On Refusing to Argue the Merits of Ideologies

Sebastian points to this post at Ace of Spades, about political (dis)honesty. It's worth a read in its entirety, but I want to zero in on a particular point:

[I]f your arguments in favor of amnesty are as potent as you think they are (and you must think they're potent, because, like Obama, you seem to think the only possible objection is racism and hatred), why not actually share them with the group?

You can't convince people of your position if you refuse to state what it is and the reasons for it. [emphasis in original]

[blink blink]

That's some pure, distilled truth right there, with far-reaching ramifications on any topic, be it immigration/amnesty, free speech, or gun rights. Someone who won't state their position, let alone argue it:

• Doesn't trust you enough to share where they really stand.
• Doesn't trust that you won't overreact and/or get violent if you happen to disagree.
• Doesn't believe you are worth discussing important issues with, as fellow adults.
• Doesn't feel they need to earn your support (but still feels entitled to it).
• At the end of the day, doesn't respect you at all.

Basically, it comes down to politicians telling their constituents, "I believe what I believe, for the reasons I believe it … which I'm choosing not to share right now … or ever. Because I say so*!"

Y'know, as if we're small children.

That's not how mature adults interact with each other. Suffice it to say, that's absolutely not how elected officials should be treating their voters.

Something to consider this election season. Vote accordingly.
------------
* - "… and if you don't agree, you must be a [insert personal insult, probably an '-ist' word]!"

Recent Happenings and Stuff

I tell you, you step out for a while to deal with mundane things like work, family, and holidays (OK, some of those aren't so mundane), and you miss out on sharing some important happenings.

This won't qualify as a "tab-clearing", but I do have a couple things to report and share.

First, there are a couple legislative items in the upcoming "short session" in Oregon. From OFF, we have two anti-gun bills proposed:

• LC 250 [PDF warning], introduced as a "committee bill" (so nobody's name is on it, though it's suspected perennial anti-gunner Floyd Prozanski wrote it), allows certain persons to call the Oregon State Police Firearms Unit to report a "mental health crisis", causing a 30-day hold on the ability to purchase a firearm. While it's not a full-on "gun violence restraining order", a la California (wherein the police actually seize any guns currently owned), the list of acceptable reporters is pretty long and the conditions pretty loose, with civil immunity for reporters acting "in good faith" and misdemeanor penalties for knowingly making false reports. The identities of such reporters are not released, though, so good luck proving bad faith (or even raising the accusation).
• LC 263 [now HB 4147 — ed.] [PDF warning], "Prohibits transfer of firearm by dealer or private party if Department of State Police is unable to determine whether recipient is qualified to receive firearm." Translation: No more "default proceeds". If you receive a "delay" during a firearm transfer, there's no transfer until the "delay" is definitively resolved.

Both bills, naturally, invoke the "emergency" clause, so they go into effect immediately. Oregon voters won't be allowed to fix or repeal them for at least two years.

Oregon gun owners, it's time to take action. Call, write, e-mail, visit in person, whatever you can do to help stop these bills.

In other news, Mike Vanderboegh, gun rights and liberty activist, citizen journalist, unofficial founder of the III% movement, and proprietor of the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog, is not long of this earth. His friends are asking that people who receive value from his work over the years (and there has been a lot of work, over a lot of years — among other things, "Operation Fast & Furious" would still be unknown if not for him) make a "gratitude offering" to help him get his final affairs in order and see that his wife, Rosey, is taken care of. More information from David Codrea here. They are also organizing work parties to help get his home and yard in working order, so if you have skills, tools, or even just a good work ethic, and are in the Pinson, Alabama, area, see if you can drop them a line and help out.

This last is not gun-related, or even news, but this particular track has been on my heart quite a bit lately. Maybe our dear readers will find inspiration and/or enjoyment in it as well. I could not for the life of me find an "official" video, but I actually like the imagery in this lyric version:

As always, stay safe.

New Jersey is at it Again

Hiz 'oner
dougernst.files.wordpress.com

 

Chris Christie’s New Jersey is at it again: bringing the full weight of the state against an innocent CCW carrier.  This case is far too similar to the travesty endured by Shaneen Allen.

The Fletcher Family
Range365.com

          Brian Fletcher mobilized his crew to repair storm related cell phone tower damage in Trenton, New Jersey. He left his North Carolina home less than an hour after an emergency plea from New Jersey. Once in Jersey, he was approached by a police officer. Fletcher handed over his ID and as any good North Carolina citizen would, he informed the officer that he had his CCW in his vehicle.

