Daily Archives: November 25, 2011

Big Pimpin’ Obama Re-election Style

For Your Badunadunk
Suitable for Your Obama Nativity

Hmmm…will it be the yoga pants or the Obama/Biden orb for my “holiday” tree? Fired Up and Ready to Grill apron? Tough to choose. Perhaps I’ll just go for the $3.00 Obama-Lottery and buy a few chances to have dinner with him.
This tschotske fest makes even that whole Clinton-selling-the-Lincoln-Bedroom thing look elegant.
Story here.

Michelle-Approved Smoking!

Quell Stench of Corruption!
Shaken or Corrupted?
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Rees Lloyd: Reading Assignment for the Weekend: Occupy Meets Pilgrims

As the Thanksgiving Holiday is observed, I invite readers of Victoria Taft’s  Blog to consider a timely lesson from history by the first Americans to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Pilgrims,  provided by author William J. Federer.  Among his many books, is what I believe is the best single resource on what the Founding Fathers  actually said and wrote of their own cultural, governmental, and religious beliefs and values in creating our free, constitutional republic, “America’s God & Country; Encyclopedia of Quotations.” (See, www.AmericanMinute.com, for more information on William J.  Federer, and his books.). In short, more than four hundred years after the Pilgrims  tried governance by communalism, socialism, or communism with disastrous 

 

result, self-righteous  American “Occupiers,” mostly wealth-consuming rather than wealth-creating college students and liberal faculty members, demand  that Americans pay the Occupiers “student loans,” and that wealth be re-distributed generally from those who produce it to those who consume it by adoption of those socialist systems which have failed in every country which has adopted a version of them. 

[Rees Lloyd, a long time California civil rights lawyer, now residing in Portland, is a member of the Victoria Taft Blogforce]


Thanksgiving – Pilgrims reject “Occupy Wall Street” wealth redistribution
By William J. Federer

As Thanksgiving nears, one wonders what the Pilgrims would have thought about “Occupy Wall Street” and its effort to redistribute wealth.
 The Pilgrims were originally part of the Virginia Company and were ruled by a set of bylaws that set up a communal system for the first seven years.
 In this system, all capital and profits remained “in ye common stock”:
 “Anno: 1620. July 1. 1. The adventurers & planters do agree that every person that goeth being aged 16 years & upward…be accounted a single share…                                   
3. The persons transported & ye adventurers shall continue their joint stock & partnership together, ye space of 7 years…during which time, all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons, remain still in ye common stock until ye division…
5. That at ye end of ye 7 years, ye capital & profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided betwixt ye adventurers, and planters
10. That all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provision out of ye common stock & goods.
 Pilgrim Governor William Bradford wrote in his Of Plymouth Plantation, that sharing everyone’s profits & benefits equally “in ye common stock,” regardless of how hard each individual worked, was a failure:
 “The failure of that experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men, proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, – that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as it they were wiser than God.”
 William Bradford continued:
 “For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent; and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort.
 For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense.
 The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice.
 The aged and graver men, who were ranked and equalized in labor, food, clothes, etc., with the humbler and younger ones, thought it some indignity and disrespect  to them.”
 The women did not like this communistic plan as well, as William Bradford wrote:
 “As for men’s wives who were obliged to do service for other men, such as cooking, washing their clothes, etc., they considered it a kind of slavery, and many husbands would not brook it…”
 William Bradford added:
 “If (it were thought) all were to share alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality throughout, and one was as good as another; and so, if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved amongst them.
 Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself. I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw that another plan of life was fitter for them.”
 William Bradford also wrote:
 “So they began to consider how to raise more corn, and obtain a better crop than they had done, so that they might not continue to endure the misery of want.
 At length after much debate, the Governor, with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household, and to trust themselves for that; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. So every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number…
 This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction.
 The women now went willing into the field, and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability, and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”
 This Thanksgiving, as we partake of the bounty that the Almighty has provided, let us not just recall the Pilgrims’ historic meal, but let us recall the economic wisdom that helped the Pilgrims to produce their bountiful harvest.
William J. Federer is the author of the new book, Change to Chains-the 6,000 year quest for control. www.AmericanMinute.com

