In the last paragraph of a story about tax credits being given to people who can’t get health insurance due to the mismanagement and hamfistedness of the governor and the people he put in charge of the Cover Oregon website, there’s this little nugget,
The bill [HB 4154] also extends whistle-blower protection to Cover Oregon employees and specifies the governor’s authority to remove board members.
Whistleblower statutes cover people who work for the state and federal governments. They accord them protection from retribution for speaking out about government waste, fraud, illegality, unethical behavior and other problems. It seems to me there should be plenty of people talk
As I pointed out here,here, here, here, Governor John Kitzhaber and the people he charged with Cover Oregon–OrBamaCare–aren’t talking. In fact, they’ve sicced security on people with temerity to ask questions.
Maybe if workers have whistleblower status we’ll finally get some answers.
No comment from ‘public servants’ as 100 programmers from OrBamaCare website are sent home.
Maybe it’s a sign things are getting better, but somehow I doubt it. Cover Oregon’s –OrBamaCare–website is STILL officially the worst state run system in the nation, after all.
The Zero reports Cover Oregon’s main contractor, Oracle, has sent home 100 of its programmers, leaving 65 in place. The website has never worked for the bill-paying-public though reportedly a beta system has allowed state workers to enroll 700 people, according to the Oregonian.
But what’s really going on? What do all of these moves mean?
Exchange acting director Bruce Goldberg did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday afternoon.
There’s been no update to that response that I can find.
The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, had objected to the film after learning that it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie, which had been partially dubbed and in which she appeared to be asking: “Is your Mohammed a child molester?” For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is considered blasphemous.
Garcia argued she retained partial copyright to the movie and sued to demand Google take it down. Two justices agreed. Google argued the first amendment and specifically prior restraint trumped Garcia’s claim.
Garcia, pictured above, has expressed concern for her safety following the release of the trailer, afraid she’d be targeted by Islamic terrorists.
Then Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama apologized for the video the day before Al Qaeda Chief Ayman Zawahiri’s brother helped lead an attempted take over of the US Embassy in Cairo. Al Qaeda black flags and anarchist symbols were openly displayed. Later, the Benghazi diplomatic mission was sacked by terrorists. Ambassador Chris Stevens, aide Sean Smith and two security officers, former Navy SEALS Ty Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in the battle.
To pacify angry Islamists, the director of the film was arrested in the middle of the night and basically held as a political prisoner. He was perp-walked before the cameras of tipped off reporters. Obama Administration officials said he was picked up on probation violations. Sure.
As we know now, the video was little seen. The movie trailer in fact was not responsible for the terrorist activities according to after action reports of the Benghazi attack by the CIA and State Department. It’s clear the attack on the diplomatic mission was planned well ahead of any discussion of the video.
Google says it will appeal the ruling. We’ll see. Many high profile people have been silenced by the sword of Islam. Or have you forgotten about Theo Van Gogh, Daniel Pearl, South Park’s censored depiction of Mohamed and the death threats from Danish Mohamed cartoons?
Ed’s note: This piece has been edited to include the announced new police chief.
Every company hires a few bad apples. What’s the big deal? It’s only a few cops at San Diego PD.
I’ve heard variations of the above comments since the latest San Diego Police officer sex scandal broke into the open in the last couple of weeks. I love the cops too, but hiring cops and hiring janitors or secretaries or managers don’t equate, not even a little bit.
Can a janitor detain you, cuff you, arrest you, intimidate you under color of authority? Can a snide comment to a secretary get you thrown in the back of a police cruiser? Can a manager light you up and pull you over to get a phone number from you? Once you get dragged to jail, who will believe you when you say the cops roughed you up because you merely verbally protested being deprived of your liberty? When a cop shows up at your door and wants you to ‘talk’ while sporting his 9mm or .38, does it feel like there’s even a choice?
These are no small things. Cops can take your liberty from you. They can lie about why they arrested, ticketed or detained you and get away with it because the court considers them expert witnesses. And you? You’re at their mercy.
Let me repeat: Your very liberty is at stake so you’d better be sure that San Diego is running a clean outfit.