         Ignoring Fletcher’s critical disaster relief role, his NC CCW permit and his absolute lack of any criminal intent, the cop arrested and charged Fletcher with carrying a firearm - a Class 2 Felony in the Garbage State. It seems if a New Jersey cop approaches, you should only give him your name, rank and serial number, as you are deep in enemy territory.

         Fletcher is now home in North Carolina, free on a $25,000 dollar bond. A law-abiding man, he faces five years in prison and the ruin of his life for a "crime" without intent nor victim. His lawyer is trying for the pre-trial intervention program and hoping for a pardon. 

         We wish NJ governor Christie would shake off his usual food coma and do the right thing. We hope he immediately frees an innocent man, rather than waiting for the right time in his presidential campaign.  

phalsephillysports.files.wordpress.com

        And big guy, start to fix your damn state’s insane gun laws NOW, or you can choke on your overfed political ambitions.  

Bad News on S.B. 941

It passed.

As in, passed the Senate (which I talked about here), and last night passed the House, too.

It's now going to Gov. Kate Brown's desk, where all the local news channels are reporting she's expected to sign it.

I know it's a long shot — she's a Portland-area Democrat, after all, and those types generally just love them some "gun control" — but until she puts pen to paper, there's still a chance.

So here's my proposal:

She's openly bi-sexual, and made her political bread standing up for "gay rights" and "women's rights". Hit up her Contact box with pro-gun messages, and emphasize the pro-woman and pro-gay aspects. Hit her in the heartstrings.

Talk about the hypothetical battered woman whose friend offers to loan her a firearm to protect herself from her abusive spouse; both would be instant felons if S.B. 941 is signed into law.

Talk about the hypothetical gay couple who endure hateful slurs day in and day out, who start receiving credible threats against their lives and safety. One may own firearms, but cannot legally transfer a gun to the other — because they're a same-sex couple, they cannot be legally married in Oregon*, and so the spousal exemption in S.B. 941 doesn't apply; they'd both be felons if it becomes law.

[Added:] It's come to my attention that recent court challenges may nullify (or may have already nullified) the "one man, one woman" language in the Oregon Constitution, so this second hypothetical may be a non-starter. Regardless, spam the contact form with the first hypothetical and the notion that criminals don't run background checks or register their guns. Mention Haynes v. U.S. for extra credit on that one. [/Added]

Also, make sure to point out that no criminal transfers will be prevented by this law. None. Zero.

I know it's a long shot, but we've got to take it. Hail Mary's work occasionally.

Light her up.

Stay safe.
------------
* - Oregon State Constitution, Article XV, Section 5a. "Policy regarding marriage. It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage." Hey, I didn't make the rules, but we can use them.

Update on the "Universal Background Check" / Registration Bill

I've been a bit remiss in reporting on this. For that, you have my apologies.

Here's where we're at now: Senate Bill 941 has passed through the Senate. As I said earlier here and here, Senator Prozanski pushed it through the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote, sending it to the Senate floor. Senate President Peter Courtney (himself no friend to gun owners) got a full vote on it rather quickly, and it passed on near-party-lines; one Democrat — Betsy Close, and actual pro-gun Democrat (yes, they exist!) — voted against it, but even with her dissent it passed.

So now the bill is in the House, assigned to the House Rules Committee. (Why not Judiciary, as in the Senate? Because it could face opposition there. The Rules Committee is much more receptive to anti-gun bills.) House Speaker Val Hoyle — who courted gun owners during her election campaign — has intimated that it will get through the House quickly.

If that happens, it's a near-certainty that ultra-"Progressive" Governor Kate Brown will sign it into law.

So right now the fight is in the House Rules Committee, and they will be holding a public hearing on the bill tomorrow, April 22nd, at 1:00 pm in Room 50 (in the basement of the Capitol building). People wishing to testify in person will need to sign up starting at 11:30 am. We're expecting anti-gun groups like CeaseFire Oregon and Bloomberg's Demanding Moms to try to pack the House (literally, in this case), so any extra support we can get from the pro-gun side will be helpful.

This is it. This is very likely our last chance to fight this thing. If any of our most excellent readers can be there, it will be appreciated. And if you can't be there but live in Oregon, contact your Representatives and urge a "No" vote.

[ADDED:] If you can't make it to the hearing, but still want to submit written testimony, e-mail it to hrules.exhibits@state.or.us. They prefer written testimony in PDF format. [/ADDED]

Stay safe, everyone.

Oregon S.B. 941 Clears Senate

Surprising precisely nobody.

