Monthly Archives: May 2014

Rees Lloyd: Liberty Milestone–The birth of Pope John Paul ii, May 18th


Born in humble circumstances in Poland on May 18, 1920, Karol Wojtyla survived the occupations of his native land first by the National Socialists of Adolph Hitler’s National Socialist Workers Party (NAZI), immediately followed by the International Socialists of Joseph Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

He secretly became an ordained Catholic priest in clandestine seminary training forbidden under the iron totalitarianism imposed on Poland by its socialist occupiers. He went on to become Pope John II in 1978, His first words to the people of the world as Pope were: “Be Not Afraid.”

He helped bring down soviet socialism in Poland and Europe working in unpublicized combination with America’s President Ronald Reagan and England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, to support the Christians of the Polish Solidarity Movement who opposed the tyranny of Marxist secular socialism.

When he returned home to Poland for the first time as Pope, more than 1-million Poles gathered to hear him openly celebrate Mass. In America, hundreds of thousands came to hear him and be in his presence. He had the ability to make every one of the millions feel he was speaking to, touching, and blessing, them.

His serene smile touched the hearts of literally billions across the world, communicating a love, hope, and charity beyond the power of words to express, and transcending all barriers of language, cultural, racial, ethnic, or creedal differences.

As George Weigel summarized in this magisterial two-volume biography, Witness To Hope and John Paul II–the Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy: “He taught us how to live; and he taught us how to die.” Read also the tribute to him on the anniversary of his birth by Christian author William J. Federer at

Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II, John Paul The Great, St. John Paul II, was the greatest man of our era — the greatest inspirer of real hope, change, and courage by standing for life and faith, and against tyranny,

May the God he served so faithfully always keep him; may the people he served so well never forget him.

And may we “be not afraid” to stand with and like him for life, and against tyranny, as did he, and as did our Founding Fathers of America. 

Rees Lloyd is a civil rights attorney, Veterans activist, and is a member of the Blogforce.

Oregon officials react via Twitter to same sex marriage decision

The hashtag was set, Mayor Charlie Hales was ready to officiate services, and all official Oregon needed to do was hit their “tweet” button when the pre-ordained decision was handed down


Portland Commissioner Steve Novick who has “a hard left hook” literally and figuratively had the most fun on the twitters.Novick even invoked the outrageous decision by the “Mean Girls” of the Multnomah County Commission who tried to will same sex marriage into being by directing the county counsel to issue an opinion.

He also invoked the famous scene from The Princess Bride in his tweets,

Waves of wedding pictures began to appear:

Judge rules Oregon voters may not define what “marriage” is; declares same sex marriage constitutional right

Judge Michael McShane rebuffs efforts by National Organization for Marriage to defend Oregon constitution which state attorney general refused to do.

The Portland Mercury ballyhoos same sex marriage. Changes Portland's iconic sign from "Made in Oregon" to "Gayed in Oregon."
The Portland Mercury ballyhoos same sex marriage. Changes Portland’s iconic sign from “Made in Oregon” to “Gayed in Oregon.”

US District Court Judge Michael McShane ruled today Oregon voters may not define marriage as they did in the 2004 measure which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. 

McShane, who’s gay, chose not to recuse himself from the hyper political issue, arrogating to himself the decision. 

Early in the battle, Oregon’s Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, announced she would follow US Attorney General Eric Holder’s advice and not defend the Oregon constitution which had been amended in 2004 to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The National Organization for Marriage attempted to defend the law in a late motion. The decision rebuffed attempts by the outside group to mount a defense of Oregon law.

In his 26 page ruling, whose conclusion read more like a political tract than a court decision, McShane fixed on anti bullying as the chief aim of his decision:

I remember that one of the more popular playground games of my childhood was called “smear the queer” 7 and it was played with great zeal and without a moment’s thought to today’ s political correctness. On a darker level, that same worldview led to an environment of cruelty, violence, and self-loathing. It was but 1 ~86 when the United States Supreme Court justified, on the basis of a “millennia of moral teaching,” the imprisonment of
gay men and lesbian women who engaged in consensual sexual acts. Bowers, 478 U.S. at 197 (Burger, C.J., concurring), overruled by Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578. Even today I am reminded of the legacy that we have bequeathed today’ s generation when my son looks dismissively at the sweater I bought him for Christmas and, with a roll of his eyes, says “dad … that is so gay.” 

McShane lightly mocked “slippery slope” arguments in his decision in which he listed the steps leading him to his decision. He cited the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the state law treating same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples in adoption and domestic partnerships as examples of reaching out to equalize same sex couples. In other words, he basically said he was left no alternative but to rule Measure 36 unconstitutional because of all the efforts to include same sex couples in Oregon law affirming the very slippery slope argument he rejected.


