grasp the extent and depth of what one-party Democratic rule has done to this state over the past three decades. So just how Blue is Oregon in November 2010?
Oregon’s current seven-member congressional delegation consists of two Democratic senators and four (of five) Democratic representatives. The 1st and 4th congressional districts have been Democratic since 1975. 

The 3rd district, dominated by Portland and Multnomah County, has not elected a Republican since 1955.

At the state level, Democrats own a super-majority in both the Oregon House and Senate. The last Portland resident elected as a Republican state legislator was John Minnis in 1991. In 2008 Democrats pushed Republicans completely out of east Multnomah County to beyond Hood River. Since 2006 metro area Democrats have expanded their legislative reach in suburban Clackamas and Washington counties.
Every state-wide office is currently held by a Democrat. The last three attorneys general and last four state treasurers have been Democrats. Only one Republican (Jack Roberts) has been elected labor commissioner in the past half century. The Secretary of State, which oversees elections, has been held by Democrats since 1985. And of course, Democratic governors have occupied Mahonia Hall for 24 consecutive years.
Democratic one-party rule is not limited to the legislative and executive branches. Under Article V of the Oregon Constitution, the governor has sole authority to appoint judges to fill judicial vacancies at both trial and appellate levels. Under our federal system, the president nominates a candidate, which the senate must confirm. But under our state system, the governor does not merely nominate a judge; the governor makes the direct appointment, which is not subject to any legislative confirmation.
As a result of 24 consecutive years of Democratic governors, Oregon’s judicial branch is populated by dozens of judges who got their start as Democratic appointees to elective offices that are almost never contested. For example, all seven Oregon Supreme Court justices must run for re-election as nonpartisan candidates. As of January 2011, every member of the Oregon Supreme Court was originally appointed to their appellate position by Democratic governors Goldschmidt, Roberts, Kitzhaber and Kulongoski. Thus the last four Democratic governors have literally hand-picked every Oregon Supreme Court justice with no legislative confirmation.
Besides judicial appointments, Oregon’s governor also makes direct executive appointments to over 220 boards and commissions. Heads of administrative agencies, other than those headed by other elected officials, are likewise filled by gubernatorial appointments. The constitutional gubernatorial appointment authority is a critical, but all-but-ignored reason why Oregonians need to break one-party rule in the executive branch. Another four years of one-party governance equals four more years of Democratic judicial and commission appointments.
Democratic one-party domination also extends to regional and local governments, particularly in the greater Portland metro area. All five of Multnomah County’s nominally nonpartisan commissioners are and have been liberal Democrats for decades. Many of those county commissioners began in the state legislature before seeking political promotion to the Portland city council, long dominated by the Portland liberal Democratic base. Democrats also control the county commissions of suburban Clackamas and Washington counties, which have slowly become more like Portland than Pendleton – particularly since 2006.
Democratic one-party rule in Oregon has resulted in near total domination of all three branches of state government – including state administrative agencies – as well as control of the county commissions, city councils and regional bodies serving a majority of Oregonians. Often, these career Democrats simply recycle from one job to another. The current Secretary of State (Kate Brown), BOLI Commissioner (Brad Avakian) and Superintendent of Public Instruction (Susan Castillo) are all former Democratic state senators. Governor Ted Kulongoski has served as a state legislator, attorney general, insurance commissioner, and Oregon Supreme Court justice
A generation of one-party Democratic domination is enough to make some conservatives see red or slip into a deep blue funk. But if the November 2010 election shows anything, it’s that there has never been a better opportunity to begin to reverse that long-term trend. But that will have to wait until after November 2 when we look at: Purple Oregon – Within Reach?
 
Bruce R McCain LLC

www.brucemccain.com
Bruce McCain is an attorney in private practice and former Multnomah County Sheriff’s Captain. He writes for The Northwest Connection and is a new blogger for the Victoria Taft blog.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Crist Issue. Let’s Play, "If an ‘R’ Did This."

The white president (Clinton) goes to a black candidate (Meek) to pull out of the race so the hispanic candidate (Rubio) will lose to the other white guy (Crist). And WE’RE the racists?
I know it’s all about politics, but you and I both know if it were done by the Republicans it would be all over the mainstream press. 
I think I’ll check to see the latest reportage about this HERE.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com