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

Bruce McCain: Kitzhaber’s End Game? End Capital Punishment in Oregon by Fiat

When Governor John Kitzhaber issued his de factomoratorium on all executions in Oregon, he laid out his desire and intent to abolish the death penalty in Oregon. Using his clemency powers under Article V, §14, the governor granted a temporary reprieve for Gary Haugen and for any other death penalty case that crosses his desk. In so doing, he called on the legislature “to bring potential reforms before the 2013 legislative session and encourage all Oregonians to engage in the long overdue debate that this important issue deserves.” The problem is the governor knows the legislature can do almost nothing to abolish the death penalty because Oregonians already had that debate when they placed the death penalty into Article 1, §40 of the state constitution.
One “potential reform” the 2013 legislature can effect is to refer to the voters a constitutional amendment to repeal Article 1, §40. One advantage for the governor is that the legislature can draft its own ballot title and manipulate the question like it did with Measures 66 and 67, where Yes meant No and No meant Yes. But what happens if the legislature does not refer a repeal measure, or the voters reject the repeal, keeping Article 1, §40 in the constitution?
Governor Kitzhaber telegraphed his end game in his three-page statement on November 22, when he warned, “I could have commuted Mr. Haugen’s sentence – and indeed the sentences of all those on death row — to life in prison without the possibility of parole.” Kitzhaber claims he did not resort to commutation (yet) because “the policy of this state on capital punishment is not mine alone to decide.” Yet he unilaterally halts all Oregon executions because of his own personal opposition to the practice. The governor insists the death penalty “is a matter for all Oregonians to decide,” while shrugging off the inconvenient truth Oregonians already decided this issue and put it into their constitution – presumably safe from meddling by the legislative or executive branches.
The governor does not attempt to hide his disdain for capital punishment, a position shared by many, if not most liberal progressives. Indeed, his November 22 prepared statement highlighted virtually every talking point provided to him by the Oregon ACLU and others in a November 6 letter urging him to do exactly what he eventually did. Dr. Kitzhaber apparently bases his personal opposition to capital punishment at least in part on his Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm,” despite the fact none of the condemned killers on death row are under his medical care. Ironically, Dr. Kitzhaber would likely not hesitate to write a script for a lethal cocktail for Gary Haugen if he qualified for death under Oregon’s assisted suicide law.
The governor summarized his personal position when he said, “Personally, I favor replacing the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole and will argue for that policy in any future debate over capital punishment in Oregon.” While he is willing to temporarily wait for a potential statewide vote on a repeal of Article 1, §40, Kitzhaber knows that in the end, he will ultimately prevail regardless of the past or future will of the people he was elected to serve. He clearly wants Oregonians to agree with his position and thereby avoid a constitutional showdown by giving the people one last chance to capitulate to his personal beliefs. But he also knows he holds all the cards that matter in this rigged game.
The last time John Kitzhaber was governor, he earned the well-deserved nickname as ‘Dr. No” for his prolific use of the veto. However, the defining issue for Kitzhaber’s legacy may very well be the final act of his final term – the mass commutation or pardon of every convict on Oregon’s death row. Make no mistake; John Kitzhaber will not leave office with any person subject to the death penalty whether Oregonians agree with him or not. The fix is in.
Bruce McCain is an Attorney in private practice and is a retired Captain with the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office 
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Occupy Portland’s Anarchists Squat in Empty Homes

As we’ve been talking about on The Victoria Taft Show,  the Occupiers are taking a page out of the ACORN playbook and beginning to squat in foreclosed homes.
Portland Police flushed out a bunch of squatters in a home in NE Portland a week ago Friday and yesterday was the latest bust.
The “rationale” used to steal other people’s property is revealed on their new website called, “Unsettle Portland,”

“We want to explicitly acknowledge that there are currently people and groups who are organizing to take foreclosed houses and to redistribute them.”


Well isn’t that nice. They want to “redistribute” the home of somebody who couldn’t afford it and give it to people who have no intention of paying for it.
Here are some other reasons given on their website:

We understand some of the intended purposes of opening these spaces to be:

  • to be housing for evicted families and people otherwise shut-out by the 1%
  • to make available focused environments for organizers to work together and co-strategize
  • to create welcoming and safer spaces to be used as community hubs
  • to host much-needed community services: legal aid, health clinics, childcare, and more…
  • to sustainably and beautifully tend and improve the physical structures that host these activities

And finally they just want to stick it to “the man.”

