Hypocrisy from Dem Oregon House Majority Leader over DC ‘Sit in’

Bill Post_State Rep_thb

by Rep. Bill Post

As America has watched this week, the U.S. House Democrats staged a “sit in” on the House floor. Now I am not debating the issue but rather the hypocrisy of our own Oregon House Majority Party leadership.

How?

In February of this year when the Oregon House was moving at “lightning speed” toward passing many bills, the House Republicans (minority party) followed the Oregon Constitution and chose to have all bills read in their entirety, as a “slow down” tactic. Some may not have agreed with that, but it was and is “constitutional”.

House Majority Leader Rep. Jennifer Williamson was quoted in a Medford Mail Tribune/AP article saying: “These obstructionist, D.C.-style politics are not what Oregonians expect from the legislature. To be clear, these political stunts won’t stop us from standing up for Oregonians’ priorities.”

So clearly she is and was against the move the Oregon House Republicans made and she has the right to have that opinion. Now, however, as the U.S. House Democrats are waging the same tactics via the “sit in,” she has launched a petition in which she makes this statement: “We support the courageous U.S. Representatives who conducted a sit-in on the House Floor until votes are scheduled.”

So which way do you want it Rep. Williamson? “DC style obstruction?” Or not?

Hypocrisy is something we do NOT need in Oregon. I think the Oregon House Majority could learn a thing or two from the US House Majority!

[NOTE: Unlike the Oregon “slow down” by Republicans which was Constitutional, the “sit in” by Democrats in the U.S. House in DC violated House rules and included prohibited displays.]

Bill Post is the Republican Oregon House representative from District 25 (Keizer, St. Paul, Newberg and parts of rural Marion and Yamhill Counties)

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Congress, Oregon House | 58 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • HBguy

    Another way of looking at it.
    Oregon Democrats were trying to get votes taken. Republicans were trying to avoid voting.
    In DC. Democrats were trying to force a vote to be taken. Republicans were trying to stop voting.
    While the sit in took 24-25 hours, how long would it have taken the House Leadership to schedule a vote on a gun bill. The bill would have failed after all, so what’s the harm in voting?
    Looking at it this way, the Oregon and DC Dems were consistently wanting to expedite votes and move on with business.
    It was the GOP in Oregon and DC who were being obstructionists.

    • Conservatively Speaking

      US House Speaker Ryan would declare you to be in support of scofflaws and appears to be spot on.

      • HBguy

        Civil protest has a pretty long history in the US….going back to at least 1775. Some peaceful, some not. I bet the Tories used the word scofflaw a lot too.

        • Conservatively Speaking

          Always for US to stand ready on the right in lieu of where the left assembles

        • Dick Winningstad

          Civil protest in the country was almost always for the expansion of rights not the restriction of rights. That is one reason why this was a disgusting display by the Democrats.

  • Bob Clark

    Meanwhile the progressives like Obama and Pelosi support Black Lives Matter and other such entitlement mentality driven groups who rattle and cause riots shutting the police from actively engaging in stopping gun violence by gang bangers in big cities like Chicago; where someone is shot almost on an hourly basis.

    It is the progessives like Obama, Pelosi, and crooked Queen Hillary who are the whacked out elite.

  • DavidAppell

    Rep Bill: Is petty bickering really the best you can do here??

    • Dick Winningstad

      Yes the Dems were petty with their bickering and just plain wrong. Why waste the House’s time when the Senate would not have passed it anyway? This was a show only and a fund raising scheme, not doing the House business. I am disappointed with our Dem reps that participated.

      • DavidAppell

        Are you really asking what is the value of disobedience in the face of authority?

        Are you at all familar with the history of America, by chance???

        • Andrew Sisters

          Don’t sit under the Appell tree with any one butt Hillary.

        • Dick Winningstad

          Probably a bit more familiar that you are it seems. Disobedience to authority has historically been to gain rights not take them away. Democrats want to take away rights and that is wrong.

