By now, most of us have heard, read or seen the recent story about Democratic state senator Ginny Burdick skipping out on her planned town hall by falsely claiming she had a “scheduling conflict.” Actually, she told a local reporter that, “Keeping my schedule would’ve been a conflict with common sense.” That in itself is explanation enough, Senator.

But the story line quickly changed from the anti-gunnin’ pol skedaddling outta town before sundown to the fact that some nefarious citizen with a video camera parked on a public street caught Ginny keeping her schedule with her trash can, mailbox and reportedly, her TV remote. Then the blue ink flowed when Jeff Reynolds, the chair of the Multnomah County Republican Party, had the audacity to post the boring video as proof the senator’s clash with common sense was not quite as she told the public.

See VictoriaTaft.com posts about Burdick here,   here, here, here, here for starters.

Burdick’s natural allies at The Oregonian and lefty blog Blue Oregon rushed to her defense. The Big O’s editorial concluded, “…the video didn’t deliver the goods. What it revealed instead was the self-destructive tendency of some Second Amendment supporters to hurt their own cause through intimidation, immaturity and poor judgment.” Over at the Blue Oregon Kool-Aid stand, veteran Democratic tracker TA Barnhart huffed that Reynolds was “one of the most irrelevant people in Oregon politics.” Unfortunately, Reynolds didn’t learn of his new found status as he was fielding interviews by local television stations and the New York Times.Barnhart summarized the terror Ms. Burdick reportedly experienced with this chilling account:

“Imagine you’re spending an evening at home, doing some chores, having supper, going over the work you brought home. At some point, someone knocks on the door; a stranger, and you decide not to answer it. Otherwise, a typical evening at home. And then, next morning, you discover someone had spent that evening pointing a video camera at your home and recording you. They put your address on the video. They put your license plate on the video. They call you a liar on YouTube. Welcome to Senator Ginny Burdick’s world.”

Even Jason Williams at Oregon Catalyst weighed in, irritating many conservatives, but thrilling the Left with his own criticism of staking out Burdick’s home to verify her reason for her no-show. But in fact, Williams is right, as are the Oregonian and TA Barnhart. As an elected official myself, I can empathize with Senator Burdick and her desire to be free of political harassment at home when not engaged in her elective duties.

Burdick is a Democrat in a safe, partisan district. I am a Republican elected to a nonpartisan position on the Reynolds School Board, which covers an area of east Multnomah County roughly the size of an Oregon house district. Oregon legislators get paid, but not very much. But their “not very much” is more than my compensation for public service, which doubles each year I serve, yet remains the same. You figure it out. But the one thing Senator Burdick and I have in common is our desire to be left alone at our homes when not engaged in the public’s business. As the good senator reminded us all, “The only tool they have is intimidation.”

Speaking from firsthand experience, sending a lone videographer “Gunster” (Barnhart’s favorite term for 2nd Amendment supporters) to quietly and unobtrusively capture the senator performing routine household chores at her private residence was wrong. When they look back on it, all of those 2nd Amendment Gunsters, including the pack leader Jeff Reynolds, will come to realize that was the wrong thing to do as well. What they should have done instead is surround Burdick’s home with sign-carrying picketers, like the Oregon Education Association’s mobs did to conservative members of the Reynolds School Board last May.

During the contentious contract negotiations with the Reynolds Education Association, the OEA affiliate decided that board member’s homes and families were fair game and legitimate targets in an overt act of union intimidation. My friend and colleague Joe Teeny had his home and neighbors’ cul-de-sac surrounded by union protesters, some of whom were identified in photographs as coming from Occupy Portland. While Joe and I were leaving to attend a board budget hearing, Mrs. Teeny was trying to leave their driveway with her children in the car to attend – of all things – a school function that evening. As she slowly backed out of her driveway, her terrorized children had to stare into the faces of Reynolds teachers and complete strangers, carrying signs that had their daddy’s name on them. At the Tewksbury home, current board chair Valerie Tewksbury’s children watched from upstairs as REA members stood outside their residence, chanting in a military cadence “Twisting facts and telling lies…making all the children cry!” Yes, the REA succeeded in making the children cry.

Of course, not a peep from the Oregonian editorial board and certainly not from Blue Oregon about this over-the-top a

ct o

f bullying and political intimidation. The rationale appeared to be that school board members are public officials and should expect pressure, including home visits from the union and the constant union-scripted, dinner time phone calls at home “urging” board members to settle up with the OEA, which has donated untold thousands to Democrats, including Burdick.

