The deadline to file appeals to the State Wildfire Risk Map is March 10, 2025. Public sentiment has become clear in opposition to these maps. Will the Oregon legislature pursue Senate Bill 79?

State Representative Vikki Breese Iverson (R-Prineville) says, “My district was deeply affected by last year’s wildfire. We need to not only repeal the wildfire maps, but we also need to undo the damage caused by these maps.” She has identified four key policy changes that is needed to begin repairing the damage:

• Explore every opportunity to incentivize private insurance companies to offer plans to rural Oregonians again;
• Offer tax relief to Oregonians who lost their homes in major wildfires and pass HB 3139;
• Invoke state coordination to improve federal forest planning; and
• Return management control of our millions of acres of federal forest land to state and local governments (LC 4525).

What caused all this controversy? In 2021, SB 762 passed creating an updated wildfire program, which has opened a backdoor effort to prevent people from living in rural areas. This bill included one extremely controversial requirement – the establishment of a statewide wildfire risk map used to regulate people’s properties. Samantha Bayer exposes how legislative bills SB 79, SB 78, SB 77 and SB 73 are attacks on rural Oregon’s right to exist. Bayer also points out the legislators' hostility supporting the idea that people should not be allowed to live in areas mapped as high hazard on the state map is a threat against rural Oregonians. Representative Paul Evens (D-Monmouth) put his hostility in writing bulling the Greater Idaho Movement, which will further the demise of rural Oregon. He writes: “For the counties asking for assistance in capital construction funding for repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of county courthouses and justice facilities, I have suggested that we must prioritize funding for counties that intend to remain a part of Oregon for the duration.”

During testimony in 2021, Robert Powell, an avid researcher, exposed the connection of mapping to the Rockefeller Foundation, which established an environment-related program in 1969. Shortly after, the United State established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. In 1973, the Foundation gave $500,000 to Oregon State University to create a report, “Man and his activities as they relate to environmental quality,” based on the 1971 UN General Assembly Resolution 2581. The resolution came from the Stockholm Declaration, “Rights and obligations of citizens and governments with regard to the preservation and improvement of the human environment.”

Out of the OSU report came legislation SB 100, passed in 1973, which created an institutional structure for statewide planning. It required every Oregon city and county to prepare a comprehensive plan in accordance with a set of general state goals while preserving the principle of local responsibility for land-use decisions. It included setting up an NGO, 1000 Friends of Oregon, to deal with opposition that Oregonians were being deceived. Deceived they were. Under cover came the “Wildlands Project”, and when the UN Biodiversity treaty failed at the Rio Accord, they changed the name to “Commission on Sustainable Development” that is openly visible in SB 79.

Along came SB 762 and the new fire map that enhanced the purpose of the Rockefeller’s donation to OSU, to further the UN’s goal removing 30% of humans from the world. Biden followed with his 30 x 30 Executive Order 14008 dated January 27, 2021 and revoked by Executive Order 14148 and 14154, January 20, 2025, by President Trump. However, the revocation has not stopped the Democrat leadership in Oregon from pursuing SB 79 and like bills.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Oregonians need to recognize that the surface explanation for mapping has nothing to do with convenience, insurance or safety. Up until the time President Trump took office, there has been many intentional attempts to remove citizens from their land with fires and floods – Maui, North Carolina, Tennessee, Los Angeles, and they will continue until forced to stop. We all remember the Bundy standoff to protect ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond’s right to graze their cattle on public lands and protect their property from an out of control fire. Oregon’s loose enforcement has allowed backburns to get out of control blaming climate change.

When climate warming became unprovable, the name was replaced with climate change. In 2022, the Rockefeller Foundation announced that it would make the fight against climate change central to all of its work. At the same time, Governor Kate Brown took significant executive action to address the climate crisis, and Oregon adopted a revised Climate Protection Program in November 2024.

Oregon property owners will need to diligently follow this legislature and respond accordingly, by following Oregon Citizens Lobby Alerts.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-03-09 17:07:38

Last Update: 2025-03-09 23:55:09

Oregon is at risk of forfeiting the 30%+ federal money that helps subsidize Oregon schools. On February 5, Trump signed an executive order, "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," to bar trans women from female sports and locker rooms in federally funded institutions and followed-up by withholding funding for noncompliance. The order may only last as long as Republicans hold the white house, and the bill in congress is being blocked by Democrats. Still, can Oregon’s education survive without federal funding for four plus years?

Oregon Republican legislators want more stability for education and have introduced HB 3740 and SB 618 telling school districts and certain private schools to designate sports by biological gender. The bill forbids males from playing in female sports.

The bill in congress also seeks to add new wording to Title IX equality legislation so that "sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth." No more mixing the human race with fury animals and providing litter boxes in school bathrooms.

Representation Dwayne Yunker (R-Josephine County) agrees and has sponsored HB 2439, which removes the term "gender identity" from certain laws, including those related to education. Oregon has defined "gender identity" as an individual's gender-related identity, whether or not that identity is different from the individual's assigned sex at birth, including but not limited to a gender identity that is transgender or androgynous (being of two coexisting sexes). This definition was added to all laws referencing sexual orientation in 2021 (House Bill 3041). The bill also clarified that "gender expression" refers to the manner in which a person represents or expresses gender.

