This Wall of Remembrance shows you how radical Islam has waged its modern war on the U.S. for decades.
This Wall of Remembrance is touring across the country to remember 9/11. On one side are the names of every single person who’s died fighting radical Islamists since the Beirut bombing that killed 241 of our finest U.S. Marines.
1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing
1991 Operation Desert Storm to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
1993 Blackhawk Down, Somalia
1996 bombing of 19 servicemen in Dahrain, Saudi Arabia
1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa
2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing
2001 Attacks on World Trade Center, U.S. Pentagon and Flight 93’s target was either U.S. Capitol or the White House.
I haven’t included all of the subsequent — hundreds — of attacks on the country since but you can in the comments section.
The Wall of Remembrance includes the anthrax attacks; Major Hassan’s attack on Fort Hood; the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya; the invasion of Iraq to get Saddam Hussein, a state sponsor of terrorism and many others. It’s worth a look.
This video was taken at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, California.
In the latest video, the Senior Director of Medical Services for the National Planned Parenthood negotiates the sale of baby parts — for something every other company considers a “profit”.
This third video by a group called “The Center for Medical Progress” shows the head of the Medical Services for Planned Parenthood, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, discussing the sale of baby parts:
The group shows what it claims is the price list for the baby parts:
Non profit? What do you call this?
“I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a non profit. They just don’t want to — they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that, you know, seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that.” Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
And here’s what they were selling. See the entire video below, but here’s a still shot of a pie plate displaying just-recovered baby parts for sale:
The above photo shows two legs, kidneys, and spinal cord among other things.
Would you believe *American Express if it said ‘doing a little better than break even’ wasn’t actually a profit?
Would you believe it if *Bank of America said that?
If *Adobe didn’t call its sales at better than break-even a profit, wouldn’t you laugh at them?
*Nike? *Groupon? *Verizon? *Progressive?
*All of those companies (and many more) are Planned Parenthood corporate sponsors. Find the list here because Planned Parenthood has scrubbed them from its website.
Planned Parenthood receives more than $500,000,000 per year from your tax dollars.
It claims the videos, like this one below, entrapped the players into saying things they didn’t mean to.
If you give credence to that argument then ask yourself this: What would it take for YOU to negotiate the price of human baby parts?
Great news: The Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial in La Jolla, CA, has been purchased — and hopefully thereby saved …
… “as it is, where it is,” with Cross intact, for generations of Americans to come — by the non-profit Mt. Soledad Memorial Association from the federal Department of Defense.
The Memorial Association announced on Monday, July 21, 2015, that its purchase of the Memorial for $1.4-million was finalized on July 17. This effectively transferred ownership of the memorial site honoring veterans from “public land” under federal ownership to “private land” of the Association, a non-governmental, non-profit, private organization. The Association has maintained the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial since its founding in 1954 in conjunction with wartime veterans of American Legion La Jolla Post 275.
Originally established to honor Korean War Veterans, it was expanded to honor all veterans, especially those who gave their lives in defense of American freedom. The Memorial is on land originally owned by the City of San Diego, which was transferred to the federal DOD in 2006. It now has some 3,500 plaques on tiered walls beneath a 29-foot cross honoring all veterans atop Mt. Soledad. (See, www.soledadmemorial.com.)
The secular extremist American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been suing for some twenty-six (26) years now to destroy the Mt. Soledad Memorial on the basis that the Cross honoring veterans there has been on “public land” and, therefore, violates the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. However, it is now on “private land.” That has an enormous impact on the ACLU’s lawsuit, which is again pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
The DOD was authorized to sell the Memorial to the Association by the National Defense Act of 2015, adopted by House and Senate and signed by President of Obama last December.
That legislation was the result of a bill initiated by Congressman Duncan Hunter, former U.S. Marine combat veteran who represents the District and who has led the effort in Congress to save the memorial.
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the ACLU in the similar case of Buono vs. Salazar, commonly known as theMojave Desert Veterans Memorial Cross Case. There, the ACLU sued in 2002 to destroy a veterans memorial established by VFW members to honor WWI veterans in 1934. ACLU sued because it included a cross on a rock outcrop on federal land in the remote Mojave Desert Preserve. ACLU sued even though there was no complaint in some 70 years, and the Cross was twelve miles off the highway and a person had to drive to it to be offended by it.
After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ordered the the Mojave Cross had to be destroyed, Congress voted to exchange that one-acre site for five acres of private land donated by Henry and Wanda Sandoz, who had cared for the memorial for decades. Since the Cross was now on private land, the Supreme Court nullified the 9th Circuit decision that the Establishment Clause was violated and remanded the case. ACLU finally surrendered on remand in 2012, announcing in court it would cease attempting to destroy the cross.