I appreciate and empathize with Senator Burdick’s desire for privacy and to be free from political intimidation at her home. But where was she when her OEA benefactors showed up en masse outside the private residences of Reynolds board members, timed perfectly to coincide with the board members themselves attending a budget meeting? What do TA Barnhart and the Blue Oregon crew have to say to the Teeny and Tewksbury children, who will remember that May 17, 2012 evening for the rest of their lives?

Senator Burdick may have convinced herself and her media allies that she is the victim here. But if she thinks being videotaped from across her street is political intimidation, the good senator is fortunate to have never been the recipient of a home visit from the OEA’s Gunsters at her home. 

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan to be director of the CIA was thrilling political theater that forced a serious issue – government use of drones against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil – to the forefront of public attention. Watch his opening comments that set the tenor of his overall remarks:

The use of drones against U.S. citizens who are on U.S. soil and not engaged in warfare against the U.S. is a matter of grave constitutional concern, and Sen. Paul did America a favor by raising and forcing a discussion on it. He was aided in the effort by a bi-partisan group of senators who, these days, can’t even agree on the time of day, but they did agree to support Paul’s effort.

One of those senators was Oregon’s Ron Wyden, a liberal Democrat, who did America proud in the effort.

And they got what they want when President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder were faced to discard their both-sides-of-the-street ambivalence and cave in by conceding the Constitution prohibits the use of drones against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil when they’re not engaged in acts of war against the U.S.

Actually, within the context of U.S. legal history, it wasn’t much of a concession since Supreme Court precedent from the Civil War would have mandated just such a ruling from the courts.

As an aside and on these electronic pages, I have argued in favor of the use of drones against enemies of the U.S. even when they were citizens of the U.S. And when it comes to using them against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, I can easily envision Abraham Lincoln insisting upon their deployment and use during the Civil War had they been available in 1861. War is indeed hell.

Unfortunately, some in the Republican Party have disparaged Sen. Paul’s effort, even resorting to name calling against him, a move worthy of criticism and unworthy of them. But by the same token, name-calling back at them demeans the debate, especially when it is patently false and defamatory.

On Facebook, I’ve seen Arizona Sen. John McCain referred to as a coward and a traitor, and that’s not true, right or fair — nobody who endured five and one-half years of brutal torture at the hands of sadistic North Vietnamese prison guards should be so slandered or libeled. Read for yourself what he went through.

McCain has been stand up on many issues (watch this clip in which he shreds NBC’s David Gregory for his hubris on Benghazi) he’s a decent guy and a genuine American war hero, yet he was wrong to say what he did about Rand Paul.

For anyone to call John McCain a coward or traitor for saying what he said is despicable, and I don’t mind calling that out for what it is: Hateful and, by its nature, cowardly. And I don’t mind calling him out for being clueless and crass in what he said about Rand Paul: Shame on you, Sen. McCain!

Lambaste me if you wish, but I say what I think, mean what I say and I don’t suffer fools.

As you’ve seen here, State Senator Ginny Burdick has claimed that “scheduling conflicts” prevented her from attending her own Town Hall Meeting on Monday, March 4th at Portland State University. But as anyone who reads the political tea leaves knows, Burdick ditched her constituents because of the unpopularity of her anti gun bills (see my latest post about them here) and sh

e was too chicken to face their anger. 

The woman who dismisses gun owners as “gun nuts” and “whackos” wonders why anyone would be upset at a lawmaker who calls for limiting constitutional rights (one of her bills limits the number you can own to one) and calls for cops to search your house once a year to see if you’re following the state’s gun rules. Imagine that. 

Now she’s confirmed her previous explanation about “scheduling conflicts” was just a lie  uh, fairy tale and she’s now doubling down on her excuse saying she cancelled the event because she received, as she told KATU, “…”Th

ousands of threatening and hostile emails about anti-gun bills.” 

I’ve asked the State Senator for police reports, texts, emails, tweets, facebook posts that have threatened her in the following email I sent to her office and posted on her facebook page. 

To: State Senator Ginny Burdick

As a reporter, blogger, constituent of Senator Burdick, I am requesting all reports by the Senator and her staff to law enforcement and recordings, written communications, including texts, facebook messages, emails and tweets, and visual proof of threats she received prompting her to cancel her Town Hall meeting at Portland State University on March 4, 2013.

Ms. Burdick has made very serious allegations against people she has described recently in interviews and on her own facebook page as gun nuts and whackos. It’s necessary for her to substantiate her claims of threats and I look forward to reporting on the veracity of those claims.