I support the cops. Always have. To a fault, even. We need law enforcement. That’s why we can’t afford bad cops. We’re dependent upon the ethical, legal and constitutional treatment by cops toward us and we should not tolerate a culture that fosters bad ones. The time has come for San Diego Police to do some house cleaning. That’s why it’s a good idea Chief Bill Lansdowne is leaving and why I called for his resignation, albeit reluctantly, last week on the radio. I’m not sure new Mayor Kevin Faulconer should be done with his purge.
I’ve heard the myth that there are alternately “only two sex scandals” or “no scandals” at the cop shop. Codswallop.
The following list of incidents is from just four recent stories about the cop shop (here, here,here and here). To wit,
2009-2011 Anthony Arevalos, in prison for sex crimes against women he pulled over on traffic stops.
2011 “At least nine officers were investigated for criminal conduct in the first half of 2011, allegations that ranged from off-duty domestic violence and DUI to on-duty rape of a prostitute.”
2011 “Police announced charging one of their own with kidnapping and raping a 34-year-old woman while on duty. The officer, Daniel Dana, 26, is no longer employed by the department and was the 10th officer accused of serious or criminal misconduct in recent months.”
2011 Posters mocking drugging women to get sex and soft core porn posters in the cubicle of a SEX CRIMES DETECTIVE.
2012, “[T]raffic Sgt. Kevin Friedman, who was [Anthony] Arevalos’ supervisor, resigned after pleading no contest to destroying the traffic citation of a prosecutor friend.
2013 Chris Hays, accused of groping women he pulled over.
Various acts of apparent nepotism occurred, including hiring a son in law, helping the son of a captain get out of a scrape, helping a fellow cop get out of a DUI.
I’m sensing a pattern here.
As I discussed on the air last week, in 2003, the then new Chief Lansdowne ended a police corruption unit that was proactive in nature. They tried to see if cops would fall for bait and turn bad. While I understand this was a real morale buster, it appears it was needed. According to the latest stats from the UT, “Department records show internal investigations have increased, from 103 in 2011 to 169 last year.” I’ll bet they’re missing some.
I hear folks saying there are plenty of good candidates to replace Chief Lansdowne among the top brass. Citizens should demand a full personnel airing to determine they’re not part of the problem. The new mayor has circumvented a long search and named 31 year veteran, Assistant Chief Shelley Zimmerman, to the post.
The person directly responsible for that anti corruption unit was Executive Assistant Chief David Ramirez. It sounds like we could use him and the anti corruption outfit right about now.
Being a cop is an insular business. As my friend Steven Russelle, a retired Portland cop wrote (before the Chief resigned),
[S]urprises like these bad cops do crop up from time to time. All of the ordinary influences are at work on cops as they are on everyone else. Additionally, cops often stick together too tight and head down risky paths (say, by drinking and partying hard after work), or they stick together too loosely off work and one lonely guy gets in the grease because behind his loneliness is a screwy personality problem ( girls and how to find them, maybe). Sticking together is the key phrase in each.
The cops are together through thick and thin at work and forgive quite a lot of odd behavior, because each recognizes himself in the emotions he perceives by projection in the other. But cops are very very good at sensing wrong signals. The skill is life and death to them. I have seen bad signals in cops hundreds of times. Noticing something once or twice in a guy who deals with what cops do, is nothing noteworthy. Bad signs could probably be attributed of every one of us. But a pattern is different. In my experience, in the past 25 years or so, patterns of boozing are handled fairly well and co-workers intervene to help. Other patterns often come to the Department’s attention when cops are actually caught with whores or watching kids or when someone calls in the information for instance cops themselves catching cops breaking the law, and citizens (often suspects) reporting stolen dope or money and things like that.
The Chief, if he’s been around a while, should be fired because he’s part of the problem if there IS one.
Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.
This pernicious attempt to get in the grills (and heads) of news directors and managing editors is a dangerous intrusion of government into the newsroom. Indeed, as Pai predicted,
“An enterprising regulator could run wild with a lot of these topics. The implicit message to the newsroom is they need to start covering these eight categories in a certain way or otherwise the FCC will go after them.”
[T]he FCC also proposes to regulate newspapers, which it has no authority to do. (Its mission statement says the FCC “regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable…Byron York, The Washington Examiner
In short, the FCC wants to force news organizations to hew to the government’s standards. Since most of the mainstream media already do that, what does that leave? Ah, yes, Fox News and conservative radio. The FCC says this assessment is ‘voluntary.’ That’s nonsense. A station’s license hangs in the balance.