While there is no way to know to a certainty whether the ACLU will finally cease its quarter-century of litigation to destroy the Mt. Soledad Memorial now that it is on private land, the Association, and those public interest law firms who have been representing veterans against the ACLU’s lawsuits, have hailed implementation of Duncan Hunter’s land-transfer legislation as signaling that the memorial will at last remain “as it is, where it is” without further successful litigation molestation by the ACLU.
Bruce Bailey, President and CEO of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association board of trustees, said:
“I am honored to be leading our Association at this most significant time in our Memorial’s history. It marks for the first time where our membership can manage the Memorial’s affairs from a place of ownership and accountability for the property, which is a new and welcomed step for the Association.”
Reacting to the news of the transfer to the Association of the Mt. Soledad Memorial originally founded by the local American Legion La Jolla Post 275 more than a half-century ago, American Legion National Commander Michael D. Helm said he hoped it would end the litigation attacks of the ACLU:
“Frankly, it shouldn’t have been necessary for the government to sell the land to a private group in order to preserve a memorial that is deeply significant to so many people. The American Legion believes in ‘God and Country.’ Unfortunately, some courts don’t always see it that way. “
Liberty Institute, based in Texas, represents the Memorial Association against the ACLU in the present Mt. Soledad case pending in the 9th Circuit. LI issued a statement that “after a 25-year legal battle, the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial is finally saved…[it] ends a legal dispute regarding the constitutionality of the memorial on government land.”
Hiram Sasser, Liberty Institute’s Deputy Chief Counsel, said:
“The Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross has stood since 1954 as a symbol of the selfless sacrifice of our nation’s veterans. Such a sacred memorial should receive our highest honor and protection. Today’s actions will ensure that the memorial will continue to stand in honor of our veterans for decades to come. This is a great victory for the veterans who originally placed this memorial and the Korean War veterans the memorial honors. We thank our lead counsel, Allyson Ho, and her team at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, who worked tirelessly to defend the memorial, leading to this ultimate victory.”
Charles S. LiMandri, President and Chief Counsel for the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF), has actively participated in efforts to maintain the Memorial Cross “as it is, where it is” since 2004. The FCDF, along with Attorney Peter Lepiscopo, represents Congressman Duncan Hunter.
LiMandri, who has been credited with doing more than any other single person to save the Mt. Soledad Cross, said of the Memorial’s transfer to the Association:
“We are delighted that the longest running religious liberty case is coming to a successful conclusion after 26 years. Any future legal challenge to the transfer of the Memorial property from the federal government to the Memorial Association is likely to fail in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010), which approved trade of federal property to private ownership for the purpose of preserving the Mojave Memorial Cross. The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund extends its hearty congratulations to the Memorial Association and its counsel.”
Joseph Infranco is Senior Counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), and co-founder, with me, of the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project of The American Legion Dept. of California and the Alliance Defending Freedom.
He said of the transfer of Mt. Soledad to the Memorial Association:
“Monuments that honor the very people who have fought and died to protect our freedoms should be preserved in the best possible way. Though perhaps understandable, it’s unfortunate that Congress felt forced to take the safe route of a land transfer to protect this cherished memorial. Memorial crosses on government land honoring those who served and died are not an establishment of religion any more than the memorial crosses that grace Arlington National Cemetery. Nonetheless, all should take some comfort that the Mount Soledad Memorial will be well cared for and free from the illegitimate attacks of those who have sought to uproot it. We trust that this move will allow the memorial and its cross to be enjoyed and revered for generations to come.”
Our Defense of Veterans Memorials Project was created, and first became involved in litigation combatting the ACLU in 2006 when a U.S. District Court ordered the City of San Diego to destroy the Mt. Soledad Cross within 90-days or it would impose a fine of $5,000 per day. We entered the litigation to support Attorney Chuck LiMandri who at the time was carrying the legal battle against ACLU almost alone.
To the shock of most in the legal community, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay order preventing destruction of the Cross after the Ninth Circuit had denied a stay order pending appeal.
The Memorial was saved at the time by passage of the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial Protection Act of 2006, which transferred Mt. Soledad from the City of San Diego to the federal DOD. This effectively nullified the U.S. District Court’s destruction order, since that case was tried under the California Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. That Mt. Soledad Protection Act passed the House overwhelmingly, and the U.S. Senate without objection, including no objection by then Sen. Barack Obama.
Then-President George W. Bush signed the Mt. Soledad Protection Act into law. Attorney Charles LiMandri, because of his singular and remarkable pro bono efforts to save the Cross was invited by President Bush to attend the signing ceremony.