          • DavidAppell

            “Disobedience to authority has historically been to gain rights not take them away.”

            That wasn’t how southern slave owners and southern racists & bigots saw it.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Oh, my gosh! So you are lumping the Democrats of today with the Democrats of the Civil War era? Ok, I’ll agree wit you on that one.

          • DavidAppell

            Do you really not know of any civil disobedience since the Civil War?

            If so, you need to spend more time reading history, and less time on Internet chat forums.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmmm…. I know of a unionization movement to expand rights for workers. I know of a civil rights movement for expanded rights for people of color. I know of a war protest movement during the 1960’s. I know of a free speech movement in the early 1960’s. I know of a women’s suffrage movement to get the cote. And I know of an anti-alcohol movement to make liquor illegal. All these were to get more rights for citizens. The recent Democrat sit in was to take rights away from people just like the Democrats in the antebellum South.. I would suggest a basic U.S. history course for you.

          • DavidAppell

            That was exactly my point. Thanks for confirming.

            PS: You only have the “right” to own a gun in the context of a militia, as the second amendment makes clear.

          • Dick Winningstad

            I disagree you are in favor of civil disobedience calling for a restriction of rights. That is unusual for the history of the U.S. And re-read the 2nd some time. You will see that so the States can have a militia the national level governemnt can not infringe on the people’s right to bear arms. The point was to keep the national level from disarming the people and thus bringing on a tyranny. You could look at any of the founders comments on this topic and see the right is a personal one. Your interpretation is a mangling of the amendment started by gun grabbers in th e1950’s. Lastly read the Bill of Rights sometime. When “The People” is used it is in terms of an individual right.

          • DavidAppell

            The 2A is clearly, obviously, clearly written in the context of a militia. But you have a fetish for guns — you are going to dismiss a rational discussion of that point, no matter what. You gotta have your guns. Because you are so afraid.

          • Colin Yerbluf

            Exactly right. The 2nd Amendment reserves the right to keep and bear arms to “the people,” which is a collective right, not to “persons,” which would make it an individual right.

          • Dick Winningstad

            I would disagree. Just as the right of the people is an individual right in the rest of the BoR, to peaceably assemble (1st), to be secure in their possessions (4th), that other rights are not to be denied (9th), and powers not delegated are reserved to the States or the people, the 2nd guarantees the right to bear arms is an individual right.

          • DavidAppell

            Tell that to 5 widows in Dallas. If you give a crap.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Emotion is a sign of a lost argument.

          • DavidAppell

            Do you mean I’ve lost the argument because my emotions care about dead police and the wives, children, mothers, fathers and siblings who will suffer from them forever?

            That’s really your best argument, Dick?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Not my best but your worst argument. My best are in other posts on this discussion. Your appeal to emotion rules out logic.

          • DavidAppell

            You think talking about 5 dead policemen is “emotion rules.”

            You must be nothing but a rock. Of course I had emotions about those people. What human being didn’t???

          • Dick Winningstad

            Mr. Appell, get a grip. You are lapsing into emotion since your argument has collapsed. Why not just give up here and instead work to get a new amendment passed repealing the 2nd?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Everywhere else in the Constitution “the people” confers an individual right why is this different in the 2nd?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Assignin imaginary motives to me does not change the fact the founders wanted the people to have the right to bear arms. You would have a hard time finding any statements from them saying the people had no such right.

          • DavidAppell

            Clearly the founders only supported arms in the context of a militia.

            Otherwise, why would they have included the first clause in the 2A? The second part of it would have been perfectly sufficient if they meant what you claimed.

          • Dick Winningstad

            No as I have explained above. And, again, please supply words from the founders that support your contention.

          • DavidAppell

            If the founders didn’t mean gun rights in the context of a militia, they would never have written the leading clause into the 2A.

            It would just have read:

            “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

            But it doesn’t say that, does it?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Nice try, but I have already explained the logic to you elsewhere. Your position is a gun grabber idea from the 1950’s.