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

Big Pimpin’ Obama Re-election Style

For Your Badunadunk
Suitable for Your Obama Nativity

Hmmm…will it be the yoga pants or the Obama/Biden orb for my “holiday” tree? Fired Up and Ready to Grill apron? Tough to choose. Perhaps I’ll just go for the $3.00 Obama-Lottery and buy a few chances to have dinner with him.
This tschotske fest makes even that whole Clinton-selling-the-Lincoln-Bedroom thing look elegant.
Story here.

Michelle-Approved Smoking!

Quell Stench of Corruption!
Shaken or Corrupted?
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Jewish Paper: Portland High School Welcomes Anti Israel Rap Group

UPDATE COMING SOON WITH DAVID HOROWITZ REACTION.
JewishReview.org reports Portland’s Lincoln High School welcomed an anti-Israeli pro-Palestinian rap group to perform at a school assembly on November 4th. The group DAM was brought to town Portland State University Middle Eastern Studies Department  DAM was scheduled to make a special appearance at the school and give a special concert/assembly during school hours. A check of the school calendar notes an optional assembly but doesn’t provide details.
According to the Jewish Review:

Lincoln’s Arab Studies Program funded for the second year by Qatar Foundation International, sponsored the rap group’s visit to the high school. The school promoted the assembly as an opportunity for students to hear another perspective on a controversial issue, in this case the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [emphasis mine]

Buying access has its privileges. In fact, the students might actually understand the words of the Arabic language raps calling Jews killers and Nazis since the school now offers Arabic classes thanks to the same foundation! 


Some Jewish students at Lincoln students learned of the planned assembly and called on the school to re-think the invitation. Instead the school held a ‘listening session’ on November 1st for parents, Rabbis and students to vent.

According to the Jewish Review:

Michael Cahana, senior rabbi for Congregation Beth Israel, attended the panel discussion as the rabbi of many families whose children attend Lincoln. He said, “This is not a free speech issue; it is an educational issue. Certainly from a Jewish perspective the lyrics of DAM’s songs promote terrorism, which strikes me as really inappropriate to bring them to a high school. To have a vibrant discussion [outside of a school] makes sense. But when you bring a group into a classroom” or, in this case an assembly, “it carries a certain responsibility. And I don’t see that responsibility being met.”

DAM with Fans at PSU

The school’s Arabic teacher, who offered extra credit for Lincoln students who attended and wrote about the group’s evening concert at PSU, claimed the group didn’t encourage terrorism.
While sounding quite talented, some lyrics of their songs refer to Jews being Nazis and killers.

Assessing the situation, Marcia Weiss, a Lincoln parent and board member for the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland said, “I want [DAM’s] voice to be heard. I want them to be able to complain about their situation. On the one hand [the trio] feels oppressed. That’s what they were trying to say” in their lyrics. “But DAM, in the medium of hip hop, said it in a very shocking, bad way that has our hackles up. But the message that they feel oppressed is still valid.
“From a Jewish perspective, feeling oppressed is obviously not a license to strap on a bomb. There’s no excuse for terrorism,” she said.

Imagine if a white supremecist rap group came to a school.
From the Review:

Another line from “Who Is the Terrorist?” compares Israeli democracy to the Nazi regime.
You’re [Israel is] a democracy? Actually, it’s more like the Nazis.
From the sidelines Peyton Chapman, Lincoln High School principal, jumped in with, “If the word ‘Nazi’ comes up at the assembly, we’re going to discuss it.” The Holocaust “was an incredible horror. We don’t want to have it repeated.”

I expect if lyrics about enslaving blacks, white superiority and the like came up, Principal Chapman would take a moment to ‘discuss it.’ 

Still, I think this kid has taken the best measure of the situation. She was quoted in the Review:

Audrey Weiss, freshman, and Marcia Weiss’s [Jewish Federation of Greater Portland board member] daughter, said her non-Jewish “friends have no idea what the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict is about. They don’t watch the news. So bringing in a group that is so one-sided doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t promote anything positive. It just promotes anger. I understand it’s free speech. It’s not necessarily hate, but it doesn’t do anything good. Many students haven’t been introduced to any other opinion. So the only thing they will know is what these people say.”