It isn’t really about discrimination when the inequity hinders the other party. Trans women with masculine bodies and strength becomes the aggressor victimizing the female gender. In the same way, Oregon leaders have become the aggressors victimizing school boards and students by refusing to consider HB 3740 and HB 2439.

If the Trump Administration investigates Oregon school policies, they will also find HB 2002 is in violation of Trump’s child mutilation executive order. HB 2002 pass by Democrats in 2023, allows children to get abortions without parents knowledge, and allows for “gender reassignment” surgeries.

Now, a detailed legal opinion from the Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee (OCL) has uncovered a critical policy conflict that places Oregon public schools at odds with federal law. Representative Bobby Levy (R-La Grand) lead an investigation that produced a stark divergence between state and federal regulations regarding transgender student participation in athletics.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Representative Ed Diehl (R-Scio) says, “The opinion reveals that Oregon policy, backed by the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) and the Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA), mandates that public high schools allow transgender students to compete on athletic teams aligning with their gender identity. However, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has clarified that Title IX, as currently enforced, prohibits such participation. This discrepancy could expose Oregon schools to federal investigations, sanctions, or even the suspension or termination of funding.”

The Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA) said state school districts would look to guidance from OSAA and the Oregon Department of Education. OSAA says they will continue to act under the direction of the Association's members and in compliance with applicable law. The Department continues to say they are researching the options. OSBA has indicated they will file a complaint and believes that will stall the freeze on funding, but will it?

Is the Legislature and Governor willing to lose around $1.6 billion, or $2,011 per pupil and hold 1,246 schools hostage in 197 school districts? Write the Oregon House Committee on Education to give HB 3740 and HB 2439 a hearing.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-03-09 14:15:56

Last Update: 2025-03-09 23:56:09

Tonight we heard President Trump give his first speech to lawmakers and the nation. He soke of ending DEI, closing the border, remove race and ‘wokeness’ theories out of schools and military, banned men from playing in women’s sports, opened up pipelines, and rid wasteful spending and will balance the federal budget.

Oregonians should ask Governor Tina Kotek and Attorney General Dan Rayfield to explain why they are not complying so Oregonians can benefit. Why aren’t they cutting taxes, why are they putting Oregon at risk of losing $39 billion in federal funds for the biennial budget and another $38 billion in Medicaid and direct federal aid for homeless and road repairs. That’s 55% of the state budget, all because they have some grand connection to 7.8% of Oregon's population that is LGBTQ+, which is less than the national average of 9.3%, and 4.98% that are noncitizens.

Kotek and Rayfield are gambling with the state putting it on the verge of bankruptcy for their ideologies of DEI, solar farms, sheltering as a sanctuary state, which translates into protecting criminals, abusing children, raising energy costs and welcoming noncitizens with full benefits. As they hold fast on climate change, it is freezing nearly $200 million DEQ federal funds.

Where was Kotek and Rayfield during President Trump’s first term? Did they not learn that what he says, he does?

How is Oregon Legislature preparing for the demise that is sure to come if Kotek keeps up her losing power play? Representative Paul Evans (D-Monmouth) is Co-Chair of the Public Safety Subcommittee for the Joint Committee on Ways & Means with Co-Chair Senator Anthony Broadman (D-Bend), are responsible to provide a budget with a 10% cut. Evans states, “a reality where federal funding is dramatically cut (e.g. 50% of past levels) … that could demand as much as a 25% cut in our total funds budget; and … where we receive less than 50% federal support because of the devastation of the federal workforce to deliver funding, even if it is appropriated by the Congress.” He says that roughly translates into approximately $500,000,000.

Now that transparency is more apparent, Evans can't coverup by blaming federal workforce cuts to minimize the effect of Democrat policies, says a lot about how the truth has been concealed pointing the opposite direction. Kotek’s power play will ultimately lead to more drastic cuts to meet the requirements of a balanced budget.

The legislature continues to hear agency budget presentations as part of the informational Phase I hearings. One of Evans’ recommendations is to bully against the Greater Idaho Movement. He states: “For the counties asking for assistance in capital construction funding for repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of county courthouses and justice facilities, I have suggested that we must prioritize funding for counties that intend to remain a part of Oregon for the duration.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

To counter Kotek’s resistance to federal requirements and help with the budget, Evans has sponsored HB 2892 “ensuring that counties wishing secession would receive lowest priority funding for services they apparently want to be delivered by another state or territory.” The bill summary says the state may not give money to a county for capital construction unless the county attests that it will not secede. It has yet to receive a hearing.

President Trump asked Democrats to work together in strengthening the country. Kotek and Rayfield’s response was no departure from their partners in congress – resistance. That leaves this state in a financial alert over federal funding cuts as a consequence.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-03-09 13:52:17

Last Update: 2025-03-09 23:57:08

On April 29, 2023, Willamette Weekly exposed a La Mota scheme to control the Democrat leadership. They were attempting to hide their involvement behind Secretary of State Shemia Fagan's signation. Governor Tina Kotek asked for two investigations by Oregon Government Ethics Commission and Oregon Department of Justice surrounding an audit of the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, which Fagan oversaw while employed by La Mota.