What is surprising (or perhaps not, if you've been paying attention lately) is that the Democrats used Senate rules and procedural moves to actively shut down Republican participation — killing a number of bills and amendments that would ultimately benefit all Oregonians, not just gun owners — and the chief sponsor, Sen. Floyd Prozanski, reportedly open-faced lied about what was in his bill and what it would do.

Giving him the benefit of doubt, it's possible he hasn't read the very bill he's sponsoring and doesn't know what's in it (taking a page from Nancy "We'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" Pelosi's book), or he's deliberately obfuscating and deceiving both the Senate and the public.

I don't know which is worse, but either is unacceptable behavior for a Senator (although oddly not unexpected for a committed anti-freedom [not just anti-gun] collectivist).

So now we take the fight to the House. Expect procedural shenanigans there, too, and probably lies and deceptions about what the bill does.

If you live in Oregon, contact your representative (listed alphabetically by last name) and tell him/her you expect a "No" vote on this. If you don't know who represents your district or what district you're in, check this map (residents of the Salem and Portland area, zoom in to make sure; the boundaries are … interesting).

And as always, stay safe.

(Hat tip: Oregon Firearms Federation e-mail alert)

Rand Paul: The Conservative's Proper Response to "Gotcha" Questions

I'd make this a Quote of the Day, but it's so much bigger than a mere QOTD. (Via Ace of Spades, in turn via Legal Insurrection.)

So Rand Paul just announced his 2016 Presidential campaign, and at a press conference was asked about his views on abortion (and abortion exemptions) by NH1 reporter Paul Steinhauser. Mr. Steinhauser pointed out that the Democratic National Convention (DNC) had picked up on some comments Rand had said on the topic and asked him to clarify.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
(source)

Rather than fall for the "gotcha" question, Rand caught it and threw it back harder:

Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask [DNC head] Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if she's okay with killing a seven-pound baby that is just not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when she's willing to protect life.

When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.

BOOM!

"Gotcha" questions are intentionally pointed, designed and intended to fracture and divide the voter base, thus weakening the support any candidate can claim.

Republican candidates have to start realizing that the media is biased against them, and act/answer accordingly. The media is full of Democrat shills: they will never ask tough questions of Democratic candidates.

Call them to the carpet on it.

It's not about the question or the answer: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's views on any restrictions on abortion are well-known (if you can call that 18-word deflection to a "yes/no" question an answer). It's about the press grilling conservative candidates with hard-ball question after hard-ball question (and taking everything out of context whenever it makes the conservative look worse), all the while asking easy questions and no tough follow-ups of Democrats. It's about media bias, and the best way to confront it is to expose it for what it is.

Ace's conclusion is God's Honest Truth:

This should be the standard answer to any media question about the fringier parts of the Republican coalition: I will answer your question the very moment you ask the Democrats about this analogous fringe demand of the Democrat Party.

Come back to me with an answer, and I'll answer your question.

Oh, and caveat: If you ask the Democrat the question in an obligatory manner, and don't bother to ask the obvious follow-up questions to get past the first answer (which is always a hot ball of stinky gas), then that's the exact sort of answer I'll give you, refusing to answer the follow-up questions you wish to ask me but not your Beloved Democrat Politician. [emphasis in original]

I'll even add my own caveat: If you ask a "yes/no" question and accept anything other than "yes" or "no" (as in DWS's response), expect the same from me. If you want a one-word answer to a "yes/no" question from me, press for nothing less from your Democrat buddies.

Now, I'm not sure yet who "my candidate" will be, so I can't tell yet if Rand Paul is "my guy", but this was an epic turn-around of a hostile question and he deserves no small credit for it.

And because this is a gun blog, we can draw a parallel to gun-related questions: anytime the press asks about firearms and gets an, "I support the Second Amendment, but…" response, follow it up with a hard question like, "Can you reconcile all the proposed infringements you describe as 'common-sense' with the clear language of the Second Amendment, which you said you support, and which says 'shall not be infringed'?" Or, "You say you support the Second Amendment. What current gun laws are, in your opinion, overly burdensome or unfair, and will you work to repeal them?" At the bottom line, these are "yes/no" questions; if you get any wishy-washy statements that don't include a clear "yes" or "no", they are liars and should be exposed as such.

Stay safe.

Senate Bill 941 Update — Bad News

All good things must come to an end, apparently.

I reported this weekend that Oregon Senate Bill 941 was facing opposition in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we were looking at possible amendments that would remove any "teeth" from the bill, and potentially kill it.

Via another update from the Oregon Firearms Federation, I have some bad news: S.B. 941 was passed out of Judiciary on a party-line vote, and Judiciary Chairman Sen. Floyd Prozanski (who is also the author and primary sponsor of the bill) would not even consider any of Sen. Kim Thatcher's proposed amendments.