Some advice for Mark Callahan of “Blah, Blah, Blah” fame

Candidate calls media on their games, but here are more moves for his playbook.


I know he didn’t ask, but I’m giving Mark Callahan some advice anyway. I figure if a candidate for higher office this year thought my advice was worth paying for, then maybe Callahan will value my input. 

First, the  housekeeping. In case you don’t know the back story, Mr. Callahan, a candidate in the Republican primary for US Senate, was tossed out of an endorsement interview with Willamette Week.  See the video below.

Candidates were on one side of the table (with Jo Rae Perkins on the phone) while Willamette Week Editor in Chief Mark Zusman, Managing Editor Brent Walth and star reporter Nigel Jacquiss were arrayed on the other.

Things got a little sparky starting at 53:17 when Callahan questioned why only two candidates, Monica Wehby and Jason Conger, were getting most of the questions. 

“We came to be interviewed…it’s not the Monica and Jason show,” Callahan complained.

I believe it was Brent Walth who then said “if you don’t want to be here, you don’t have to be here.” Callahan shot back, “I’m just requesting some respect for it not being the Monica and Jason show.”

Gauntlet thrown.

But his query had its desired effect. Soon all the candidates were asked what they would cut in the federal budget (see more below). When it got to Callahan he expounded on the president misusing the EPA whereupon at 57:40 he was asked a question which sounded like, “What’s the EPA?”

Sensing he was being mocked, Callahan shot back, “the Environmental Protection Agency, I think you would have heard of that.”  

At 1:03:49 Jo Rae Perkins was asked what she would cut from the budget. But during her answer, Callahan asserted WW was being disrespectful. Nigel Jacquiss retorted (1:04:23) “if you don’t like that, I’m sorry…” 

He may as well have challenge him to a duel. It was ON. 

A moment of chaos ensued with everyone talking over one another and fingers being pointed. Order was eventually restored while Jo Rae continued her answer. 

As the candidates looked down to concentrate on Perkins’ answer, Callahan’s eyes fell on Jacquiss’ notebook which lay flat on the table.

That’s when it happened. Callahan pounced,

“You want to talk about disrespect. You just wrote down blah, blah, blah. You have to give respect to get respect. Right now on that side of the table, you’re not giving us very much respect.”

Mark Zusman...or someone like him
Mark Zusman…or someone like him

Instead of apologizing or sounding embarrassed, the next voice from Willamette Week’s side of the table invoked a threatening tone.

Walth: Mark let me ask you a question, do you believe in climate change. Is is a myth or reality?

Callahan: It’s a myth.

Walth: A myth?

Callahan: Yes.

Nigel Jacquiss...or someone like him
Nigel Jacquiss…or someone like him

Jacquiss: Where are you on the Easter Bunny?

Callahan: What’s that?

Jacquiss:  Where are you on the Easter Bunny?

Callahan: Are these really the questions I was called here to answer? Really? I called you out on the blah, blah, blah and you ask me questions like this? Really, really? Are we talking about this now? OK, how about you ask me a serious question instead of asking me a childish question?

Brent Walth…or someone like him.

Walth: I just asked you a question about climate change. ‘kay? That’s two strikes. I’m going to ask you to leave.”

Callahan: (scoffs) Who do you think you are?

Editor: Ok, you may leave now. Go ahead. You’re done here. This is neither a fair or [sic] balanced meeting. This is a meeting for us…

Callahan: I know. …it’s a meeting…asked by thin skinned liberals like yourself.

Zusman: There’s the door

Now for my unsolicited advice. 

Contact the publication in advance to determine who will be at the table and the general nature of the questions that will be asked. It doesn’t hurt to ask and it can only help you prepare.

Good for you for calling out Nigel Jacquiss for writing his “blah blah blah” comment about one of your opponents in the Oregon Republican primary.  Jacquiss is an excellent reporter, but even excellent reporters need to have a reality check now and again. It was absolutely appropriate to highlight this. Your sense of outrage was palpable. 

Ask these guys to define their terms. What does the editor mean when he asks about “climate change?” To what climate change does he refer? Global warming or global cooling or…?  Never fall for open ended, black hole questions. Say, “when you talk about the politically explosive ‘climate change’ issue, what specifically are you referring to? When you don’t get their cards on the table you allow reporters to expand the parameters of the issue after an interview. They seldom report the issue to a conservative candidate’s satisfaction. This is what Politi”fact” does. A person makes an assertion and the reporter later expands an issue beyond the scope of your answer, thus distorting your original statement. It’s unethical, but there it is. 