Remember the FTX scam, a federal jury found cryptocurrency firm FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried guilty on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy for laundering money. They sent the money to Ukraine and they sent it back to politicians. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) used his considerable clout to shield now-bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX from tax reporting and regulatory investigations in 2021 and 2022, and was awarded $600,000 in campaign contributions. In the final weeks of the election, Senator Wyden sent the Democrat Party $500,000 through FTX executive Nishad Singh, which helped Kotek win governorship. The state investigation lacked proof that all the failure to report by several candidates didn't violate state campaign finance laws.

How could that be? Does that make it acceptable to do it again? Shortly after Bankman-Fried was found guilty, Secretary of State Shemia Fagan resigned over her consulting contract with La Mota while her office was preparing an audit of state cannabis regulations that included La Mota. While no criminal charges have been filed as of the latest information, subpoenas have been issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office demanding a wide range of documents from state agencies concerning Fagan and the La Mota owners. The federal investigation is ongoing that could lead to legal action in the future.

When La Mota appeared to have ties to cartels while in Florida were discovered, it came out that around 20 Democrat candidates were recipients of campaign donations from La Mota that were never reported. At the top of the list, Governor Kotek received more than $68,000 in political contributions to her campaign by Rosa Cazares, Aaron Mitchell, and La Mota. In the interest of transparency, Governor Kotek told Willamette Weekly she would donate $75,000 to the Oregon Food Bank for food acquisition. Kotek, Tobas Read and Rob Wagner are the only prominent Democrats so far to offset political contributions by donating them to charity. Congresswoman Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) gave the money back to La Mota.

The fact that Kotek took La Mota money that was never reported, violating campaign laws, brings to question, why her donation was never recorded to verify she actually donated $75,000 to the Oregon Food Bank. Nevertheless, what is on the Oregon Food Bank record, is a donation to Tina Kotek PAC for $75,000 on May 1, 2023. Was this before or after she donated $75,000 to them? What makes it stand out is the next largest amount the Oregon Food Bank donated was $18,000 to Portland United for Change and $15,000 to Tenants Against Displacement. They also donated $2,000 to Tobias Reed.

The Oregon Food Bank recently posted a paid advertisement that links to a page supporting noncitizens. The ad states: “At Oregon Food Bank, we cannot achieve our mission to end hunger and its root causes without working to create a government that is accountable to all of us – we call this inclusive democracy… Our government can and should fund programs that invest in what we need to end hunger for good.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Six states, including Oregon, California and Washington, have food assistance programs for noncitizens, according to a 2023 report by the Food Research Action Center, an anti-poverty advocacy and research group based in Washington D.C. A total of 18 states began such programs after Congress barred food aid to noncitizens in a 1996 law. Congress later changed the law to allow such aid to immigrants.

Democrats have sponsored state food aid for immigrants excluded from federal support. Senate Bill 611 would extend food benefits to ineligible immigrants under federal rules who are under 26 or 55 and older. After failing to get a bill passed in 2023, they’ve narrowed the group who would be eligible for state aid to children and youth and older people at risk of hunger. The program can be distributed by a private agency that will prohibit disclosure of information for immigration enforcement.

What kind of political games is the Oregon Food Bank playing by returning Kotek’s donation? Are they the promised arm to distribute SB 611? This bill doesn't include a fiscal appropriation, so how will it be funded? Oregonians made 2.5 million visits in 2024 to the Oregon Food Bank network’s 1,400 sites in 2024. They distributed nearly 100 million pounds of food.

Oregon Food Bank at the end of 2023 biennium, cash flow at end of year was $11,429,767 and spent $60,635,955 on food programs out of $111,816,028 expenditures. That leaves $51 million on other expenses. They identify $20,179,739 as government support. Are they accountable to donors who think they are giving to provide food?

Returning Governor Kotek’s donation that she doesn’t record is a repeat of taking La Mota contributions under the table. It violates Oregon campaign laws and the Oregon Food Bank violates Federal law tax filing for a 501c3.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-02-24 12:00:37

Last Update: 2025-02-25 00:41:49

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek directed the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) to continue to accept all appeals of the Oregon Statewide Wildfire Hazard Map up to the March 10 deadline, but to pause on referring these appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings until after the legislative session concludes. The session must end no later than June 29.

The Governor’s decision allows the Legislature to carry out a public process for deliberating changes to the map requirements absent potential conflicts driven by a concurrent appeals process through the Office of Administrative Hearings. In addition, the pause will prevent Oregonians who elect to appeal their wildfire hazard zone designation from incurring potentially unnecessary legal fees between March and June of this year, if the Legislature makes changes to the Oregon Statewide Wildfire Hazard Map.

“Oregonians have raised concerns over the current Oregon Statewide Wildfire Hazard Map, and this issue runs parallel to our urgent need for long term, sustainable funding for wildfire response and mitigation,” Governor Kotek said. “The Legislature is rising to the occasion on these challenges. This pause will allow for the transparent, public process required to address both. Lives and lands depend on it.”

Those who wish to appeal the assignment of wildfire hazard zones or designation as wildland-urban interface still must submit the appeal to ODF by March 10, 2025. No attorney is required for this first step in the appeal process. This step simply ensures that those who wish to appeal are in the queue.