Audrey’s a smart kid. She understands what’s afoot even as her instructors bury their heads in the sand. It’s pretty simple calculus. Political groups buy a school program; preach their particular, distasteful message; inculcate as many students as they can with their beliefs; give them extra credit for it and wait for the next wave of anti Jewish fervor. Rinse. Repeat.

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

Rees Lloyd: Reading Assignment for the Weekend: Occupy Meets Pilgrims

As the Thanksgiving Holiday is observed, I invite readers of Victoria Taft’s  Blog to consider a timely lesson from history by the first Americans to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Pilgrims,  provided by author William J. Federer.  Among his many books, is what I believe is the best single resource on what the Founding Fathers  actually said and wrote of their own cultural, governmental, and religious beliefs and values in creating our free, constitutional republic, “America’s God & Country; Encyclopedia of Quotations.” (See, www.AmericanMinute.com, for more information on William J.  Federer, and his books.). In short, more than four hundred years after the Pilgrims  tried governance by communalism, socialism, or communism with disastrous 

 

result, self-righteous  American “Occupiers,” mostly wealth-consuming rather than wealth-creating college students and liberal faculty members, demand  that Americans pay the Occupiers “student loans,” and that wealth be re-distributed generally from those who produce it to those who consume it by adoption of those socialist systems which have failed in every country which has adopted a version of them. 

[Rees Lloyd, a long time California civil rights lawyer, now residing in Portland, is a member of the Victoria Taft Blogforce]


Thanksgiving – Pilgrims reject “Occupy Wall Street” wealth redistribution
By William J. Federer

As Thanksgiving nears, one wonders what the Pilgrims would have thought about “Occupy Wall Street” and its effort to redistribute wealth.
 The Pilgrims were originally part of the Virginia Company and were ruled by a set of bylaws that set up a communal system for the first seven years.
 In this system, all capital and profits remained “in ye common stock”:
 “Anno: 1620. July 1. 1. The adventurers & planters do agree that every person that goeth being aged 16 years & upward…be accounted a single share…                                   
3. The persons transported & ye adventurers shall continue their joint stock & partnership together, ye space of 7 years…during which time, all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons, remain still in ye common stock until ye division…
5. That at ye end of ye 7 years, ye capital & profits, viz. the houses, lands, goods and chattels, be equally divided betwixt ye adventurers, and planters
10. That all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provision out of ye common stock & goods.
 Pilgrim Governor William Bradford wrote in his Of Plymouth Plantation, that sharing everyone’s profits & benefits equally “in ye common stock,” regardless of how hard each individual worked, was a failure:
 “The failure of that experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men, proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, – that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as it they were wiser than God.”
 William Bradford continued:
 “For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent; and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort.
 For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense.
 The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice.
 The aged and graver men, who were ranked and equalized in labor, food, clothes, etc., with the humbler and younger ones, thought it some indignity and disrespect  to them.”
 The women did not like this communistic plan as well, as William Bradford wrote:
 “As for men’s wives who were obliged to do service for other men, such as cooking, washing their clothes, etc., they considered it a kind of slavery, and many husbands would not brook it…”
 William Bradford added:
 “If (it were thought) all were to share alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality throughout, and one was as good as another; and so, if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved amongst them.
 Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself. I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw that another plan of life was fitter for them.”
 William Bradford also wrote:
 “So they began to consider how to raise more corn, and obtain a better crop than they had done, so that they might not continue to endure the misery of want.
 At length after much debate, the Governor, with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household, and to trust themselves for that; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. So every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number…
 This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction.
 The women now went willing into the field, and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability, and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”
 This Thanksgiving, as we partake of the bounty that the Almighty has provided, let us not just recall the Pilgrims’ historic meal, but let us recall the economic wisdom that helped the Pilgrims to produce their bountiful harvest.
William J. Federer is the author of the new book, Change to Chains-the 6,000 year quest for control. www.AmericanMinute.com