Don’t accept the premise of a question if it doesn’t comport with your understanding of an issue. Ask the reporter to re-ask the question to give them an opportunity to hone it. If you don’t agree with the premise of the question at this point, you re-state it and answer your own question. 

Don’t be demeaning. You were being mocked on the EPA question, but don’t lower yourself to reporter’s level.  If you can’t abide it, preface your answer by saying, “I sense Mr. Walth’s  contempt but I’ll answer his question by saying…”

Be specific. When you think WW is “unfair” and “disrespectful,” be specific about why. While you were specific on a couple of occasions during this exchange, make sure you re-state every time while you think something is disrespectful. Use the “when you say this…you are disrespectful.” They’ll still get techy and it will sound like a counseling session, but so what? You’ll be on the moral high ground–and it will be on the record.

Ask them questions when their interview is winding down. Did they ask these same questions about cutting the budget, climate change, ObamaCare votes of the Democrats? That’s a question worth asking in these kinds of settings. Did they ask Senator Jeff Merkley why he wrote a letter siccing the IRS onTea Party groups? Ask them where their publication was on that issue. Ask them if they think that’s fair.

Don’t fall for false choice questions. Ask reporters if those are the only choices they see. This does a couple of things. It makes them see that their questions are restrictive and allows you to expand your answer.

Be a warrior, but be a happy warrior.  A few years ago I was in the audience watching a debate between two folks running for Congress. I sat next to a US Congressman who occasionally chimed in with commentary. At one point the Congressman said under his breath, ‘If you’re not likeable, nobody will vote for you.’  

One contestant came off as a happy, competent warrior and the other like an angry man. Guess who was adjudged the winner? Not the surly, cranky pants candidate. 

Ask the other candidates to come with you next time. WW was being unfair and sparky and clearly had an agenda. You were willing to fight it. Constituents see that and see a man willing to fight for them and for what’s right. The others were just going along to get along. Ask them to join you if there’s ever a next time.

In most cases, call back the reporter and ask if they have any further questions or anything you can more fully explain. Ask if they were confused about any of your answers. Use this opportunity to change an answer you believe you didn’t properly articulate.

Don’t let this be your last run for office. Do it again.

This is enough for now. 


Far left Oregon candidate Deborah Kafoury files complaint after being identified as pro life

Projection? Deborah Kafoury complains a voter guide ID’ing her as pro life is a political dirty trick

HT Bruce McCain


Deborah Kafoury is a member of one of Oregon’s most visible political clans. For decades, Steve, Greg, Gretchen, Deborah and a few more I have forgotten, have represented the low hanging fruit on the far left side of Oregon’s political family tree.

The family is more prolific than the Bushes. It’s more numerous than Bill Clinton’s sexual conquests. The Kennedy clan’s far left piety has nothing on the Kafoury church of the far left.

Kafoury clan members grow up believing a government job is their birth right.

One thing the Kafoury clan would never be confused of being is in any way standing for traditional family values–except theirs, that is. 

Abortion on demand for all 41 weeks of pregnancy? Hell yes. 

A typo in a family friendly voters guide by the Oregon Family Council, however, has the candidate for Multnomah County Chair upset and running to the reliably sympathetic media for help.

The guide identifies Kafoury as being pro life. She fears if voters come to believe she might possibly have respect for the life of a baby they’ll have no respect for her.  Willamette Week reports she’s now complained to state elections officials,

“With voters having ballots in hand,” writes Jillian Schoene, Kafoury’s campaign manager, “the intent here is clear: falsely represent Ms. Kafoury’s position on key issues that put her in direct conflict with the voters of Multnomah County, thus harming her candidacy for chair.”

The elections commission has told Kafoury it has no jurisdiction over the issue but the courts do, telling Willamette Week,

“ORS 260.532 requires an aggrieved party to pursue their claim in court,” writes Alicia J. Cox of the elections division. “It is not a statute enforced through our office.”

Kafoury calls the typo a political dirty trick considering voters already have their ballots in hand. Kafoury’s pro abortion stance is the only mistake on the voter guide. The Oregon Family Council says it did not make the mistake on purpose. 

It sounds like Deborah Kafoury herself is perhaps the biggest mistake on the voters guide.


Barack Obama’s wife’s brother out as hoops coach at Oregon State

Craig Robinson ousted as OSU basketball coach

I feel sorry for Oregon State. No, really. They have just put themselves on the radar screen for an IRS audit by ousting internetCraig Robinson, Barack Obama’s wife’s brother who has just been fired as basketball coach.

From USA Today,

“I want to thank Coach Robinson and his family for their contributions to Oregon State University,” said athletic director Bob De Carolis. “This was a difficult decision, but after further evaluation, I believe it is in the best interests of our student-athletes, our basketball program and our University.”