It's no surprise; S.B. 941 is Sen. Prozanski's baby. Why let little things like rational opposition, Constitutional rights, or moral decency get in the way of a perfectly good agenda?

So now it goes to the full Senate (there's little chance that Senate President Peter Courtney — also a committed anti-gunner — is going to assign it to another committee), where it's likely to pass. After the 2014 elections, the GOP lost two Senate seats: Democrats have a 18-12 majority, and there's only one reliably pro-gun Democrat in the mix.

Then it goes to the House, where we still have a chance to end it; the Dems have a majority in the House, too, but it's not quite as overwhelming. We'll still need to find out which committee(s) the bill gets assigned to, and light up the phones and e-mail servers. I'll post the committee assignment(s) and contact information for the committee members when I learn more.

Until then, stay tuned, and stay safe.

Update on Oregon Senate Bill 941

I figured I'd kick off the weekend with some good news!

Via the Oregon Firearms Federation's e-mailing list, I learned that the committee vote on Oregon's Senate Bill 941 (which I wrote about here) has been postponed until Monday, April 6th. The postponement is due to amendments introduced by Sen. Kim Thatcher, who historically has been solid on gun rights.

Sen. Kim Thatcher
(source)

The first proposed amendment (PDF warning), if passed, would require that instead of subjecting private firearm transfers to Oregon State Police background checks — which include registration — the Dept. of Justice will notify the Dept. of Motor Vehicles of all Oregonians with felony convictions, and when their driver licenses, learning permits, and non-driver ID cards are up for renewal, they will be marked. All the private seller is recommended to do, then, is check the ID of the buyer: no "felon" brand, and the sale is good to go. It will also help dealers, too; if they check the ID and it's marked as a "felon", they don't need to contact OSP and pay the $10 fee to run the check in the first place.

Another amendment put forth by Sen. Thatcher removes all the text of the original S.B. 941 and replaces it with a provision that merely removes the "knows or reasonably should know" language from the criminal statutes on selling to prohibited persons (ORS 166.436 and 166.470). No DMV records get updated, no changes to ID cards; if you sell to a prohibited person, you're liable, but background checks remain 100% voluntary for private transfers (although, as an incentive, there is a criminal and civil immunity provision [ORS 166.436(7)] for the private seller if he/she runs a background check on the buyer, the buyer passes, and the buyer uses the firearm in the commission of a crime). There's no text for this proposed amendment yet; I'll update this post if/when it becomes available.

These are not bad amendments (I prefer the second one, as it mostly maintains the system as-is), but I believe in the end one or the other will serve as a "poison pill"; it'll cause the legislative death of the original bill when the sponsors pull the bill or refuse to vote for it. In this case, we can call it A Good Thing™. We'll see how the amendments do in committee and/or the Senate floor.

Stay safe.

Updated: Oregon Gun Owners: Your Weekend Activism

Sen. Floyd Prozanski
(source: OregonLive.com article)

By now, many of you may have heard of Senate Bill 941 (PDF warning), introduced by one of our resident perennial gun-grabbers, Senater Floyd Prozanski.

I can sum up my feelings on this one in four simple words:

This. Bill. Must. Fail.

This is a bill for the infamous "Universal Background Check" (UBC). It is a ban on private transfers of firearms, with a few exceptions. A violation of this bill, should it become law, is a Class A misdemeanor on the first conviction, and a Class B felony on any subsequent convictions. Penalties for the first conviction are up to a year in prison, a fine of up to $6,250, or both. Subsequent convictions: up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.

But wait (as the late, great pitch-man Billy Mays used to say), there's more: Background checks in Oregon are not run through NICS for free. Oh, no; that would be too simple. They're run by the Oregon State Police Background Check Unit (OSP BCU), who charges $10 for the "service" of running that check for you.

But wait, there's still more: The "dealer number" for the OSP BCU is still not available for "civilians" to use. Nope, if you want to do a private sale/transfer, you and the buyer/seller will have to appear, in person, before a federally-licensed gun dealer, who can call and run the check, charge you the OSP BCU's $10, plus whatever the dealer chooses to charge for the "service".

And, if you're the seller, you would be required to follow all the "record retention" laws in regards to the paperwork concerning that sale, as if you were a dealer. Penalties are the same as if you were a dealer whose "bound book" didn't quite measure up to ATF inspection.

Oh, yeah, and OSP BCU is the group that creates the registry of commercial firearm transfers, and this bill now extends the same guidelines and requirements to private transfers. Welcome to full registration, folks!