If the Legislature does not change the map or appeals process this session, ODF will refer the list of received appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings following the session and continue the appeals process outlined in existing law.

Senate Minority Leader Daniel Bonham (R-Hood River) said he and Senator Noah Robinson (R-Cave Junction) introduced SB 678 to put an end to this broken system once and for all. Oregonians deserve real solutions, not bureaucratic mismanagement. SB 678, undoes changes in law by Senate Bill 762 (2021) and changes how to class wildfire risk, effective July 1, 2025.

“This is not just a bad policy—it’s a failure of leadership to push through a deeply flawed policy (SB 762 from 2021) championed by Senator Jeff Golden and then-Speaker Tina Kotek. Now, we are calling on Democrats in the Legislature and Governor Kotek to join us in fixing it,” Bonham said.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Over 100,000 homeowners have been left in limbo, facing rising insurance costs, government overreach, and uncertainty about the future of their own property.

Jeff Golden (D-Ashland), credited for the wildfire mapping fiasco, chairs the Committee on Natural Resource and Wildfire, which is now sponsoring SB 78, making it harder for those affected by his mapping to rebuild. This bill restricts what kind and how big a replacement dwelling may be built on the land as a result of destruction or demolition of the dwelling. The law has already caused problems limiting the timeline of when the dwelling must be finished, and how soon after rebuilding the demolished building’s debris must be removed. Also proposed are prohibitions on new building structures. SB 79 prohibits homes not for farm or forest uses in sensitive or unsuitable areas within resource lands.

SB 75 defines "high wildfire hazard area" for purposes of developing an accessory dwelling unit on lands zoned for rural residential uses or a replacement dwelling.

See these bills and more at Oregon Citizens Lobby Alerts for ways to respond.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-02-24 11:52:51

Last Update: 2025-02-24 17:11:54

Senate Republicans are stepping up to fix what Democrats have ignored for years: accountability at the Oregon Department of Transportation. Senate President Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego) and House Speaker Julie Fahey (D-Eugene) have tapped Senator Bruce Starr (R-Dundee), a veteran transportation policy leader, to lead the development of accountability recommendations, which he will present to the Joint Committee on Transportation in March.

For years, ODOT has faced ballooning costs, project delays, and budget shortfalls—not just because of fuel efficiency improvements or increased electric vehicle use, as Democrats claim, but because of mismanagement and a lack of oversight. The Statesman Journal recently exposed troubling questions about how funds from the 2017 transportation package were spent, underscoring the need for serious reforms before lawmakers ask taxpayers to foot the bill for another round of funding.

A Statesman Journal investigation found inconsistencies in ODOT reports, incomplete project information on the agency's website, and a lack of required cost-benefit analyses for certain projects. Accountability measures in the legislation included the Continuous Improvement Advisory Committee and mandatory reports to ensure transparency and project oversight. An audit revealed ODOT overestimated revenue, couldn't track some funds and experienced project delays and cost increases.

Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham (R-The Dalles) said, “Turning to Republicans for help fixing this problem is the ultimate admission that Democrats lack the vision, creativity, and resolve to reform an agency riddled with mismanagement and misplaced priorities. But if Democrats are only looking for cover to justify another tax hike, we won't be their scapegoat. Governor Kotek’s default response to every problem is to raise taxes, but Oregonians shouldn’t be forced to pay more just to subsidize this agency’s failures, especially when they’ve made it clear they can’t afford more taxes.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

"Tapping a Republican with decades of transportation policy experience is a wise move, but only if Democrats are serious about solving this problem,” Bonham continued. “A real solution will require a conservative approach: rooting out waste and corruption at ODOT and making a complete 180-degree turn from the status quo. By asking Republicans to step in, Democrats have accepted the reality that ODOT is in a state of abject failure. Now, they have a choice: work with us to implement real reforms or prove they were never serious about accountability in the first place.”

“The recommendations we make will require difficult decisions, but if we don’t get this right, Oregonians will be stuck with mismanaged projects, deteriorating roads, and higher costs—again,” said Senator Starr. “It’s time for real change and the accountability taxpayers deserve.”


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-02-17 05:03:37

Last Update: 2025-02-16 21:47:09

Senator James Manning Jr. (D-Eugene) proposes to do a word swap in SB 947. This isn’t as straight forward as it appears. It changes references to the “militia” in Oregon law to…”national guard.”

It is unclear what Manning’s intensions are since, unlike the 2nd Amendment in the United States Constitution, Oregon's constitution makes no reference to "militias." Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states: “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]” Even if the Oregon Constitution did use the term "militia," passing SB 947 would have no bearing on the interpretation of the Constitution.

Oregon statue distinguishes between “organized (state)” and “unorganized” and “reserve (federal)” militia. SB 947 changes militia to national guard for all three groups.

There are issues when changing the “unorganized militia” defined as “… all able-bodied residents of the state between the ages of 18 and 45 who are not serving in any force of the organized militia or who are not on the state retired list and who are or who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States; subject, however, to such exemptions from military duty as are created by the laws of the United States.”