Now, with the Mt. Soledad Memorial again facing destruction by the ACLU’s lawsuit, Rep. Duncan Hunter, a combat Marine, has led the effort in Congress to authorize a transfer of Mt. Soledad by sale into the private hands of the Memorial Association, as Congress did in the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial Cross case (Buono vs.Salazar).
This may or may not deter the ACLU in its secular-cleansing, cross-destroying fanaticism, even to the point of attacking veterans memorials. If it does not, those who have fought to preserve Mt. Soledad will continue to fight, as long as it takes, to prevent the desecration of it or any veterans memorials by intolerant extremists epitomized by the ACLU, which, in my opinion, has become the Taliban of American liberal secularism.
As co-founder with Joe Infranco of the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project, I thank Joe Infranco and all at ADF; Hiram Sasser, Kelly Schackleford, and all at Liberty Institute; Chuck LiMandri and all at Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund; Attorney Pete Lepiscopo; Congressman Duncan Hunter; and all of who have fought so long and so hard to save Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial “as it is, where it is,” and as it was intended to be by the American veterans who founded it to honor their comrade veterans.
This thanks includes American Legionnaires in California who have continued to fight against the ACLU. They have, among other things, established plaques at Mt. Soledad honoring Maj. General Patrick H. Brady (USA, ret., Medal of Honor, Vietnam); Admiral Jeremiah A. Denton (USN, ret.; Navy Cross, POW for seven years/seven months in Vietnam); Legendary Legionnaires Leo Burke (USMC, WWII), and Robert J. “Uncle Bobby” Castillo (USN, WWII); and, on February 3, 2014, the Immortal Four Chaplains. (See, attached photo of California Legionnaires at Four Chaplains ceremonies beneath the Cross at Mt. Soledad, joined by former Navy Seal Larry Wilske (ret.), now Executive Secretary of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association.)
I thank them all for fighting as Patton taught—“Audacity, Audacity, Always Audacity;” and staying the course as Churchill taught:
“Never give up. Never, never, never give up.”
As veterans, and as patriots, we must not, we will not, allow desecration of memorials honoring veterans, no matter how offensive those memorials may be to enemies of America, foreign or domestic.
(Rees Lloyd, a longtime California civil rights attorney and veterans activist, is a member of the Victoria Taft Blogforce)
Days after the Baltimore’s Freddie Gray riots, there was another incident that almost became another apocryphal ‘Hands up, Don’t Shoot’ moment.
A version of his post was originally published by Victoria Taft at PoliticalVanguard.com
Sometimes you watch the news or hear ‘man on the street’ interviews on the radio and later, when the truth comes out, wonder to yourself, ‘Where did that cockamamie story come from?’
In the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri, interviews contained in both the Grand Jury testimony and the federal investigation revealed Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, conceived of the ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ narrative and began to spread it around.
Investigators later deemed doubtful Johnson’s ability to see the last seconds of his friend’s life because of where he claimed to be hiding.
But, by the time he was finished, Johnson was on TV blatantly spouting the ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ narrative, and people, later ruled not credible by the authorities, picked up the story and lied under oath.
It was untrue but it was everywhere. And even after it was disproved, protesters still used it.
Protesters used the ‘hands up’ meme in Baltimore, well after the world learned it was bogus.
Just days after the riots in Baltimore, ‘the big lie’ almost happened again.
A man was stopped by cops and subdued after he pulled out a revolver at Pennsylvania and North — the flashpoint of the original riots.
MSNBC host, Joy Reid, was on the ground and spoke to the “victim’s” relative, who revealed the name of the man “shot” and the fact he was only reaching at his waist band.
Fox News was on live and reported the “shooting”, but walked back the story within minutes. Shepherd Smith apologized and said they’d “screwed up”.
MSNBC never recanted, and instead blamed Twitter for their story.
MSNBC went on the air, with a person actually on the ground, and reported a falsehood for which they never apologized. They also talked to the “victim’s” family member who lied about the incident and never apologized.
But MSNBC was right about one thing: They saw the story on Twitter. I know that because I did too.
The Tweet talked of a shooting and contained a link leading to a live-stream of the “shooting” scene.
And here’s what I saw:
After hearing a gun shot, people came upon the scene only to see a man lying on the ground. Police surrounded him.
Within seconds, a few people on scene began pronouncing the man face down on the ground had ‘been shot’.
Though there was no blood and angry people were close enough to see, the story caught fire.
Soon, a bigger group of angry people converged at the site and, within seconds, a couple of angry men began confronting cops within inches of their faces and accusing them of shooting the black man on the ground. You can hear their voices saying:
The police shot him! They done shot him, bro! They shot him? They shot in him the back, man!