So I'll repeat what I said above: This. Bill. Must. Fail.

You're weekend activism homework: Contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (where the bill currently resides) and urge them to vote against passing this travesty to the Senate floor. The members are (click to e-mail):

• Sen. Floyd Prozanski — 503-986-1713
• Sen. Jeff Kruse — 503-986-1701
• Sen. Sara Gelser — 503-986-1708
• Sen. Ginny Burdick — 503-986-1718
• Sen. Kim Thatcher — 503-986-1704

You might have noticed that Sen. Prozanski is not only the author of the bill, but he's also the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee where the bill currently resides. Hardly seems fair, does it?

[UPDATE: 3/30 5:00 pm] Written testimony can be submitted to the whole committee staff by e-mailing it to SJud.Exhibits@state.or.us. They prefer written materials to be in PDF format, but the advantage is that any materials submitted become part of the public record attached to the bill. According to the agenda for the day, "The committee meeting record will remain open and testimony will be accepted until 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 1." That's the deadline. [/UPDATE]

Let's do what we can to kill it in committee.

Thanks, and stay safe.

On Oregon's New Governor, Kate Brown

I'm attempting to stick to actual facts here, but for full disclosure: I'm not a fan.

TL;DR version: Oregon's conservatives and gun owners will have our hands full.

Governor Kate Brown
(source: Wikipedia)

I've been trying to do research on Gov. Brown since hearing of former-Gov. Kitzhaber's resignation last week, but as Secretary of State elections aren't as … high-profile … as other races, I haven't been able to dig up much.

On the surface, the Secretary of State's job duties are pretty straightforward. As put forth in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 177, the office has very few explicit duties, and most provide surprisingly little wiggle-room for partisan politics. The Oregon Secretary of State is responsible for:

• Keeping records of all official acts of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) and informing the legislature of the same; and,
• Affixing the state seal, countersigning, and keeping a register of official acts and commissions issued by the Governor; and,
• The safekeeping of all enrolled laws and resolutions; and,
• Keeping the office open during business hours.

Really, not that much. The Secretary of State's office also oversees elections, which includes monitoring the electorate rolls (i.e. who can vote), approving petitions (including validating signatures), verifying candidacy of electoral candidates, etc. That part of the job has a bigger impact to Oregon, but Oregon's laws and rules for elections are a lot of "if ... then ... shall" language; there's not much room to influence any particular race, or really any race for that matter. Either petitioners and potential candidates meet all requirements and follow the rules and get added to the ballot, or they don't and they don't.

On the other hand, the Office of the Secretary of State is a powerful loudspeaker, elevating an otherwise-mundane official into a powerful spokesperson. People listen to the person who holds this office, and as an elected official, we can look at who supported Kate Brown's last races, when she was elected in 2008 and re-elected to another term in 2012. And here is where it gets interesting (and no, the picture is not pretty).

Looking through her views on the issues particular to her office, she's a vocal opponent to "voter ID" laws — y'know, the ones that keep illegal immigrants from voting illegally. We can also infer from that link that she's in favor of limiting campaign spending. Say what you want about it, but getting the word out about someone's candidacy and position on issues requires money, and at the time she was promoting voluntary (for now) spending limits, she was the incumbent. She already had a metaphorical soapbox and bullhorn, and would have denied an equivalent voice to her challenger (also, he was out-raising and out-spending her by a wide margin).

As far as endorsements and campaign contributors from the 2012 election, it's a veritable who's-who of leftist, "Progressive" groups. Additionally, one of the controversies from the 2008 election was the involvement of the Secretary of State Project, described as "a below-the-radar 527 political organization whose stated purpose is 'wrestling control of the country from the Republican Party' through the process of 'removing their political operatives from deciding who can vote and whose votes will count,' namely the office of Secretary of State in many cases."

To be clear, I'll say that again: Kate Brown was supported, by both endorsement and financial assistance, by a (now-dissolved) group committed to removing Republican candidates from power by disallowing and/or disqualifying Republican voters from voting. Whether or not the Oregon Secretary of State is able to do such a thing is irrelevant; her campaign accepted the endorsement and money, so obviously they have some shared interests.

Oregon's Only No Compromise
Gun Rights Organization
(click to visit OFF's site)

So while her views on guns and gun laws may be relatively unknown, her past campaigns and behaviors paint her as a far-leftist — an "extremist", to use the SPLC vernacular — so I'm willing to give the Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) the benefit of the doubt when they recently stated, "While many will see [John Kitzhaber's resignation] as good news, since he promised to make more restrictions on gun rights a 'priority,' keep in mind his replacement, Kate Brown, will be every bit as bad as he was on gun rights. There is plenty of reason to believe she will be worse."