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

Bruce McCain: Kitzhaber’s End Game? End Capital Punishment in Oregon by Fiat

When Governor John Kitzhaber issued his de factomoratorium on all executions in Oregon, he laid out his desire and intent to abolish the death penalty in Oregon. Using his clemency powers under Article V, §14, the governor granted a temporary reprieve for Gary Haugen and for any other death penalty case that crosses his desk. In so doing, he called on the legislature “to bring potential reforms before the 2013 legislative session and encourage all Oregonians to engage in the long overdue debate that this important issue deserves.” The problem is the governor knows the legislature can do almost nothing to abolish the death penalty because Oregonians already had that debate when they placed the death penalty into Article 1, §40 of the state constitution.
One “potential reform” the 2013 legislature can effect is to refer to the voters a constitutional amendment to repeal Article 1, §40. One advantage for the governor is that the legislature can draft its own ballot title and manipulate the question like it did with Measures 66 and 67, where Yes meant No and No meant Yes. But what happens if the legislature does not refer a repeal measure, or the voters reject the repeal, keeping Article 1, §40 in the constitution?
Governor Kitzhaber telegraphed his end game in his three-page statement on November 22, when he warned, “I could have commuted Mr. Haugen’s sentence – and indeed the sentences of all those on death row — to life in prison without the possibility of parole.” Kitzhaber claims he did not resort to commutation (yet) because “the policy of this state on capital punishment is not mine alone to decide.” Yet he unilaterally halts all Oregon executions because of his own personal opposition to the practice. The governor insists the death penalty “is a matter for all Oregonians to decide,” while shrugging off the inconvenient truth Oregonians already decided this issue and put it into their constitution – presumably safe from meddling by the legislative or executive branches.
The governor does not attempt to hide his disdain for capital punishment, a position shared by many, if not most liberal progressives. Indeed, his November 22 prepared statement highlighted virtually every talking point provided to him by the Oregon ACLU and others in a November 6 letter urging him to do exactly what he eventually did. Dr. Kitzhaber apparently bases his personal opposition to capital punishment at least in part on his Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm,” despite the fact none of the condemned killers on death row are under his medical care. Ironically, Dr. Kitzhaber would likely not hesitate to write a script for a lethal cocktail for Gary Haugen if he qualified for death under Oregon’s assisted suicide law.
The governor summarized his personal position when he said, “Personally, I favor replacing the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole and will argue for that policy in any future debate over capital punishment in Oregon.” While he is willing to temporarily wait for a potential statewide vote on a repeal of Article 1, §40, Kitzhaber knows that in the end, he will ultimately prevail regardless of the past or future will of the people he was elected to serve. He clearly wants Oregonians to agree with his position and thereby avoid a constitutional showdown by giving the people one last chance to capitulate to his personal beliefs. But he also knows he holds all the cards that matter in this rigged game.
The last time John Kitzhaber was governor, he earned the well-deserved nickname as ‘Dr. No” for his prolific use of the veto. However, the defining issue for Kitzhaber’s legacy may very well be the final act of his final term – the mass commutation or pardon of every convict on Oregon’s death row. Make no mistake; John Kitzhaber will not leave office with any person subject to the death penalty whether Oregonians agree with him or not. The fix is in.
Bruce McCain is an Attorney in private practice and is a retired Captain with the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office 
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Occupy Portland’s Anarchists Squat in Empty Homes

As we’ve been talking about on The Victoria Taft Show,  the Occupiers are taking a page out of the ACORN playbook and beginning to squat in foreclosed homes.
Portland Police flushed out a bunch of squatters in a home in NE Portland a week ago Friday and yesterday was the latest bust.
The “rationale” used to steal other people’s property is revealed on their new website called, “Unsettle Portland,”

“We want to explicitly acknowledge that there are currently people and groups who are organizing to take foreclosed houses and to redistribute them.”


Well isn’t that nice. They want to “redistribute” the home of somebody who couldn’t afford it and give it to people who have no intention of paying for it.
Here are some other reasons given on their website:

We understand some of the intended purposes of opening these spaces to be:

  • to be housing for evicted families and people otherwise shut-out by the 1%
  • to make available focused environments for organizers to work together and co-strategize
  • to create welcoming and safer spaces to be used as community hubs
  • to host much-needed community services: legal aid, health clinics, childcare, and more…
  • to sustainably and beautifully tend and improve the physical structures that host these activities

And finally they just want to stick it to “the man.”

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