Another voice rang out urging people to go after one of the cops:
He’s the cop! He’s the cop!
That prompted a man to confront an officer — as if picking a school yard fight — getting within inches of the officer’s face and taunting:
You shot my man, yo? You shot my man, yo? You shot my man, yo?
The man recording the event and putting it out over the internet pronounced:
Hey, police just shot someone! Police just shot SOMEONE IN THE BACK! Tweet it out, please? POLICE JUST SHOT SOMEONE. They just shot someone and they maced someone. They shot that man in the back. Tweet it out. BALTIMORE POLICE JUST SHOT A MAN IN THE BACK! Now they’re macing people for no reason!
Then he beckoned them to come riot:
Come to Penn and North now.
Soon, the woman caught on tape and who was used in several TV news stories came along to declare:
I watched that man shoot him! I watched it with my own eyes!
Guy taking video:
File a report on the M******F****r!
He escalated his rhetoric and urged riot again:
Come down to Penn & North NOW! Those M*****F*****r cops. They maced someone. Tweet it out!
And someone did. And that’s when I saw it and MSNBC News did, too.
But just when you think things could spin out of control, they got worse. Someone’s voice in the crowd authoritatively pronounced:
They just shot that man in the back.
The person recording the event embellished:
Baltimore police just shot a man in the back. Baltimore police just shot that man in the back. THEY HAD HIM IN CUFFS AND THEY F*****G SHOT IN HIM THE BACK!
Almost none of what they said was true. They just made it up.
Police did pepper spray some of the people who were getting out of control and pushed them down the street and out of the way of the take down.
A Baltimore police officer told anyone who asked him that the man was seen with the gun. WBAL radio reported he’d been spotted via the ‘City Crime Watch’ camera. When he saw cops, he reached for his gun, dropped it, the gun discharged and cops seized upon him:
A fleeing suspect pulled out a revolver, which went off, and no officers fired their weapons, police said, denying conflicting reports from people at the scene.
If that guy had been shot by officers another big lie would have gathered even more momentum. As it was, this was bad enough. Later, the paid professional protesters, of whom Deray McKesson is one, launched an assault on the media.
Deray was on the ground in Ferguson and won some fame for his activism there. Then he packed his bags and showed up in Baltimore. He was identified by Wolf Blitzer of CNN as a Baltimore community organizer. Deray, originally from Baltimore, is not.
I’d show you Deray McKesson’s original tweet, but he blocked me after I outed him as a professional peripatetic protester.
Wresting the narrative is important.
Trayvon Martin thought George Zimmerman was gay and was worried the neighborhood watch captain would sexually ‘molest’ him. We found that out in Zimmerman’s trial from none other than Martin’s girlfriend, Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Martin as he eyed the man watching him.
The teenager was also high on marijuana, his toxicology tests showed THC in his system when he got into it with Zimmerman.
And he was coming back from the store where he purchased items to make ‘Sizzurp’ to get another high. But to the media and in the world of the Reverend Al Charlatan, Martin was a be-haoloed teen angel who was just trying to get home with his Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea.
Michael Brown was a 6’4″ 300lb ‘Gentle Giant’ who wouldn’t hurt a fly. He traveled the streets of Ferguson in his cap and gown, setting an example for all youth while readying himself for his college career. He was only trying to comply with Officer Darren Wilson. He put his hands up and innocently pleaded with the malevolent Officer not to hurt him.
Reality: He ‘jacked up an old Asian man at the store, took a bunch of Swisher Sweets to roll blunts and attacked a cop, going for his gun.
Things in Baltimore were bad enough. Six cops are under indictment. You don’t have to lie to make things look bad, they already are.
The left tried to make it worse, foment riots and create another urban legend and new narrative. And you saw it in real time.
At the Poverty Summit at Georgetown University, President Obama seems to admit he knows no actual poor people, knows no one who has trouble paying their bills, but knows they got there because rich people took their money away.
Or he assumes no rich people like him do.
The Summit, which was moderated, by E.J. Dionne, the far left Washington Post columnist, also featured American Enterprise Institute economist Arthur Brooks who’s written several books on the subject of poverty, wealth and ethics. See his response to the President below.
In this illuminating discourse by President Obama in the first video, he appears to believe there’s never before been ‘segregation’ by class and poverty level–except for black people. He seems to believe this is a new thing in the last “40 years”, though it appears he forgets about Jewish and Irish ghettos in America’s past or even old timey songs about living “on the wrong side of town” or “on the wrong side of the tracks.”
The President, ascribing the differences between the wealthy and poor to policies of the past “40 years”, also seems to forget that roughly corresponds to America beginning to wage a ‘War on Poverty’ by LBJ.