[T]he FCC also proposes to regulate newspapers, which it has no authority to do. (Its mission statement says the FCC “regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable…”)
Today’s post includes reactions from radio news and program director Cliff Albert; talk host, opinion maker and former program manager Mark Larson; novelist John D. Trudel, citizen journalist Dan Sandini, Pete-the-Banker, and civil rights attorney Rees Lloyd.
An overt attempt to get rid of Fox News
By Mark Larson
This administration is masterful when it comes to jamming it all in when the public is distracted by shiny objects. Tyranny increases when smart people do nothing. In this case it starts with, “Oh, we just want to study why there aren’t more minorities in broadcasting.” Then it morphs into plans for “monitors” that lead to clamping down of media freedom. This is tremendously dangerous.
This study will help them decide how minorities are blocked out of ownership. I have no idea how choosing stories informs that, but we all know what made the tea party successful sent the IRS scrambling for ways to stop it with new rules.
Mark Larson’s Southern California program airs on 1170AM KCBQ, San Diego, weekdays 6 to 9AM. He serves as a political analyst on KUSI Television (Channel 9) in San Diego. He often guest-hosts the Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt SRN Radio Network talk shows and has been seen on NBC, Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN’s “Larry King Live”. Mark has been President of the San Diego Radio Broadcasters Association for a record eight consecutive terms. Radio & Records twice named him to its “All-Star Players” list, citing him as one of only twelve “local legends” in American talk radio. Find his work at www.MarkLarson.com This is his first post for VictoriaTaft.com
Obama’s FCC media minders: Stalinism masked by ‘intentions’
By Blogforce Member, Rees Lloyd
What is the difference between Stalin’s political commissars sitting in editorial rooms in the Soviet Socialist Workers Paradise to ensure the correct Communist Party political line was being followed, and Barack Hussein Obama’s FCC government agents sitting in U.S. editorial rooms to ensure the correct progressive liberal Democrat Party line is being followed?
Is it the “good intentions” that progressive liberals so often raise as a shield as they trammel freedom in the name of “social justice” and protecting all those they deem to be “victims” of evil capitalism in order to be their saviors? Is that what distinguishes Obama’s media minding progressive liberal minions from Stalin’s media minding communist minions?
Is “intention” the distinction twixt Stalin’s control of public thought and expression through meanly intentioned “bad” Politburo-assigned certified communist political commissars minding the media, and Obama’s benevolently intentioned “good” FCC-assigned certified politically correct progressive liberal commissars to mind American media?
If so, it is a distinction without a difference: It is Obama’s progressive liberal totalitarianism with “good intentions,” which, if unchecked, will be as devastating to freedom of the press, of expression, and of thought as was Stalin’s soviet socialism, no matter how much Obama and his progressive liberal lemmings proclaim their “good intentions.” Obama’s government agents should be summarily tossed out, not invited out, of all newsrooms, no matter how large, no matter how small.
Rees Lloyd, once upon a time an “award winning investigative reporter” and thereafter a longtime California civil rights attorney, is a member of the Victoria Taft Blogforce. His work has been featured in some of the finest court rooms of California and at World Net Daily.
The FCC won’t give up
By John D. Trudel
The Obama FCC’s plan to put “minders” into newsrooms is on temporary hold due to public outrage (and opposition from the head of the FCC himself), but we can be sure that it will be back.
How can citizens know this with certainty? Easy.
It is but one small part of Obama’s Saul Alinsky communist (small “c”) agenda to silence free speech of all types. Obama signaled his intent clearly in his infamous State of the Union address when he used his “bully pulpit” to bully and abuse the Supreme Court Justices who had ruled against him. They were forced to sit silently and take it.
Since then, we’ve suffered a constant string of Obama assaults to bypass Congress, attacks which are increasing in number and scope. The article and my blog post below are recommended reading. The Obama media is complacent. It is an integral part of Team Obama’s propaganda machine. Goebbels would be proud.
We should be afraid, very afraid. This is Tyranny, pure, simple, and evil.
John D. Trudel is a thriller novelist and retired adjunct professor. Find his work at www.johntrudel.com
Getting into the heads of editorial decision makers
By Cliff Albert
This is outrageous.