Sincerely,
Victoria Taft
Victoria@VictoriaTaft.com
VictoriaTaft.com
Facebook.com/vtshow
Twitter: The Victoria Taft Show

Here is the screen cap of the request on her facebook page:

Burdick has shown KATU some of the emails she received and this is what KATU reported, 

She sent KATU News a few examples. One talked about lynching, another mentioned Hitler and Stalin. Burdick says it would have been foolish to hold a town hall in that kind of environment on a college campus.

If KATU had seen overt threats to Burdick’s safety don’t you think that would have lead the story? That would have made the local papers? One would also assume that Burdick turned over the worst of the threats to prove to KATU that she had every legitimate reason to cancel her Town Hall! But we didn’t see the any threats reported. 

Let’s take KATU’s examples provided by Burdick. “One talked about lynching.” Could we have some context of this word please? Is it in relation to second amendment rights given to all Americans so blacks and Republicans could defend themselves against lynchings? Is that the context? Why is the context not given? If this were perceived by KATU as an overt threat, would they not have shown the threat on TV? Threatening another person with bodily harm is a crime. They would have had a huge scoop. Someone would have been arrested!

Now, why would any emails mentioning Stalin and Hitler be perceived as an either a hostile or overt threat? Where is the context? Is the context that both Hitler and Stalin disarmed their citizens before beginning the systematic murders of millions of their own people? Why would Ginny Burdick perceive this historical fact as a personal threat to her? Was it accompanied by a threat of bodily harm? Wouldn’t KATU have shown the actual threat on camera?  Why did they not show the threats if there were any?

Here are some of the screen caps I got from the KATU story:

And then she dismissed some of her own law abiding constituents by claiming they are “extremists”  from the “gun lobby” who “crash” her Town Halls and are disruptive. Imagine that: people upset at a lawmaker who wants to take away their US Constitutional rights. Watch her comments in the story below.

Finally, Burdick said she did not want to have the meeting because she didn’t want to risk the “extremists” and “whackos” coming to a meeting at Portland State University. “I did not want to subject the students to [their disruptive and rude] behavior.”  Isn’t she wonderful? She’s just trying to help “the children.” The children comprise the members of the Occupy black bloc, illegally camp out on public property, defy the law, poop on the American flag, and hector law abiding Tea Party folks with racist, homophobic hate speech? Those are children she’s concerned about? 

So Senator, show me the threats.

Oregon parents Democrats, have decided it shouldn’t be your call as to whether your 17 year old goes to a tanning booth. Chief nanny, Peter Buckley, is quoted as saying,

“The bottom line is that this is dangerous for kids.We’re talking about the life and death of children. Having a doctor involved is the least we can do for our kids.”

 

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster yesterday broke through the clutter, the media narrative and MADE A PRINCIPLED POINT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF KILLING AMERICANS ON US SOIL in this case with drones. Today, Paul finally got an answer out of Eric Holder on the question of whether the Obama Administration would kill Americans with drone. It was short, sweet and snarky. Invoking the, “it has come to my attention” device, Holder went on in his best Nixonesque style, 

“Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil?” Holder’s letter reads. “The answer to that is no.”

Paul wanted clarification on Holder previous letter leaving the White House wiggle room on the answer to the question,

“…It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”

Now readers of this blog know what I think about blowing up bad guys who are terrorists–even American citizens on the field of battle such as Anwar al Awlaki and Samir Khan. Read that here.  

But Paul is right to demand an answer from this White House to his principled question. By so doing, he’s telling these guys that their weasel worded responses will not pass his smell test. This is what you have to do to this White House. John Boehner has (so far ) out waited Barack Obama on the sequester deal and the President’s approval numbers have plummeted as a result. The Republicans called the President’s bluff and he blinked. When you take a stand on principle, the President crumbles. There’s no down side to this!

Republicans, this is what leadership can look like. Stand on principle, go directly to the people, make your case and watch them follow. 

People always talk about how they must live within their means and ask why can’t the federal government. The group Debt Limit USA has put out an ad which demonstrates what it would be like if a family spent like the government. This.Is.Wonderful.

You stupid people, don’t you know what’s good for you? Don’t you know that you not only don’t need guns, but you shouldn’t have guns?  Don’t you know that you can’t be safe with them or be trusted to use them? Don’t you know there are no such things as home break-ins, and even if there were, it’s the job of the police to protect you and take care of these matters? Don’t you know you should listen to those who know what’s best for you, and gun ownership and use isn’t good for you?

DON’T…YOU…STUPID…PEOPLE…KNOW???

No we don’t know, and that’s why James O’Keefe of Project Veritas sent me and a couple of others undercover to find out if the police will indeed protect us and do they in fact take care of these matters, or is it a case of “You’re on your own”?