In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation there have more than $22 trillion dollars in income transfers spent to “solve” the problem of poverty since that war began. As Jesus told us in Mark 14:7 (and other places), “The poor will always be among you” so the likelihood of spending our way out of it is slim.
After you watch the President blame conservatives and rich people for impoverishing people, and Fox News for demonizing them, then watch as Arthur Brooks, economist and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, gently puncture every one of the President’s talking points.
Arthur Brooks explains how the President has a few things wrong.
As in every case, including Sweet Cakes by Melissa, administrative judges work for the departments over which they adjudicate.
Welcome DrudgeReport readers!
Almost as soon as the administrative law judge working for the government of Oregon handed down a $135,000.00 fine against Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the Go Fund Me page set up to help pay their legal bills was taken down.
Friday, the bureaucrat working for the state of Oregon ruled the bakery owners personally owed the money to a lesbian couple because in January of 2013, the devout Christian bakers told the couple they wouldn’t make a cake for their wedding.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, whose business has since closed, now face personal bankruptcy.
The Daily Signal reports Aaron says the state chose to go after the couple to destroy them:
Aaron, in an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal on Sunday, said the state of Oregon is attempting to “obliterate” his family.
“The state is now saying that we can award damages above and beyond what you have already suffered … and they have no qualms about doing this,” he said. “It is really showing the state is taking a stance on absolutely obliterating somebody that takes a different stance than the state has.”
As The Daily Signal reports, Klein attorney, Anna Harmon, seems to indicate the state was on a seek and destroy mission:
“An important thing to understand about the damages the state is claiming in this case is that the [fine] isn’t going to come from liquidating business assets,” she said.
Their business is gone. They don’t have business assets so when we talk about [the fine], it’s personal. It means that’s money they would have used to feed their children that they can’t use anymore.
In order to spin up the fine, the lesbian couple had to submit a list of horribles they suffered at the hands of the bakers.
Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer have since managed to plan a wedding and mother a child but were apparently barely able to cope as the case went on.
The (poorly) alphabetized list reads like a 15 year old’s attempt to make a glossary for a last-minute research paper. See both full lists below, but here are just a few of the harms from one of the women: (note the conflicting or same maladies):
A: Anger, Anxiety,Apprehension
C: Concern for privacy, crying
D. Degradation, “demeanment“, depression, devastation, disbelief, discomfort, doubt
E. (listed after the F’s) Excessive sleep, embarrassment, exhaustion
F. Forced to borrow money, fear of not being able to get another job, felt stupid
H. Horror, humiliation, hurt, hysteria.
I. Insomnia, indignity, irritability with family and friends
L. Loss of appetite, loss of sleep, pride, etc
M. Mental anguish, mental distress
N. Nervous appetite,
P. Pale and sick after work, public humiliation
R. Resentment, ridicule
S. Sadness, self doubt, shock, stunned, surprise
U. Uncertainty, upset, upset stomach
W. Worry, wounded
The other member of the couple listed ‘Mental Rape’ as a by product of the case.
It sounds as if the couple has a bigger case against the State of Oregon for the legal process than from the initial harm from Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Look at those lists: most of the harms came after they complained and the state took over the legal action against the Christian bakery.
The Daily Signal reports Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries chief, Brad Avakian, could reduce the fine if he wanted to. Considering the progressive ideologue has championed the case in his politicization of BOLI, that is doubtful.
Artists Hit the HQ on North 24th Street in Phoenix After GOP Chair Shuts Doors to Precinct Committee Persons Who Call for a Closed GOP Primary. Effort is seen to help McCain.
John McCain’s battle with the GOP right flank is heating up over the issue of closing the Arizona primary to anyone but registered GOP voters. An executive meeting in Phoenix today has been closed to even GOP Precinct Committee Persons (PCPs).
McCain says he wants a ‘big tent’ in the primaries, but the conservatives in the party believe the long time senator is too liberal and want a choice in the primary election.
The Arizona Republic reports the group of McCain detractors believe the Senator wants the open primary to dilute the impact of conservatives:
The bad blood between McCain and many members of the Republican Party’s right wing is legendary. In January 2014, the state GOP formally censured him as too liberal on issues such as immigration reform. Many of McCain’s critics support the push to close the primary, with the suggestion being that the closer-to-center McCain benefits from the independents voting in the Republican primary.
How much a closed GOP primary would hurt McCain is unclear. In 2008, McCain, the eventual GOP White House nominee, was able to effortlessly win Arizona’s Republican-only presidential preference election, or primary.
A group called ‘End the Reign of John McCain’ is behind the effort to close the primary.