I am glad to see the FCC chairman and decided to remove questions on news selection and judgment now. [But] the ones who support this idea must be followers of [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin.
When the federal government thinks it has the right to start looking into how the free press does its job and to try to get into the minds of decision makers to determine motive, it is scary stuff.
Cliff Albert is an award winning journalist, news director and programmer with Clear Channel Communications and the KFMB stations in San Diego. He’s been an officer with both the San Diego Press Club and the Society of Professional Journalists. His news teams have won every major radio news award. This is his first post to VictoriaTaft.com.
Surveillance of the news room
By Blogforce Member, Pete the Banker
The purpose of a meat inspector from the FDA is to inspect meat which if it doesn’t comply with government standards (not all health related by the way), is not permitted to be sold. Deficient meat standards results in fines payable to the government, little to the victims.
The purpose of the SEC is surveillance to require all those who raise funds in the capital market to comply with federal standards. Not all those standards are related to safety of investment or full disclosure. Violation results in fines, usually with compensation going to the government, not the victims. One really doesn’t have to go into much detail on this statement given what happened in 2007/2008. Yet again, the real punishment seems directed at the government collecting more fines.
The purpose of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was to secure the financial system of the US by mitigating the risk associated with “Too Big To Fail” Institutions, but ultimately seems to have spawned bigger financial institutions with little change to the risk factors responsible for the 2008 financial failure. The result, government creates an annuity of fines from those newly created colossal financial institutions, including the Government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The purpose of surveillance of the Consumer Finance Protection Board is to assure consumers safe access to credit, especially long term credit like mortgages. Given the current lack of mortgage capital to support transactions, home purchase and sale activity (far more contribution to economic activity and jobs than refinances), one wonders about the efficacy and honesty expressed by the need for government surveillance in housing finance.
So now what is the express purpose of surveillance in the news room? Will this ultimately benefit the consumer of news or will it simply expand the bureaucratic power? Will it simply result in fines, another annuity for the “diminishing” government coffers, or will it ultimately result in expansion of government’s dictate of control of the end product of news cycle, enforcing and controlling “message content” assuring it is acceptable to government rather than honest and transparent information for the consumer?
Pete the Banker is a long time banker who wishes to remain anonymous for the sake of his business. He’s a long time VictoriaTaft.com Blogforce member
Newspeak for a new generation
By Dan Sandini
This is Orwellian to me because in a city like Portland, I can see the effect the news minders would have on the few outlets of alternative news. I can imagine a world of 1984 “Newspeak.” As Wikipedia explains: “Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, peace, etc. Any form of thought alternative to the party’s construct is classified as ‘thoughtcrime.’ That’s precisely what is going on here. Small examples can be seen around us every day, and these new regulations would only accelerate and institutionalize the process.
Already it has become censored language to call an “illegal alien” an “illegal alien,” for example. Instead they are: “undocumented citizens.” Michael Savage is banned in Great Britain because of his version of what the state considers “Hate Speech.” In this way, the Leftist regime of the President and his cronies strengthen their power, deleting all alternative forms of thought outside their totalitarian rule. We are witnessing Government control on a scale never seen before, in all areas of our lives: food, housing, energy, health care, and now information. When I read about regulations like this I wonder “how the Left can live with itself?” In the interest of staying in power will they be willing to destroy the last bastion of freedom on the planet? Sad, but apparently so. The blood is on their hands.
Peggy Shannon didn’t want the money. She wanted a little respect, something that she hadn’t gotten from former Mayor Bob Filner. So today, the San Diego City Hall worker will receive a formal apology and proclamation that today is Peggy Shannon Day.
Shannon is one of a of women smooched, groped, licked, head-locked and harassed by the now former mayor. By the time the women extract their pounds of flesh, it will be into the millions of dollars.
The great grandmother is an anomaly. She just wanted a little dignity. The deal was worked out with the City Attorney and Shannon’s attorney, Gloria Allred, according to 10News,
“All of the parties agreed with Ms. Shannon that this was the way to resolve her claim,” said City Attorney Jan Goldsmith. “Receiving an apology is important to Peggy Shannon, and honoring her allows us to express our respect for her and her courage.”