I pray for all gun owners and conservatives in Oregon.

Stay safe.

Local Newspaper The Oregonian Calls for Governor's Resignation [UPDATED]

Gov. John Kitzhaber (source: Fox News)

In a surprising development, the editorial staff at The Oregonian, Oregon's largest-circulating birdcage-liner, is asking that recently-reelected Governor John Kitzhaber resign from office, over the scandals concerning his and his fiancée's apparent unethical conflicts of interest.

Via Fox News:

Kitzhaber, a Democrat in his fourth term as governor, has been under attack since revelations that his fiancée, Cylvia Hayes, was being paid to lobby on behalf of the clean energy industry while at the same time holding the title of Oregon's first lady and filling the role of unpaid policy adviser in the Kitzhaber administration. The Oregon Government Ethics Commission is investigating whether Hayes' consulting work was a conflict of interest, but the Oregonian says the evidence is clear.

"Whether through gross inattention or complicity, Kitzhaber has broken faith with Oregonians. His career in Oregon politics is one of great accomplishment, but his past success does not excuse the mess he has made of the office with which Oregonians entrusted him. He is now less a governor than a source of unending distraction," The Oregonian wrote. (emphasis added)

KGW reports both how much Cylvia Hayes made from her unscrupulous side work, and also how the "jobs" were lined up:

The call for resignation follows an earlier Oregonian report that associates of Kitzhaber helped create jobs for Hayes, work that influenced state policy on energy.

Her calendar shows Hayes held the paid posts simultaneously as she served as an unpaid energy adviser inside Kitzhaber's office, The Oregonian reported.

One of the jobs paid her $5,000 for five months after Kitzhaber started his third term. A current Kitzhaber aide, Greg Wolf, was key in creating the position and in suggesting Hayes take the job, the newspaper reported.

The second was a two-year fellowship created by Dan Carol, a Kitzhaber campaign advisor who later joined his staff. It paid $118,000 over two years.

The Oregonian reported that both jobs involved foundations and organizations with direct interest in state policy making.

And in a move that surprises precisely nobody, Gov. Kitzhaber responds that he's not going anywhere (via the same Fox News article):

"I'm not going to consider resigning," said Kitzhaber. "I was elected by the people of this state to do a job, and I intend to do it."

This whole mess is shocking for several reasons, not the least of which is that Gov. Kitzhaber was re-elected despite these scandalous concerns, but also that The Oregonian editorial staff endorsed his campaign!

If this were happening in any other state, the ironic schadenfreude would be delicious. But because this is my state, I weep for our future.

[UPDATE:] A "prospective petition" has been filed to recall Gov. Kitzhaber, and needs to gather at least 220,000 signatures in 90 days. As petitioner Arin Marcus says, "Two hundred twenty thousand people in Oregon are upset with the governor so it shouldn’t be that difficult." The election was pretty close, so I'd say there's a lot more than that. The hard part will be finding them all and getting them to sign in time.

If Gov. Kitzhaber resigns or is recalled, the Oregon Constitution says he will be succeeded by the Secretary of State, which in this case is Kate Brown, a Portland-area Democrat. I'll admit I don't know too much of her personal political leanings, but: She's a Portland-area Democrat (Strike 1); she's a career politician, holding office for more than half her life (Strike 2); her educational background is in Environmental Conservation, Women's Studies, and law (Strike 3); and she's received various awards and distinctions from groups like Basic Rights Oregon (LGBT-rights advocates), Oregon Commission for Women, the American Mental Health Counselors Association, and the Oregon Psychological Association (Strike 4?). It's a safe bet that gun owners' rights aren't high on her priority list, but maybe we'll get lucky and she won't be a fully-committed anti-gunner [*snerk*]. [/UPDATE]

Stay safe.

The Corruption of Diane Feinstein

Senator’s Husband Stands To Profit Big From Government Deal

     How big? One Billion dollars of big. 

     One of the obvious dichotomies in the political process is the amount of money spent to win an elected position that only pays pennies on the dollar. Not so apparent is the steady increase in many politician's wealth as their power and influence grows. Many pols retire extremely wealthy. The Divine DiFi (Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA) is now one of the 50th wealthiest women in the world; her personal net worth is an eye-opening $70 Million. Interesting, as she started as a lawyer in bathhouses of San Francisco. She largely amassed that fortune during her decades of  public service (a term definitely used advisably.)