Odd, party leaders would close a meeting to discuss the open primary.
We want to see the video and objects from Kitzhaber and Cylvia Hayes’ dump run.
John Kitzhaber went to the Bend dump the other day with his Shady First Lady (thank you UK Daily Mail) and the dump workers called the cops.
One of the inescapable conclusions we can draw from this means the guys who work at the dump are smarter than the guys who worked for the Governor. At least they can identify when something looks hinky and call in law enforcement.
The Bend Bulletin reports the ex Governor, forced to retire when he attempted to cover up his and his Shady First Lady Cylvia Hayes’s reputed influence peddling, visited the dump Friday last, spent a few minutes emptying their load and then called attention to themselves when Hayes’s credit card jammed the system.
The dump workers, seeing who they were dealing with, called investigators because they were worried the two were trying to destroy more evidence in their case.
They looked like any other people who were cleaning out their garage or cleaning out a rental. It was just stuff,” [spokesman Timm] Schimke said. “They weren’t manipulating the stuff. They were just tossing it out and they were only in there for two or three minutes and then they left.”
Schimke said Hayes went to pay for the items the two dropped off when the landfill’s computer system malfunctioned.
When employees reset the computer, they identified the person who was trying to pay as Hayes, the subject of a federal and state investigation at the time
It looked to me like they were cleaning out a garage, I guess,” Schimke said. “Campaign signs when she was running for office years ago. A mattress or a box spring.
Schimke says the whole thing looked odd:
It just seemed strange that they were at a transfer station dumping waste so soon after him resigning and them being under investigation.
Investigators picked up the items.
But now we learn federal investigators are looking into Hayes’s relationship with the dump and another project she was working on.
Kitzhaber’s work wife and fake wife plundered his office. Worse? He was only to happy to let them loose on Oregonians — and their moth-filled wallets — as long as no one bothered him with details.
It’s hard when you discover the ‘cool’ guy you voted for was actually an egotistical, hair sprayed airhead.
Oregonians should have taken John Kitzhaber at his word when he uttered his Nixonesque ‘Oregon is ungovernable’ you won’t have him to kick around anymore epithet in 2002.
They should have believed the pundits who said ‘It’s the governor, stupid’.
Instead, voters let the perpetually affected, detached and bored executive back into office, whereupon he turned everything over to his unelected wives and handlers.
The emails the ex governor tried to destroy, but which were obtained by Willamette Week, show Kitzhaber turned over two of his biggest projects — and biggest failures — to his campaign chief, who ran Oregon’s business in the Columbia River Crossing and Cover Oregon to the benefit of exactly one person: her client, candidate John Kitzhaber.
This may come as a surprise, but that’s a Bozo-No-No.
Willamette Week still felt impelled to spell that out for the Van-Down-By-the-River/Occupy crowd:
If they made decisions based on Kitzhaber’s personal political interests rather than what was best for taxpayers, that’s not right,” says David Friedman, an associate professor at the Willamette University College of Law. “It just looks bad.”
When she wasn’t working for the company managing the disastrous light rail program laughingly called Columbia River Crossing, campaign aid Patricia McCaig, Willamette Week reports she was paid to ‘manage’ the program for the Governor.
Then, because apparently she’d done such a *great* job with the CRC, Kitzhaber put McCaig in charge of the quickly circling-the -drain Cover Oregon plan.
McCaig saw her plan of action clearly. She didn’t want to save the OrBamaCare program, she wanted to save the Governor.
According to the emails in Willamette Week, McCaig quickly saw an off ramp. She manufactured a meeting where the preordained demise of the program would be pronounced and then, aha! she’d orchestrate a lawsuit against Oracle. She even bragged about it to the boss, who called her his ‘princess’:
The emails also show McCaig orchestrated the state’s legal strategy against Oracle. Polling showed voters blamed the governor for Cover Oregon’s failure. McCaig wanted Kitzhaber to demand money back from Oracle.
“We need to start the discussion from a different place,” McCaig wrote to Kitzhaber on April 7, 2014. “Mike [Bonetto] and I talked offline about Oracle—we’re leaning, regardless of which option, of announcing we’re going ‘after’ them.”
McCaig added in a May 19, 2014, email to Kitzhaber: “We need to show the taxpayers that we are going after the money. It doesn’t really matter if it is $200 million or $40 million, or how many people enrolled, until we make it clear that we’re going after the money.”
By mid-June, McCaig told Kitzhaber their Cover Oregon media strategy was working.
She was thrilled when the media lost interest in the story and didn’t bother to do their jobs anymore.
