The NE Portland Cidery that served as an unofficial HQ of Portland’s Antifa professional protesters is going out of business on November 10th.
The owner, self-styled “anti-fascist” owner, Abram Goldman-Armstrong, told Willamette Week in September that he was looking for a buyer, claiming that cider distribution was piddling out and that he was more than $800,000 in debt.
But he wouldn’t sell to just anyone:
“We’re not going to sell to racist scumbags, and I don’t think the other investors would feel comfortable selling to someone who doesn’t believe in equal rights for all humans. Political views don’t usually play a part in business, so we’re not ruling out anyone unless they’re really terrible.”
Since people like Goldman-Armstrong think that everyone to the right of Mao is a “racist scumbag,” you can imagine that it would be hard to find a buyer. And, guess what? He didn’t.
Cider Riot! unabashedly supported Antifa by allowing their customers to saturate members of Patriot Prayer anti antifa group with bear spray as they stood on the public sidewalk outside the cidery. Patriot Prayer leader, Joey Gibson, was charged in the May Day 2018 incident.
The group also produced a “black bloc” line of pro-Antifa ciders, which featured the group’s logos.
The Iron Front Flag, an Antifa logo, was temporarily banned from Portland Timbers’ games. Goldman-Armstrong made the drink to protest the ban.
KOIN News straightfacedly reported that the cider’s antisocial, anti-free-speech, antifa connections had nothing to do with the closure.
But as Willamette Week reported, the connections didn’t help.
On Sept. 18, Goldman-Armstrong put Cider Riot up for sale. He says he’s strapped for cash because of overly ambitious expansion efforts. But he says political clashes, branding Cider Riot in the public imagination as “the Antifa Pub,” haven’t helped.
“I think it’s ridiculous that we get called the antifa bar all the time. … Being an antifascist is just a normal state of being. I shouldn’t be getting credit for being against the fascists. That should just be the normal attitude of any decent-minded human.”
He said that being called out by the pro free-speech-anti-Antifa Patriot Prayer group hasn’t helped either. A May Day fight between a Patriot Prayer person and an Antifa belligerent ended with the prosecution of Patriot Prayer leader Joey Gibson for riot.
Goldman-Armstrong told Willamette Week that Gibson is the reason fewer people have come into the pub. He claims customers are afraid “these fascists” will come back. He is suing Gibson for $1,000,000.00.
His loss of business couldn’t be that there are anti-Antifa Portlanders who are sick and tired of the group’s violence and intolerance. Couldn’t be that.
Nor could it be the violence that started at Cider Riot and spilled out into the streets, leading to the murderof an Antifa member by an apparent SUV driving trio of friendlies.
Antifa members ordered witnesses and other allies not to speak to the “pigs” about it. No one has been arrested.
Cider Riot has been under investigation by the Oregon Liquor Control Board and, according to The Oregonian, the agency concluded in September that:
The owner of Cider Riot knowingly allowed his patrons to use “illegal weapons” against right-wing agitators during a May Day brawl and refused to remove unruly customers from his property, an investigation by state regulators alleges.
Abram Goldman-Armstrong and a licensed security guard who was working at his Northeast Portland cidery that day also are accused of providing misleading statements to state authorities during the investigation, documents claim.
The Cider Riot! owner says there will always be a place for the far Left communistas to meet.
For bad journalism you can’t get much worse than the hit piece about the Patriot Prayer group contained in Wednesday’s edition of Willamette Week.
This poisonous piece of agitprop – suffused with factual errors and pernicious assertions – took the hysterical ravings of the Portland mayor and his spokespersons and constructed a narrative to smear the group that had all the the sturdiness of dryer lint. Worse, the Potemkin-like story was used to “galvanize” the mayor’s office to write a new ordinance curbing first amendment rights.
The piece, headlined “Portland Police Found Right-Wing Protesters With a Cache of Long Guns Atop a Parking Garage. Why Didn’t the Mayor Know?” was so misleading, so factually-challenged, so fundamentally dumb that the Portland Police Bureau had to issue a page-long statement ‘clarifying’ the misreading of the circumstances, mischaracterizations of the law and misstatement of facts contained in this counterfeit ‘news’ item.
The Willamette Week reporter began the piece by ascribing to Mayor Ted Wheeler the outrageous and detached-from-reality characterizations of the alleged activities of the Patriot Prayer group – without ever correcting them. Ever.
From the piece:
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler intended to look decisive Monday afternoon by announcing an emergency ordinance that would give police broad authority to control warring protest groups.
But as he justified his action, the mayor opened a can of worms. He described an alarming discovery—a nest of guns on a downtown roof—that raised more questions than it answered.
She then began the recitation of supposed facts:
In the early morning of Aug. 4, hours before a massive waterfront protest, Portland police officers discovered a group of Patriot Prayer supporters on the roof of a parking garage in downtown. According to a description provided in the mayor’s proposed ordinance, the men had a “cache of firearms,” which a mayoral staffer would later describe as “long guns.”
Let’s break this down. Look at those terms. Using “Cache of firearms,” “a nest of guns on a downtown roof” made it sound like James Hodgkinson or Micah Xavier Johnson (the leftist loons who shot Republican Congressman Steve Scalise and several other Republicans and the Dallas police officer sniper, respectively) were setting up a sniper’s nest to take out the innocents below.