If Peggy Shannon thinks this will give her back some dignity, so be it. She was a victim. The MAYOR was undignified. If it were me, I’d rather have a check and an apology and have the city save its party for a hero.
I’ve heard that Filner paid attention to Shannon because he felt sorry for her. He thought his unwanted sexual advances would buck up her outlook. That Filner thought his disgusting behavior could boost Shannon’s ego explains what a sick letch he is. Ick.
Here’s part of the statement by Shannon’s attorney, Gloria Allred,
San Diego Mayor Filner and Sex Harassment Scandal
Peggy Shannon, a senior citizen, who is a great-grandmother, who works at the Senior Citizens Service Desk in San Diego City Hall and who was the victim of sexual harassment by former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner will receive an apology today from the San Diego City Council. Today has also been proclaimed Peggy Shannon Day in San Diego.
The great-grandmother alleged that she was the victim of continuous inappropriate sexual advances by the Mayor while trying to do her job at City Hall. For example, Ms. Shannon alleged that the Mayor hugged and kissed her on the lips without her permission.
If you follow me on Facebook or Twitter you saw this funny photoshop of Girl Scouts selling cookies in front of a pot store. It was sent by my nephew Jason.
Just days later a San Francisco bay area Scout decided to do it for real.
The NBC affiliate in San Francisco reports, “Thirteen-year-old Girl Scout Danielle Lei did brisk business last Monday selling Dulce de Leches and other flavors outside The Green Cross medical marijuana clinic in San Francisco,Mashable reported.“
And when asked if the Girl Scout council had a problem with one of their Scouts hanging out around a pot store they replied, “The Girl Scouts of Northern California don’t have a problem with this business strategy. Dana Allen, the organization’s marketing and communications director, told Mashable that “the mom decided this was a place she was comfortable with her daughter being at. We’re not telling people where they can and can’t go if it’s a legitimate business,” she said.”
Next stop liquor stores, tobacco stores and crack houses!
“Your embarrassing problem is our Tuesday morning.”
President Obama said he didn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby” and that callous attitude about living human beings runs amok in the baby killing factory known as Planned Parenthood.
Spotted in Portland, Oregon is a billboard that calls babies, “embarrassing problems.”
Oregon Right to Life posted the photo on their Facebook page along with this disclaimer by the Communications Director. Note the sardonic attitude,
Director of Communications’ Note: We have gotten a huge response of people accusing us of misinterpreting the sign when, in their eyes, it means STDs. Here’s our response to all said comments: this billboard left it wide open to interpretation. Whether you want to see it as meaning STDs or babies, it doesn’t make a difference to Planned Parenthood. Both make them money. Planned Parenthood is America’s largest provider of abortions. They performed over 327,000 last year. They perform almost 150 abortions for every adoption referral. Their prenatal services dropped 32% last year alone. In fact, every other non-abortion related service they offer dropped. Per their own annual report. Regardless of what perceived “good” they may offer the community, they abort babies. And more than anyone else. That is reason sufficient to oppose them wholeheartedly.
Lawmakers who are giddy about the Netflix political drama ‘House of Cards’ and want to sidle up to it in order to bask in its glory have no idea how stupid they are. They aren’t watching TV – they’re looking into a mirror.
Those of us among the great unwashed who watch the show — we binge-watched Season 2 in less than three days — are reminded by it of how much we loathe the slithering, venomous creatures who inhabit Washington, D.C., and we take away from it the strong sense that we haven’t seen the half of what really goes on.
HofC characters up and down the line are venal, corrupt, petty, lustful, patently immoral, power-hungry and without regard for anything or anyone but themselves. And those are the successful ones! The others are weak, whiny, vapid, shallow and vice-ridden. In other words, a dead-on portrayal of what passes for our national leadership.
What’s bizarre? They don’t get it – they don’t get that they are what they see, and they don’t get that what we see of them we hate and want gone.
Peggy Noonan hit this nail on the head in a recent Wall Street Journal column where she asked what becomes of a country where these people are the elites, and what becomes of the elites themselves? My answer is to look to France of the late 18th Century. Review the years leading up to 1789 and the years afterward. Where do you think we got the term “heads will roll”?