“Quite a week,” she wrote to him on June 13, “it wasn’t all about Cover Oregon. (FYI—no cameras at [Cover Oregon] board meeting and only 2 reporters, that’s great progress).”
And finally, the woman who had been doing the work of Oregon citizens, but was really a campaign aparatchik, got the word she needed from the man in office. He wrote this message to Patricia McCaig after a trip to the Pendleton Round Up where folks there can tell the real stuff from shinola:
No cheering crowds (but, then again, only one hiss), more horse shit that you can possibly imagine, highly efficient [fundraising] call time,” Kitzhaber wrote. “I can pay you now…really.”
‘I can pay you now’?
I’ll take a double order of conflict of interest, please.
Go read the rest at Willamette Week, but I leave you with three comments on the WW’s story that tell the story of the learning curve of Oregon voters and show you the truth was always out there — you just had to find it for yourself:
Bringing McCaig on to smoke screen Cover Oregon to get re-elected was a slime bag move made by a desperate candidate hell bent on covering up the 3rd term dents to get to the “unprecedented 4th term.” Especially since she had no healthcare experience. That makes it 10 times worse.
kick box kitty
This is completely outrageous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And Kitz was so happy to turn the whole thing over to her — because he had already screwed it up and didn’t know what to do next and had no time to work on it because he had to rush off to Bhutan or some other place other than his actual JOB
Why did it take so long to see Kitzhaber was inept? PERS, the Columbia River Bridge, CoverOregon and those goofy commercials? It’s why so many that are not liberal just shook their heads at his third and fourth terms.
Remember when John Kitzhaber
1) Faked heart attack when state was flooded in 1996 and Vera was filling sandbags
2) Said health care should have been reformed on state level rather than federal after being feted regularly by “The Economist” for medical rationing
3) Vetoed Secondary Lands bill in Washington Park in 1995. Governor threw tantrum in front of WW II veterans and stormed off – later told press he doesn’t “do public” well
4) Rip-rapped his own Neskowin beach house when others couldn’t protect their homes 5) Built on his 10 acres on Umpqua River when land was zoned Exclusive Forest use
6) Vetoed a record 100 bills in 1997 Oregon legislature 7) Refused to do interviews with media other than liberal media – even though he said he changed for this latest campaign — really? 8) Fleeing scene of Biscuit Fire five minutes before President Bush arrives, and leaving Sen. Wyden alone and furious 9) Unable to get along with legislative leaders – including Secretary of State of his own party, Phil Keisling
10) Refused to attend National Governors Association meetings, which at the time included innovative governors such as Jeb Bush, Tommy Thompson, John Engler, Bill Weld. Why? Because Kitzhaber already had the answers
11) Went fishing after 9/11 for a week when country was in crisis 12) Wanted to tear down dams on Snake River and freaked out then-Washington Gov. Gary Locke
Big changes are on the way and it means your privacy will be further eroded and ever dependent on the whim of a government worker.
By Janice Dysinger
*This post has been edited to clarify parts which speculate about the fall out of this bill and to include additional supporting documents and links.
Oregon Voter Registration process is about to change in a big way. No longer will you be required to register. This will be done automatically by the Secretary of State from your DMV records. There are some caveats. Some are asking: Who will be registered to vote? What will happen to my privacy? What if I don’t want to be registered? What’s the cost?
Automatic Voter Registration HB2177 passed House on Feb 20th! It still must pass the Senate and be signed by the new Governor, who is the former Secretary of State until last week. You won’t be able to opt-out at DMV, instead your data will be sent to the Elections Division. They will notify you that you must opt out in the following 3 weeks or you WILL be added to the voter registration rolls. Your private DMV record information including your signature will become part of the public voter registration record. That is a problem for some people, who do not want to be registered, or have their information on a public database.
In 2014, Rep. Sal Esquivel R-Medford asked new Oregon Director of Elections Jim Williams about the current process of verifying voter ID from the DMV database. William’s letter in response to Esquivel outlines current practices, but what is troubling to election integrity activists is that though the DMV does send data to Elections Division, the agency only gets the basics: name, address and other demographic data. Under the current system, there is no confirmation of citizenship required. Noncitizens can slip through the cracks and be registered to vote.
Oregon’s DMV database still includes names that predate 2008 rules-change, which required proof of citizenship before getting a driver’s license. In the early 2000s 80,000 noncitizens registered to vote and got driver’s licenses (in Washington County). They will not cycle out of the DMV system until 2017.
Under President Obama’s Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA), noncitizens, including those living in the state of Oregon, can get a driver’s license .
Anyone with a driver’s license can currently register to vote online if they are willing to lie and say they are a US citizen. It’s a felony to do so, but the system will accept the person. They will get a ballot. It will count.