Senator Dianne Feinstein
(bp.blogspot.com)

      She stands to get even richer, as her husband Richard Blum, of Blum Capitol Partners, is a recipient of a sweetheart deal to sell government buildings. As the sole negotiator for 54 USPS buildings, his company would rake in commissions averaging $18.5 Million a building. That's a damn fine payday. Or payoff.

      It would seem this is a fine example of the "soft" corruption that is endemic in our nations political class. Deals are cut and slotted to those with connections to the leaders. It a relatively small group, known to us as the "Elites". Money flows from the People, to the Government, and then to their friends and compatriots. The Government benefits not the People, but the elite class.

     To the focus of this blog, our leaders jealously accumulate not only money and wealth, but power too. The arms owned by the populace are a significant power not controlled by the elites. Which may explain why DiFi hs for so long been adamant about removing arms from the hands of the populace.

(humanevents.com)

    Read the above link and decide for yourself. Guard your money -- and your rights.

HT: Drudge and NY Post

BREAKING: Leftist CA AG Kamala Harris Running For U.S. Senate

California Attorney General Kamala Harris
Photo by Jason Merritt
(Source: Examiner.com article)

... to fill the seat soon-to-be vacated by Senator Barbara Boxer (Dimwit–CA). Charlie Foxtrot covered Boxer's retirement the other day.

Dave Workman reports on this new development:

California Attorney General Kamala Harris is “all in” as a candidate to replace retiring Senator Barbara Boxer as the next anti-gun Democrat to represent the Golden State in Washington, D.C., the San Francisco Chronicle is reporting this morning. (link in original)

I can't honestly say I'm surprised. A young(ish) anti-gun "Progressive" Democrat moonbat is running to replace an old anti-gun "Progressive" Democrat moonbat. As Mr. Workman also notes, I guess we should be thankful former CA State Sen. Leland Yee (Dunce–8) isn't running? Or worse yet (in my opinion), current CA State Sen. Kevin deLeón (Dolt–24)?

The question is: What can/will California's gun owning population do about it?

Stay safe.

Seen Elsewhere in the Gun Blogosphere...

Or, as The Tam says, "because I hate wasting good material at an away game."

Herschel over at The Captain's Journal offered up some discussion, "Will Democrats Control the Legislative Agenda on Guns?"

Naturally, this drew a ... dissenting opinion, this time in the spectre of commentator "Kaiser Derden":

seriously ? they think the lame duck Senate can pass gun control ? so far the GOP House has stopped everything ... quit crying wolf ... this is just a fundraising stunt ...

... to which people responded appropriately (actually rather kindly and patiently, in my opinion).

I had this to say in reply:

As has been implied, the GOP - while in power - doesn't have to push "gun control" for us to get "gun control". Or "immigration reform", or single-payer healthcare, or any other "Progressive" policy change.

They just have to not actively oppose it.

Don't underestimate how painfully easy it is to convince a lazy or spineless individual to do nothing.

Emphasis added on that last line; it's the important one.

So the Senate has changed hands and will be controlled by the GOP? Big deal. That will mean absolutely nothing if the Democrats can convince a just few RINOs to cross the aisle and most of the rest to simply not vote against The Agenda.

Also, click over to David Codrea's piece about the upcoming "continuing resolution" vote that inspired Herschel's post. It's a stark display on how a little "go along to get along" can produce massive setbacks and unintended (or intended?) consequences.

The GOP, starting in January, will control both chambers of Congress. Let me be clear(er than the President, who misuses/abuses the phrase): It's not over, and this is not the time to grow complacent. We won big, no doubt, but we have to keep the GOP lawmakers' feet to the fire, or all that we have gained will be just as quickly lost. The GOP Congress must cede no ground — not on gun rights, not on "immigration reform", not on healthcare, not on the budget, not on anything the Executive Branch doesn't have the explicit Constitutional power to control. Keep the pressure on.

And please, stay safe.

Excuses, Excuses

Been a busy time here.  Our daily pace of blogging will return when things stabilize.

Archer will continue his excellent postings. I'll post when time permits.
 
Until then, we've got an election of historic proportions coming up. We have it in our power to frustrate an administration bent on "fundamentally transforming America" through un-Constitutional means. 

I'm no fan of the current ossified Republican Party. However, they are an order of magnitude better than the progressive controlled Democrats. Obama's final two years may see 1 - 3 Supreme Court judges replaced, as well as countless lower court justices. With Harry Reid's revised judicial appointment approval process and Democrats in control of the Senate, Obama could put his ultra-liberal stamp on future decades.

So VOTE!  Get your friends to vote. Now is not the time to petulantly sit this one out.  

Oh, hell.... I buried the lede!