There’s also a book out called ‘This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral—Plus, Plenty of Valet Parking!—in America’s Gilded Capital,‘ by Mark Leibovich that adds plenty of fuel to the fire. It recounts in excruciatingly sleazy detail the inner workings and relationships of those in our modern national government and the hangers-on and sycophants who cover it. Who hates who and why – if you cross the Clintons, you’re dead, figuratively and, in the case of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, literally.
One reviewer said that those who hate Washington, D.C. and its insiders now will hate them even more after reading ‘This Town,’ a fact to which I can personally attest. It’s as if being there for more than a couple of weeks infects you with a disease that turns you into a lizard of the oiliest sort, no matter if you’re in office, on staff, oozing about the halls of Congress as an influencer or a journalist covering it all.
Where once I thought the nation’s capitol was the place to be, I’ve now gone 180 seeing it as the place from which to flee before it’s razed to the ground. One of my children contemplating an advanced degree has been accepted to a school in the District — apparently, one never calls it D.C. unless one is gauche — and I’ve advised that young scholar, who will set the world on fire some day, to avoid the place as if it were the worst of today’s Kiev, Caracas or Tehran.
Should God want to mulligan the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing and destroy a wicked city, I wouldn’t want to be within 100 miles of Washington, D.C.
So, the idiots in Congress who think it’s cute and clever to invite their constituents and the American people in general to think of them within the construct of HofC, be reminded (SPOILER ALERT) that you too have a Raymond Tusk in your background laundering campaign funds, and it’s wise that you avoid subways and wooded areas in Maryland altogether because you ain’t that tough.
Scott St. Clair is a journalist, rhetorical pugilist, agent provocateur, aider and abbetor of Liberty Lovers and a former competitive Highland piper. He says what he thinks, means what he says and doesn’t suffer fools. He’s also a member of the Victoria Taft Blogforce. His opinions are entirely his own, and you shouldn’t expect them to mirror yours.
Five years ago CNBC reporter Rick Santelli gave voice to the frustration felt by millions of Americans when President Obama announced plans to help stimulate the economy by, in part, redistributing billions of dollars to people who signed for a mortgage on a house they couldn’t afford. Santelli called them “the losers.”
Santelli wasn’t done. Gesturing back at the traders, Santelli declared, “This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills? Raise their hand.” Boos came from the floor. Santelli looked at the camera and plaintively asked, “President Obama, are you listening?” One trader chimed in, “How about we all stop paying our mortgage, it’s a moral hazard!”
Two weeks later Geoff Ludt and dozens more like him across the nation held the first Tea Parties.
At first critics ignored, then dismissed, then laughed at, then disdained the Tea Party. When they couldn’t kill it they went nuclear and called it a ‘racist’ organization. What else could it be, right? It couldn’t possibly been about redistributionist, wasteful, and currency inflating programs which would bankrupt our nation and send the bills to our kids–and their kids. Nope, as if by magic, whites, blacks, Hispanics, gays, atheists and Christians had become “racists.”
One of Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber’s crazy eyed security officers keeps watch over peaceful citizen at public hearing
A governor’s security detail should protect him from bullets, not questions. They should keep him safe from harm, not embarrassment. But Governor John Kitzhaber’s security team appears to believe that questions are weapons and have taken great pains to keep Citizen Journalists from asking any–especially questions about the tens of millions of tax dollars spent on the failed Cover Oregon ObamaCare program. See the list of examples here. Now this intolerance to questioning authority appears to have extended to average folks.
When Michael Bloomberg’s anti gun dollars paid for activist Mark Kelly to testify at a recent anti gun hearing, Kitzhaber’s security detail swung into action by silencing a man who stood to object to an out of towner to tell Oregon what to do. Kitzhaber sat next to Kelly. Watch the video from Citizen Journalist Laughing at Liberals,
Casey Runyan didn’t yell, threaten or show anger. But based on Kitzhaber’s security detail’s response, you would have thought someone’s life, not their vanity, had been threatened.
Ironically, after testifying against guns on behalf of billionaire Bloomberg, Kelly was hosted by the Portland Police Bureau to squeeze off a few rounds with the cops.
Upshot: A citizen who speaks out against an out of towner trying to change laws he doesn’t have to abide by is more threatening to the Governor than Mark Kelly who actually uses guns he is paid to speak against.