Over the course of a couple weeks and wearing a hidden camera — legal in New York and New Jersey where only single-party consent is required — I went into 18 police stations in the two states and the New York City office of rifle and shotgun permits to inquire whether the police will be there to protect me if an armed crazy person breaks into my home. It was pretty much the same story at each and every one.

While they all wanted to tell me what preventive measures to take – deadbolts, security systems, a dog (we have a 40-pound poodle who is afraid of his shadow) – when they explained to me what to do between the time I called 911 and the time they arrived, they were stumped, and the answer was a variation of “You’re on your own.”

After you make the call, and in that 30 seconds to several minutes before the police arrive, which under the circumstances may indeed become a lifetime, the only first-responder on the scene is you, so how do you want to handle the situation? Toss a bottle of bleach at an armed intruder, or be in a position to make a more forceful statement of your right to protect your home, your family and your life?

As to the advice America received from Vice President Joe Biden to get a shotgun and fire off a couple blasts from the balcony that turned out to be a one-way-ticket to the hoosegow. Turns out New York City considers even the public brandishing of a weapon to be the crime of “menacing,” for which you’ll be busted and hauled off to the pokey.

Mr. Vice President: Do us all a favor, and don’t do us any favors!

Scotching the shotgun approach still leaves us where we started trying to figure out what to do.

After all, “You’re on your own.”

When the creak of the door awakes you at 3am and you know everybody’s in bed already, what do you do? When you hear the footfalls on the stairs and they’re coming closer to your room, what do you do? 

Do you call 9-1-1? 

Then what? 

In the latest James O’Keefe video (hashtag #OnYourOwn) Victoria Taft Blogforce member Scott St. Clair goes to cop shops in New York and New Jersey to find out what you’re supposed to do to protect yourself between the time you hear the creak in the door and the cops show up. 

“If somebody breaks into my home…will the police department be there to protect me from that?”

Yeah.

How long will it take you to get there? 

Couple minutes.

What will I do in those two minutes? 

What will you do?

Yeah.

That’s a good question.

Yeah, but basically in just that two minutes, I’m on my own?

Look on the internet on how to get a gun permit. 

You can go on the internet and get a gun permit.

How long will it take to get one.

About a year.

What am I supposed to do in that time to protect myself?

It looks like the Federal long term unemployed extension is going to be nearly 11% LESS extended. From the State of Oregon Employment Department: 

News Release from: Oregon Employment Dept.
EFFECTS OF FEDERAL SEQUESTRATION ON OREGON’S UNEMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICE PROGRAMS
Posted: March 5th, 2013 7:56 AM

The automatic sequester of Federal funds will have an effect on unemployment benefits and job search services in Oregon.

Individuals receiving Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation, or EUC, will see a reduction in their weekly benefits of 10.7 percent.  This reduction will begin the week of March 31, 2013 and be reflected in checks mailed the week of April 7th to claimants.  Currently there are more than 28,000 individuals receiving EUC benefits.  The Oregon Employment Department will notify each claimant by mail in early April regarding this reduction.

EUC claimants are encouraged to visit www.workinginoregon.org where they can access additional information and an online calculator to estimate their payment reduction.  The website will be update regularly as more information becomes available.  Those on EUC who have questions not addressed by our website should call 503-947-1342 or 1-800-237-3710 extension 71342.  We recommend use of the website first since call volume may be high causing longer wait times for service.

Individuals receiving regular unemployment benefits will not be affected.

In addition, federal cuts to employment service state grants could result in the reduction of job search assistance and employer recruitment activities.  Those impacts will be assessed as more details become available.

Wow, cheers go up from the Regulatory set.  Mission accomplished.  The DOE and EPA have managed to promulgate cars designed so that only the elite can afford them.  Isn’t central planning wonderful?!

 Henry Ford worked diligently to make cars cheaper so that all Americans could one day aspire to owning their own vehicle and now our politicians in just a few short decades have succeeded in destroying that vision. From CNBC:

“According to the 2013 Car Affordability Study by Interest.com, only in Washington could the typical household swing the payments, the median income there running $86,680 a year. At the other extreme, Tampa, Fla., was at the bottom of the 25 large cities included in the study, with a median household income of $43,832.

Bottom line? A buyer in the capitol can purchase a car with a sticker price of $31,940, slightly more than the new vehicle average for the 2013 model year and about what it would cost for a mid-range Ford Fusion sedan or a stripped-down BMW X1 crossover. The buyer in Tampa? They’ll just barely cover the cost of a basic Kia Rio, with $14,516 to spend.”

So this poses another question; why should we replace the Interstate Bridge anyway since Oregonians and Washingtonians are now effectively priced out of the market for new vehicles?  In another ten years, we will all apparently be walking anyway.