The paper, quoting the proposed new ordinance, which appears to call for campus-like free speech zones, expressly stated that this “cache of firearms” is what prompted the proposed change in the law:
“Prior to the start of the scheduled demonstrations [August 4] police discovered individuals who had positioned themselves on a rooftop parking structure in downtown Portland with a cache of firearms,” the ordinance says.
The reporter then added:
“It is unclear when Police Chief Danielle Outlaw learned about the Patriot Prayer supporters waiting on the roof with long guns.”
Cue the scary music. The paper now upped the ante by characterizing Patriot Prayer as “waiting on the roof with long guns:
Police say they seized the guns—but could not detain or cite the protesters because they had concealed handgun licenses that allow them to carry the weapons legally. Officials say they later returned the firearms.”
First of all, you don’t need a permit to own a “long gun.” Furthermore, several of the members did have permits to conceal carry pistols. So, which is it, Willamette Week? Which ones did the police “seize” because they were illegal?
The Portland Police Bureau could just be talking out both sides of its mouth, but here’s the “clarification” it issued an hour after someone hit the publish button on the Willamette Week hit piece:
About that nest of snipers:
“…[O]fficers witnessed several people parking their cars and gathering on the top floor of a parking garage, located approximately three blocks away from the where the event was to be held at the Salmon Springs Fountain.”
In short, police say the Patriot Prayer supporters were parking in the parking garage and getting ready for their march, which included carrying open and concealed guns. They were getting suited up for the expected clash with Antifa/communista, which never happened – a fact that made Wheeler’s response two months later seem completely untethered from reality.
Here’s what the police say they observed:
Police watched them place items that could be used as weapons, such as make-shift sticks and signs with sticks, into their vehicles and some of them kept these items and said they would not enter the park. The group eventually departed the garage on foot.
Meanwhile, four individuals were located on the northeast side of the top floor of the garage. The sergeant involved contacted them and they confirmed they had three rifles and had concealed weapon permits. The men told the sergeant they were going to stay at the garage and act as a quick extraction team in case any of their group was injured during the demonstration. The men were compliant and allowed the sergeant to inspect the weapons. All three firearms were in cases (one was disassembled) and none were loaded.
[ … ]
…[N]o firearms were seized or taken as safe keeping from the individuals in the parking garage,No arrests were made as no laws were broken.”
PPB did indicate that it was concerned that protesters on both sides have begun talking openly about carrying their pistols and wearing body armor.
I’ve spoken with insiders who say Antifa members routinely carry. It would seem prudent, therefore, to wear perfectly legal body armor if your mere presence triggers the Leftists.
Here’s how WW previously characterized protesters:
“Portland city officials say they cannot stop right-wing groups like Patriot Prayer from demonstrating, even though their rallies often devolve into violence.”
Oregon Firearms Federation President Kevin Starrett told VictoriaTaft.com that Willamette Week and Mayor Wheeler got their assignment of blame and prescription for a cure exactly backwards:
“Once again the incompetent leftists who mismanage Portland push fake news to distort the truth and cover for the thugs who rule Portland’s streets. Ted Wheeler has only the most tenuous grasp on reality but is determined to demonize the people standing up to the fascist mobs who terrorize people unfortunate enough to have to drive through his miserable city.”
In fact, Ted Wheeler actually allowed the police to do their jobs that day. He, in fact, issued a statement about that success. Police kept apart Antifa away from Gibson’s group so there was no violence. That is, until the communist group got upset and began picking fights with cops. Willamette Week reports, “the day ended with a chaotic, violent clashbetween police and left-wing counterprotesters.” Repeat: Not Joey Gibson’s group.
But Willamette Week had a narrative, dammit, and it was going to push it for the Left. It intoned, “How much danger did the public and the mayor not know about on Aug. 4?”
Mayor Ted Wheeler, we learn from this story, just found out about the guns in the parking garage two days ago. But the mayor and his minions wrote a new ordinance to curb free speech and did so based on this phony story that there was a “nest” of gunmen with a “cache of weapons” “waiting on the roof with long guns.” The group members broke no laws and cooperated fully with police at a march for free speech that included no violent outbursts. Wheeler worked his Jedi mind tricks to blame Patriot Prayer, formed to counter Antifa violence, as the chief reason the city needed a new protest law.
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.”
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.”
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
I have re-emerged from my website silence (I’m moving, don’t ask) just in time for the Mark Callahan-Willamette Week 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,”
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…
The Multnomah County GOP is holding the raffle for a hand gun or an AR-15 rifle to raise money for the party and draw people to the annual Lincoln Day Dinner featuring Senator Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael. The idea is taking fire from local media and from one Portland African American businessman who thinks the idea is wrongheaded and racist.
Friend of the GOP and real estate broker, Fred Stewart, posted this to his Facebook page today,
Unaware of the story in the media, I naturally asked Fred what he was talking about and why he was going nuclear–alleging racism by an entire group of people–without any rationale.
Stewart explained the idea of a gun raffle to honor two American heroes who lost their lives in their quest for freedom is “humiliating” and insensitive to black people the party is trying to entice. He implied MCRP leader Jeff Reynolds must be racist to even consider hosting such an event.
The Multnomah County chair may have his short comings, but being a racist is not one of them. Moreover, the co-planner of the event is the mother to African American children who ironically had been targets of taunting and racist chanting by Portland leftists who crashed a 2011 Tea Party event.
The gun story has been picked up by local media which is eager to regurgitate the facile tale of ‘racist, gun toting Republicans.’ Commenters on the Willamette Week story are pushing the tiresome cliches.