Robinson was 93-104 in six years at Oregon State with no NCAA tournament appearances. The Beavers were 16-16 last season and will lose all five starters. Robinson had three more years remaining on this contract and the university is expected to owe him more than $4 million.

In short, OSU Athletic Director, Bob DeCarolis, decided the angsty fans and boosters had more juice than Craig Robinson’s brother in law. Now that’s saying something considering President Obama has drones, the NSA and IRS doing his bidding.

Sure, it was great that Robinson could sometimes get the country’s highest profile hoopster, Barack Obama, on the sidelines for some games. He could even wrangle an oval office visit for Beavers players. The problem was Craig Robinson’s team didn’t actually earn the trip to the White House. Those trips are usually reserved for winning teams. 

I remember being the first to get the broadcast interview with Robinson upon his hire in Corvallis. I worked at the then Beavers flagship station and asked the usual basketball questions but I also thought I’d make the interview topical for my mostly politically inclined audience. I asked Robinson about his brother in law’s church which had been in the news. Robinson lectured me on how truth was spoken at the most wrong Rev Wright’s church. Whoops.

Then I asked the University of Chicago MBA about the one time conscience of his business school, Milton Friedman, and whether he had ever talked to his famous in law about fiscal conservatism. Robinson icily responded that he had not. 

 I was mocked in the sports media. I was never again invited to host or attend any Beavers sporting event.

And now so has Craig Robinson. 



Oregonian “politifact” reporter claims Callahan “stalked out” instead of being thrown out of endorsement interview

I have re-emerged from my website silence (I’m moving, don’t ask) just in time for the Mark Callahan-Willamette internetWeek endorsement interview fire works (see my other post nearby). 

In doing the back ground reading, I noticed my google search included a report by Oregonian political and Politifact reporter Harry Esteve that Callahan had “stalked out” of the interview. I was distracted for a second and when I looked back, the headline had disappeared from the page.  Thanks to cached content, however, I found where Esteve had reported Callahan’s supposed “stalking out,” 

‘Blah blah blah’ notes by Willamette Week reporter lead to ……/blah_blah_blah_notes…

3 days ago – U.S. Senate candidate Mark Callahan stalks out of an endorsement interview at Willamette Week offices after complaining that a reporter wrote …

It makes a difference in perception whether Mr. Callahan was tossed out, as was the case, or stalked out, which was not the case. One characterization makes him look like a petulant child while the other lays the acts petulance on the side of the Willamette Week reporters. Do you think that might make a difference in the eyes of a reader? 

While Esteve’s subsequent stories reflect Callahan’s being tossed, I don’t find where he has gone back to correct his untrue characterization and therefore the impressions he made on possibly thousands of people. 

How easy it is for Esteve to believe the act of petulance was on the side of the conservative Republican? Easy enough that he didn’t bother to check the facts–or watch the video. He rushed to judgement, rushed to print and then didn’t correct his mistake.

The Oregonian has taken great glee in the past with its Politi”fact” checks on my blog posts and tweets. In one, they reported my story was untrue when I reported a Portland school was allowing Muslim children to pray in a school room and keep their prayer rugs in the room.

I had an eyewitness, but the school district wouldn’t comment or respond to my queries, but when approached by the Oregonian, they hopped-to. The spokesman was angry with my report! And what was he angry about?  That the children didn’t pray as many times per day as I reported and that it occurred only during Ramadan. Meantime, my pants were supposedly on fire or some such thing. Apparently, the Zero didn’t think the school providing a sanctuary for prayer and cubbies for prayer rugs was that big of a deal. I’ll bet they would if it were a Christian church established during school hours. 

My other supposed whopper was when I claimed the City of Portland was wasting tax and stimulus dollars by re-marking bike path marks on streets that already had them. The Politi”fact” reporter claimed I was wrong. I later posted pictures of bike designations within mere feet –and in some cases–inches from another proving my claims were correct. She claimed she didn’t see the existing marks because it was dark outside. That’s not a typo. The Oregonian never corrected its characterization of the conservative blogger/talk show host. That’s when I quit talking to Politi”fact.”

In another Politi”fact” report, the newspaper of record gleefully fact checked a tweet of mine on the plastic bag ban having to do with the $250 fine. I screwed up and left the impression in my 140 character tweet that individuals would be fined this sum. I was wrong. It was the stores that would be fined that amount for each transgression. Once again, the Zero didn’t think the fine itself was as much of a story or acknowledge discussion of fining individuals. Why would they when they had a talk show host to guillotine?

Back to Harry. You need to retract your original report, apologize and issue a correction at the top of your next story in both print and online or I’ll call Politi”fact.” Oh, wait…