Plus... Dianne Feinstein is rumored to be considering retiring if the Dems loose the Senate. My god, if the possibility of getting that corrupt, old harpy out of politics doesn't make you want to vote Repub...  ;)  

DiFi With Her Fetishes
(bearingarms.com)

     

Sunday Funnies

"Borrowed" From Modern Musket and We Will NOT Be Disarmed

Love those guys.

Why Haven't the West African Flights Stopped?

"Of course, you can’t expect our government to be as competent as Nigeria’s."

Scott Johnson sums it up rather succinctly in his Powerline article Ebola Panic and the Limits of Political Sanity.  Go read it now; we'll wait.

This president is refusing to institute travel bans and quarantines. All for reasons of his own political beliefs, calculations, appearances and future plans. He has willingly chosen this path to the detriment of the men, women, and children of the United States. This is an inconceivable dereliction of a sacred duty. Except... it is completely believable for this president, his fellow-travelers and party.

(Drudge via Powerline)

Feeling the pressure of the public's well-founded concern, Obama appointed the "Ebola Czar" that he was adamantly against, then receptive to the possibility, and then finally wholeheartedly in favor of. This appointment is political eyewash; certainly not as anywhere near as constructive as a quarantine. It's telling that Obama's Ebola Czar is not a doctor, but a lawyer and political apparatchik.

Czar Ron Klain is the former chief of staff to Gore and Biden, a current press flack and lobbyist, and as a well-connected, reliably progressive, and administration-friendly political hack; absolutely loyal to the Obama administration. He has not a whit of infectious disease, medical, or health care system experience. Not the appointment that 'Boma would make if he was concerned with stopping the spread of a Cat 4 infectious disease within America's borders. It reaks of an effort to "massage the message", "keep a lid on things", and "control the damage" (all traditional political flack functions) -- 19 days before the critical Mid-term elections.   

Political Hack - And Ebola Czar - Ron Klain
(indystar.com)

Tell me again how America's in the best of hands.

  

Thoughts on Ebola - And Civilization

An Evolving List:

Citizens! You Have Nothing To Fear!
(Times of India)

21st Century Homo Sapiens is a fantastically interconnected, interdependent species. Where someone sneezing in Liberia can result in someone dying in Texas. 

Political Correctness is more powerful than millennia of experience and science.

Race can be injected into anything.

There is wisdom in admitting you do not know all the facts and are taking a conservative, risk mitigating approach until the situation becomes clearer. Wisdom has never been behind the podium at a 'Boma press conference. 

One point of infection can quickly become thousands of potential points in a modern mobile society; especially when assisted by political posturing and bureaucratic incompetence.

It is fantastically expensive to control a point of infection in a modern, interconnected, mass-service society; best to fight it over there. Sound familiar?

The best way to fight an infectious disease might just not be the 1st Armored. Completely different skill sets. I fear for our soldiers.  

The CDC is a $16 Billion a year clown show. And we're not laughing. 

Viruses evolve. Bureaucracies have a demonstrated ability not to.   

This'll keep me from commercial aircraft, cruise ships, malls, movie theaters, basketball games, DMV lines...  See, there's an upside to Ebola. 

Ye gods, what happens when we get a truly nasty virus? In all likelihood, this Ebola outbreak is nothing more that a pre-test. Somebody has got to go back to school.    

Reality has a rude habit of destroying carefully constructed fantasies. 

Elections have consequences.

Competency matters.

Paranoiac preparations are suddenly less paranoiac. 

California Anti-Gun Dreamin’

As part of a continuing effort to build their Golden Utopia upon the breaking bones of California, our Loonislature has put four more bad anti-gun bills on the governor’s desk. They vary from the ridiculous regulation of BB Guns as firearms to the sublime un-Constitutional stripping of Second Amendment Rights based on simple accusations. 

To Wit(less):   

AB 1014 (Skinner, Williams)

        Establishes shall-issue “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” and “Firearm seizure warrants” to be issued by California’s notoriously anti-gun courts

SB 808 (De León)

        Criminalizes home-built (hobbyist) firearms without serial numbers

AB 1609 (Alejo)
          New firearms importation regulations, penalties

SB 199 (De León)

        Expands regulations on BB guns

All is not lost, as our Governor Moonbeam, "Flaky Jerry" Brown, is now an island of reasonableness in the Looney-Left sea of Sacramento. Such is the state of California politics. All friends of Gun Rights should contact the Governor’s Office and oppose all these bills.   

Governor Jerry Brown

c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 445-2841

Fax: (916) 558-3160 

E-mail and fax Governor Brown