The ‘militia” are ordinary citizens. This bill is one more attempt to remind Oregonians that they are subjects and not citizens. Kevin Starrett of OFF writes, ”SB 947 is another step towards the goal of crushing individual liberty and responsibility and a massive waste of money in a state that frees dangerous criminals because it has no public defenders.”

Only under the “unorganized” militia does it include those “who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States.” What constitutes “intent”? So basically, every adult in the state under age 45 would be a part of the unorganized national guard and eligible to be called to active duty.

To change the defined term to “unorganized national guard” seems like an insult to the “National Guard,” words that actually mean something. The bill doesn’t empower the National Guard, but strips them of status. Does renaming unorganized militia strip citizens of individual rights to bear arms or will it require registration including any firearms? Whatever the bill is trying to accomplish, it's not an attempt to expand or protect your right to bear arms.

In the organized groups, there is a distinction between the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States, which is a reserve component of the U.S. military. The National Guard of the United States is a federal reserve force that is activated for federal missions. This federal component can be deployed overseas and is under the command of the federal government.

The State National Guard consists of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard units in each state, territory, and the District of Columbia. These units are primarily under the control of state governments and are responsible for civil support, law enforcement, and other duties as determined by the governor. They are funded through the state's budget and are organized to respond to emergencies and disasters within the state.

Both components are part of the broader National Guard system, which is officially created under Congress's Article I, Section 8 power to "raise and support Armies." Is the "unorganized national guard" intended to be included? Members of the National Guard serve part-time while holding civilian jobs full-time, and they participate in training drills one weekend a month and two weeks per year.

Manning has teamed up with Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Springfield & Eugene) to introduce several anti-Second Amendment bills that threaten Oregonians' Constitutional rights, contrary to the Democrat caucus priorities:

• Senate Bill 429- Mandatory 72-hour waiting period to transfer a firearm
• Senate Bill 697- Raises legal age of firearm ownership to 21
• Senate Bill 698- Allows local governments to limit Oregonians' right to carry a firearm with a CHL
• House Bill 3075-Sponsored by Representative Jason Kropf (D-Bend) amends Ballot Measure 114 in the midst of constitutional lawsuits on the measure.

These bills can all be found on Oregon Citizens Lobby Alerts, which gives options for writing testimony or committee members.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

SB 947 is scheduled for a public hearing on Thursday, February 20th, at 1 pm in Hearing Room B in the Senate Committee On Veterans, Emergency Management, Federal and World Affairs. Submit written testimony here or sign up to testify live here. Oregon Citizens Lobby War Room is open every Thursday from 8:30am to 3pm at Ike Box, 299 Cottage St, NE, a block from the capitol.

President Trump's executive order directing his Attorney General to investigate ongoing infringements on America's Second Amendment rights could impact some or all of these bills.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-02-17 04:35:57

Last Update: 2025-02-16 21:46:13

February is Black History Month. Director of the Oregon Department of Education, Dr. Charlene Williams says, “This month offers us a valuable opportunity to celebrate and deepen our understanding of the rich contributions of Black Americans throughout our history…to honor the achievements and legacies of Black leaders, artists, educators, and community members.”

It is said that repeating what you want eventually wears down the opposition to get what you want. This is not the first time Senator James Manning, Jr. (D-Eugene) has sponsored a reparation bill. HB 2995 sets up a task force to study and develop proposals for financial and nonfinancial reparations for Oregonians of African-American descent.

This is not just reparation to correct history, it is aimed at centuries including the present. Among the task force duties, they are to develop methods for educating the public, and to identify governmental actions that have resulted in harm to Oregonians of African-American descent from systemic discrimination in areas such as enslavement, racial terror, political disenfranchisement, housing segregation, separate and unequal education, racism related to the environment and infrastructure, pathologizing the Black family, control over creative cultural and intellectual life, stolen labor and hindered opportunity, an unjust legal system, mental and physical harm and neglect, the wealth gap and racial bias in employment and advancement. The bill applies it to the present: “especially for Oregonians of African-American descent who seek public employment or promotion to higher paying positions in government… Identify methods for eliminating anti-Black discrimination policies in artistic, cultural, creative, athletic and intellectual life.” One might think Oregon has no discrimination laws. However Oregon's discrimination laws are considered among the more progressive in the United States even including discrimination against hairstyles.

Reparation is the worst type of segregation adhering to socialism. African-Americans are not the only people that endured slavery. It was African nations that allowed capturing their own and putting them on ships to be marketed. Why not sue the African government for wrongfully enslaving them? America was not the instigators, and some say they rescued them, gave them jobs and housing and kept them from starving.

Former Oregon Senator Chuck Riley said slavery was right in the day, but then he apologized for being caught on video. However, he said the same thing on the Senate floor a few days later. Upon being asked, he said it is true "slavery was right at the time".

Paying a class of people that didn’t experience slavery by taxpayers that had nothing to do with slavery is another form of slavery. How will enslaving the descendants of the enslavers correct anything but widen the gap of disunity between the races.

Mark Cosby, frequently seen around the capitol asks: “should todays citizens pay for a study casting blame on their family without a trial? Should they be forced to pay reparations without the right of trial? It seems very flawed. And who would the witnesses be at this late point? Don’t we need living victims and witnesses?”