[Recently, Secretaries of State testified before Congress that the President’s ‘executive amnesty’ will make the identification virtually indistinguishable from that of citizens. Non citizens, they argued, under these new rules could vote.
The Washington Times reports Jon Husted, the Ohio Secretary of State, and Kris Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State testified illegal aliens will flood the zone, making it impossible to check everyone’s citizenship,
Anyone registering to vote attests that he or she is a citizen, but Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said mass registration drives often aren’t able to give due attention to that part, and so illegal immigrants will still get through.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach said even some motor vehicle bureau workers automatically ask customers if they want to register to vote, which some noncitizens in the past have cited as their reason for breaking the law to register.
“It’s a guarantee it will happen,” Mr. Kobach said.]
A recent article from Breitbart News Network shows how noncitizens are using false IDs to get driver’s licenses in California. California officials were trying to help noncitizens get drivers licenses; instead they were exposing ID theft. It is such a problem that elected officials decided not to criminalize noncitizens for committing ID theft if they only did it to get a driver’s license.
Back in Oregon, HB2177’s big change in law leaves it to bureaucratic rule making — without legislative confirmation — to decide how to implement this sea change in law:
“The Secretary of State shall by rule establish a schedule by which the Department of Transportation shall provide to the secretary electronic records containing the legal name, age, residence and citizenship information for, and the electronic signature of, each person who meets qualifications identified by the secretary by rule.”
Under this bill proposed at the request of the Secretary of State, it is entirely up to the Secretary of State to make the qualifying rules. The rules are not stated in the bill. This shift of power from the Legislative branch to the Executive branch is quite astounding. Secretaries change over time, from elections or as we see currently in Oregon, due to other reasons. While Secretary Brown’s staff testified in committee that only proven citizens would be auto registered, there are no assurances from future Secretaries of their same commitment. Instead though this bill, it is the Secretary’s prerogative to decide by administrative ‘rule’. The administrative rule process is easy to change and is not subject to the legislative approval.
Rep. Carl Wilson R-Grants Pass in the House Rules Committee argued that small counties are already strapped for money to provide basic services and safety for citizens, and opposed HB2177 on the grounds that mandating these changes would be a big problem financially for his county.
Ways and Means Committee members have committed to covering the financial costs of implementation, but Wilson isn’t convinced: “I’ve heard this promise before,” he said. Estimated price tag for initial statewide implementation: $1.5 million.
Republican legislators asked why $1.5 million is being spent to implement an opt-out system in a state that already boasts one of the highest voting participation rates in the country. They referenced two security breaches in 2014 at the Secretary of State’s office, and voiced concerns about jeopardizing the privacy of citizens.
When the bill was routed through the Joint Ways and Means Committee and onto the Joint Subcommittee on General Government, the discussion got heated. The bill had not traveled the usual route through the Senate Rules to discuss the policy change. Senator Doug Whitsett R-Klamath Falls told Co-Chair of General Government: Senator Elizabeth Steiner-Hayward, D-Portland that she would have to call security to remove him when she attempted to limit his questions about HB2177 to strictly fiscal issues.
Janice Dysinger is an Oregonian, patriot and a student of Oregon’s election law. This article first appeared on the Americans for Prosperity, Clackamas website. It has been reprinted by permission.
Clackamas Gun Rights Meeting Brings Out the Typical Anti Gun Citizen.
In a meeting in which Clackamas County Commissioners passed a symbolic resolution in support of the Second Amendment, a woman rose to give testimony.
Her testimony is as inaccurate as it is hysterical; as vapid as it is wrong; as ridiculous as it is hilarious.
Thanks to Laughing at Liberals, it is now available for all to see. He also transcribed her words for your reading pleasure:
The 2nd Amendment was written 1776… every town had guns, they were kept in the armories… We do have armories, but we use them to house the Red Cross when there’s a disaster”… “All of these law abiding citizens are shooting back and forth in front of our house”… “To get that gun, we walked into Wal Mart, went up to the gun counter, showed them our license, he bought the gun and carried it out… That’s how difficult the background check was”… “You talk about big money coming in. What do you call the NRA and all of the gun manufacturers that are making the NRA nothing but a publicity arm”…”But to sit and say absolutely no change, you might as well put a gun to your head, because that is sheer stupidity
Yes, by all means, lady, encourage people to ‘put a gun to your head’.
Commissioners Tootie Smith, Paul Savas and Chair John Ludlow voted in favor of the resolution; Martha Schrader abstained. Jim Bernard had an excused absence from Thursday’s business meeting, but previously indicated he would have voted in favor of the resolution given the opportunity.
Ah, yes, Martha Schrader. Stay tuned for that story.