Manning must have seen Cosby coming, so he added the present-day victims to the prior bill. The current application of reparations is a form of penalty on everyone to benefit one race – redistribution of wealth. Receiving distribution in a discriminatory fashion is a “color of law” move that degrades the very people it is aimed at helping. The 2024 Measure 118 to redistribute wealth was voted down by 77% of voters.

Cosby adds, “The only victims that meet the true criteria just might be coming here labeled 'illegals'. People are coming from 170 countries at the hands of cartels. Cartels who have been aided and abetted by Sanctuary States like Oregon. Many are being held in slave camps today in Oregon.”

Cosby expresses his anger, “it infuriates me that we do not fund sheriffs to eradicate these slave camps. Camps that the Oregon Legislature calls "illegal grows". In 2021 Oregon legislature funded a $21 million grant to clear out slave camps, which closed eight camps in two years. Now that money is gone and it should have been replenished in 2023. Instead, the cartels moved back in greater numbers. Why not free these slaves? Does the Democrat super-majority endorse slavery when it’s to their benefit?”

In 1987 Oregon Legislature passed a bill prohibiting profiling for police to justify stopping a vehicle. Later it was referred to as a Sanctuary State Act and amended in 2017 doubling down on sanctuary type legislation. Cosby says, “by 2019 it was common knowledge there were slave camps in Oregon. K-D Ranch in Kerby, Oregon, was raided by 200 officers from 11 agencies and rescued 250 slaves. It took two years for the legislature to fund $21 million. That next year (2022), the legislature passed SB 1510, crippling police to effectively deal with riots and slave camps.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

In Cosby research, he discovered that in 2023, "many elected Democrats in Oregon were found to have taken brown bags of money from LaMota. Former Secretary of State Shamia Fagan was forced from her office and landed in a Federal Court Room, later followed by Val Hoyle. It is my understanding that Governor Kotek took some $67,000, and Sen Wagner admitted he got money he didn't report to OrStar along with 20 others. This is willful misconduct for career politicians who certainly know reporting laws.”

Since 2021, Oregon has given billions of tax dollars to NGO's, and the homelessness has increased. Oregon is one of three states with the highest homeless population. DOGE has uncovered billions going to NGO's that fund "illegals" to be trafficked over our borders. The Trump administration has drastically slowed the number of missing children that was at 320,000 in 2024.

“But, Fentanyl is the main money maker for cartels,” says Cosby, “and in 2024 Democrat Legislators attempted a backwards fix to Measure 110. These drugs are destroying lives, creating a environment of human abuse while cartels profit.”

Oregon’s majority leadership and caucus want to reward past and current performance with reparations, while committing the same but more serious crimes against humanity by defending the Sanctuary State status, refusing to stop slavery and trafficking, defrauding taxpayers, and crippling police.

Cosby concludes, “until the Oregon Legislature can clean house, it appears we have to rely on Federal Laws regarding illegal border crossings. Is not Oregon's 1987 Sanctuary Law in direct conflict of Federal law? Is not the using of tax dollars to fund illegals to be held in slavery a total abuse of the taxpayer funds?” To make his connection, Cosby asks, “If HB 2995 is to then be funded by taxpayers, would that not in its self be slavery of our citizens, also?”


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-02-15 17:01:10

Last Update: 2025-02-16 19:04:00

The House Committee on Rules held a public hearing this week on House Bill 2727, which strengthens the integrity of our legislative process by expanding the limits of post-legislative lobbying by former legislators.

Current law prohibits a member of the Legislature from becoming a lobbyist for private sector interests for one-year after the member ceases to hold office, but doesn’t apply the same standard for former members seeking to influence the legislature on behalf of a state agency or public body.

In other words, Oregon law forbids private sector interests from using private funds to employ former members to lobby, but the State of Oregon can freely use taxpayer dollars to hire former members into positions where they then lobby their former colleagues.

The hearing brought up the question of constitutionality. Representative Anna Sharf (R-Amity), submitted the Legislative Counsel Opinion and after applying court case decision, it concludes: "The basis of the quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of quid pro quo corruption that the courts have recognized as the only valid governmental interest to justify constraint on political speech otherwise at the core of First Amendment protections. If the advocacy that the HB 2727 change proposes is limited to advocacy before the Legislative Assembly, the government objective of limiting the appearance of quid pro quo corruption remains the same and therefore HB 2727 does not violate First Amendment principles." Only if the restraint applied to entities other than the Legislative Assembly, would it be an impermissible constraint on speech protected by the First Amendment.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

“HB 2727 is a good government bill that simply levels the playing field by applying the revolving door provision to both private and public entities for one-year after leaving office,” said Rep. Scharf. “By updating the current statute, we can ensure that the same level of accountability and transparency, that was intended for private sector lobbying interests, also applies to public sector interests,” Rep. Scharf concluded.

To submit testimony or comment, go to Oregon Citizens Lobby.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-02-10 18:00:37

Last Update: 2025-02-10 19:09:22

In a swift move, President Trump signed an executive order, his first day in office, protecting women and girls in sports. The President affirmed that his Administration will protect female athletes from the danger of competing against and the indignity of sharing private spaces with someone of the opposite sex. This Executive Order is both a demonstration of common sense and a restoration of our country’s promise to give women equal opportunities.

"This isn't about exclusion—it's about preserving opportunities for women and girls to excel on a level playing field. I urge Oregon and the OSAA to follow this commonsense approach and will continue to advocate for that," says Oregon State Representative Shelly Boshart Davis (R, Albany).

A recent statewide poll commissioned by House Republicans revealed that 69% of Oregonians oppose OSAA's current policy of allowing biological males to compete in women's sports.

Republicans have introduced several pieces of legislation to protect women’s sports and are united in protecting women.

• House Bill 2037 ensures that only biological women can enter women’s intimate spaces and participate in women’s sports in school.
• LC 3895 seeks to restore safety and fairness in women’s sports by prohibiting biological males, in Oregon's K-12 schools, from competing in extracurricular sports designed for biological females.
• SB 618 is similar to LC 3895 focused on prohibiting biological males, in Oregon's K-12 schools, from competing in extracurricular sports designed for biological females.

Boshart Davis praised President Donald Trump's executive order titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," which reinforces federal protections for female athletes under Title IX. The order mandates that schools and athletic organizations uphold single-sex sports categories based on biological sex, ensuring fairness and safety in women's competitions.

Boshart Davis said. "For decades, women fought for equal opportunities in athletics. Allowing biological males to compete in female categories undermines these hard-won rights and puts female athletes at an unfair disadvantage."

The executive order directs federal agencies to interpret Title IX—the 1972 law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education—as barring biological males from participating in female sports. Institutions violating these guidelines risk losing federal funding and facing legal action.

The Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA) makes policies for sports teams in schools. They are figuring out what changes are necessary and how to apply them locally. The association’s current policy is to allow transgender girls on girls' sports teams, because Oregon law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, which includes gender identity. Oregon law also allows changing gender according to ones current feelings.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

House Minority Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby), told KGW, it’s not all or nothing. “I think that there is absolutely an important path here where transgender athletes have the opportunity to compete that they deserve, that this does not have to be an either or moment. We don't have to sacrifice safety and the opportunity to compete and win for women and for people that are biological females.” It appears she isn't leaving out developing a league for transgenders.

HB 3041 passed in 2021 clarified existing anti-discrimination protections by adding “gender identity” to all Oregon laws that use “sexual orientation” in the text of the law. Oregon statutes provide comprehensive protections against discrimination for protected groups in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, health care and law enforcement profiling laws that have discriminatory motivation. However, the President's executive order is based on safety and equal body development for fairness in sports. Now the Oregon legislators are being challenged to stand for minority rights in fairness for women and do their job to keep them safe.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-02-09 11:30:12

Last Update: 2025-02-10 01:30:20

In an act of sudden legal effort, the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) is seeking comments on administrative rules to legalize the Elliott State Research Forest, Forest Management Plan by reference into Administrative Rules 141-079. At the October 2024 meeting of the State Land Board, the Board approved the 2024 Forest Management Plan with the intent to then incorporate the plan into Oregon’s Administrative Rules. The comment period is open from February 3 - March 5, 2025 at 5 p.m.

The Forest Management Plan claims to guide how the lands will be managed to sustain its diverse values, address fundamental research questions regarding working forests in the context of climate change, and achieve the specific ecosystem goods and service outcomes envisioned for the Elliott.

The question is, what is “envisioned for the Elliott.” The Forest Management Plan adopted is top heavy in preserving the Elliott through carbon credits, which doesn’t reduce carbon but allows polluters to continue polluting for a price under Oregon’s cap-and-trade system. To be eligible for carbon offset crediting, forest projects must demonstrate that they will store more carbon than their business-as-usual approach. Additionally, these projects must show permanence, typically defined as the ability to store carbon for 100 years or longer, says Laura Dee, a CU Boulder assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology.

Not everyone’s vision for the Elliott is to lock it up in carbon credits. Bob Zybach Ph.D, Environmental Scientist, has been promoting the “Oregon Giesy Plan” since 2014. He says, “A course correction is long past due, and the public deserves to know what is taking place, and what alternatives might be possible. More time is needed to consider this costly Forest Management Plan and its focus on a few investors profiting from carbon credits, rather than our schools and rural counties profiting once again from a functional working forest with untapped educational and research opportunities.”

Zybach is proposing a Resolution to the Oregon Logging Conference (OCL), meeting in Eugene on February 20, regarding the carbon credit scheme that has been taking place on the Elliott Forest under Geoff Huntington’s direction, and calling for an immediate financial audit of taxpayer investments, including Secretary of State Tobias Read’s role as State Treasurer:

OLC calls for the immediate suspension of all plans and expenditures regarding possible carbon credit sales on the Elliot State Forest; that all 550 miles of historic Elliott roads be maintained for public, recreational, research, educational, and forest management access; that Elliott forest management return immediately to 1989 harvest levels of a minimum 50 mmbf in sales per year until updated plans can be developed, and that net proceeds go directly to Oregon public K-12 schools, as intended in 1859, in 1930, and continued until 2017.

How did carbon credits take over the Elliott Forest management plan? Dr. Dave Sullivan documented the behind-the-scenes transformation of the Elliott State Forest to a carbon credit plan. Sullivan was concerned at the cost of hundreds of logging jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars to school funds. He says that history follows that secrets deliberately attempting to avoid oversight, retain power and force for a desired political outcome.

Sullivan’s research ran into many roadblocks trying to find hidden information on basic financial statements, management plans, timber levels, meeting notes and he found no data models for the proposal. The vast majority of basic information needed to make informed decisions was being hidden from public view. One of these secret meetings of the College of Forestry spent $660,000 of Department of State Lands funds to create an Elliott State Research Forest Proposal, which slowly leaked information through the Science Advisory Panel.

Even though there was a lack of transparency, Sullivan found one consistent thread. Starting in 2018, Geoff Huntington, under contract with OSU, did a behind-the-scenes transformation of the Elliott State Forest to a carbon credit scheme at the cost of hundreds of logging jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars to our schools. Although he is a UO environmental law graduate and founder of the Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, he was somehow representing OSU College of Forestry by himself without oversight. Using information shared with him by Wayne Giesy and Zybach regarding the proposed "Elliott State Education Forest," he developed a carbon credit plan that locked down timber harvests even though OSU became steadfast in opposition to monetizing the carbon within the Elliott as an interference to research to study sustainable management questions.

When Tom DeLuca was hired as the new OSU Dean of Forestry, Huntington left for a taxpayer-paid position with DSL, under now Director Vicki Walker, who was the only DSL signer on Huntington’s original carbon credit plan. He continued working closely with State Land Board member, State Treasurer Tobias Read, to further his plan. Read completely backed this arrangement and openly referenced Huntington’s influence at public meetings rather than auditing the DSL and OSU books to see how taxpayer funds were being redirected. Now Read is next in line for the governorship, which will most likely continue the 2024 Elliott Forest Management Plan leaving rural Oregon, the State’s forest industry, and schools underfunded.

"When Governor Kotek was elected, Huntington advanced to become her personal advisor on natural resources. This move helped further codify the mismanagement of the Elliott for the benefit of a handful of elite government officials and wealthy investors at the expense of hundreds of rural workers and all Oregon school children and should be brought before the public before any more backroom politics take place," says Zybach.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Zybach also wants, “an audit of costs and losses related to government mismanagement of the Elliott since 2018 before going any further down this costly and counter-productive road. The principal conclusion of reviewing the Elliott State Research Forest Plan proposal is that it is fundamentally misdirected and likely to fail on both economic and scientific fronts if it is adopted in its present form. The analysis suggests the misdirection of management will continue to cost Oregon schools hundreds of millions of dollars, cost local communities hundreds of needed blue-collar jobs, significantly increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire to local communities and wildlife, and will be unlikely to produce scientific information of particular value to Oregon landowners, resource managers, students, and taxpayers.”

Eight Republican legislators have sponsored HB 3103, which directs the State Forester to establish sustainable harvest levels for harvesting timber on state forestland and develop a timber inventory model to inform sustainable harvest levels to prevent wildfires. Your support is needed for the bill to receive a hearing.

Representative Boomer Wright (R-Coos Bay) is sponsoring HB 3508 for the State Forest Department to study methods for improving active forest management.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-02-07 20:04:02

Last Update: 2025-03-18 22:53:55

Oregon Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham (R-The Dalles) responded to comments from Rep. Mark Gamba (D-Milwaukie), who suggested that voters are acting like “petulant children” for opposing tax increases needed to fund infrastructure projects.

OPB reports on Senate Bill 687, which would roll back a state law – created when lawmakers took up transportation funding in 2009 – that requires cities to seek voter approval before passing local fuel taxes. It would also allow every county in Oregon to implement or hike vehicle registration fees without a vote, an option currently only available to the four counties with more than 350,000 residents.

“Every year, cities and counties get poorer and poorer and their infrastructure gets older and older,” said Rep. Mark Gamba, a Democratic sponsor of the bill and the former mayor of Milwaukie. Gamba said voters too often act like “petulant children” standing in the way of taxes that are necessary to replace vital infrastructure like roads, sewage plants and libraries.

Former Governor Brown championed a transportation package for $5.3 billion in 2017 in additional taxes spread over 10 years. This funding was intended to address congestion, public transportation, road repairs, and bridge maintenance among other transportation needs.

Now here we are again with ODOT claiming they are broke needing $3.5 billion to cover counties and cities, even though the 2017 10- year package is still supposed to be funding transportation needs. Where has the $5.3 billion gone?

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Leader Bonham said, “Fresh off the campaign trail, one thing was clear—Oregonians, regardless of party, are struggling with the rising cost of living. Instead of addressing these concerns, Democrat lawmakers are signaling their intent to raise taxes, proving just how out of touch they are with working families. Oregonians shouldn’t be ridiculed for rejecting tax hikes—especially when the real problem is Democrats’ failure to run government efficiently.”

Oregon’s state budget has more than doubled in the past 10 years, yet we face a cost of living 31% higher than the national average, the worst housing shortage of all 50 states, failing schools, and a homelessness and addiction crisis on our streets.

“Democrats may have a supermajority, but if their plan is to dismiss voters and push through tax hikes, we will oppose them every step of the way,” concluded Bonham.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-02-04 23:30:09

Last Update: 2025-02-04 23:59:58