          • DavidAppell

            And why are we letting men who died 200 years ago, who could ever have envisioned today’s society, dictate the policies we live under today?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Quit dodging the request. And yes I know it is a strange idea for most modern liberals, but the idea of a democratic republic is one that is based on law as set up by a freely elected government. If you don’t like what was written 200 years ago, Article five provides a mechanism to change the Constitution. That is how slavery was eliminated from the nation (13th Amendment) for instance.

          • Dick Winningstad

            As I explained earlier, but I will again for you, the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the federal government to prevent them from disarming the people and depriving the states to have a militia. If you had studied U.S. history a bit more you would know thew BoR was aimed squarely at the national government.

          • DavidAppell

            I’ll explain again: the 2A clearly, clearly, clearly places the second clause after the first clause.

            It indicates gun rights exist in the presence of a militia, and only then.

            Otherwise, why include the first clause? You keep avoiding that question.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Nope. You need to study grammar a bit more and history a bit more. The grammar part: So the state can have a militia, a group of people bringing their own arms when called up, the national government is forbidden from infringing on the people’s right to bear arms. Now for the history part, the BoR was aimed at the national government when they were ratified. For instance, the first amendment fords the national government from establishing a state religion. Before the 14th amendment was used to apply the BoR to the States, Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania had state approved religions and collected taxes to support them. The whole point of the second was to keep the national government from disarming the people.
            A reading of the founders thoughts will show this to be the intent. You will have to look long and hard to find any of the founders, the guys who wrote the BoR, supporting your position.

          • DavidAppell

            The 2A was clearly written in the context of a militia.

            You know this. But you won’t admit it because you realize that obviates everything else.

          • DavidAppell

            And why are we letting men who lived in extremely different times defining how our society should be now? They didn’t have a clue about today’s society.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Art. 5 provides a mechanism for you and like minded people to change the Constitution by proposing an amendment to keep the Constitution up with the times. This has happened multiple times before. For instance the 13th amendment abolished slavery. The 19th Amendment granted suffrage to women. I suggest you work to change the document if you are that fired up about this.

          • DavidAppell

            A better question is why don’t gun fetischists like you care about all the people that guns kill?

            Gotta have your guns — grunt grunt — I don’t know or care about nothin’ else.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Guns don’t kill people kill. And why do you not care about the black lives, about 4,000 from 2008 to 2015, lost in Chicago due to gangs? And do you know that homicides are at a decades low as gun ownership has increased from about 26 meg to 340 meg?

          • DavidAppell

            “Guns don’t kill people kill.”

            Don’t act dumb.

            People use guns to kill people. Lots of people..

            But fetish people like you don’t give a crap. As long as you can clutch a gun to your chest, you think all your fears disappear.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmmm… you are on my rear for insulting you and yet you are free with insults. Pot? Kettle?

          • DavidAppell

            Just don’t act dumb.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Lost argument it appears. Perhaps you should quit now.

          • Dick Winningstad

            It is called the rule of law.If you don’t like it then Article 5 in the Constitution provides a mechanism for change as it has at has 27 times

          • DavidAppell

            It is necessary to overturn Heller vs DC, one of SCOTUS’s worst decisions ever.

            That will lively happen when Hillary takes office and get to nominate justices. Sanity and common sense will finally overcome the extremism of Scalia, Alito and Thomas.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Heller merely confirmed the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Why do liberals always want to use the courts for social engineering? Oh yea, because their causes are not popular with the people.

          • DavidAppell

            Dick, did the Founders support the right of the Dallas sniper to have guns, and use them to kill 5 police officers?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Changing the subject is not a good way to argue. Please supply a list of quotes from the founders that support your contention the 2nd is for milita only. I have already explained that the prohibition directed at the federal government “shall not be infringed” was to keep the federal government from disarming the people.

          • DavidAppell

            I’m not surprised you avoided my question. In fact, I expected it.

            Did the Founders support the right of the Dallas sniper to have guns, and use them to kill 5 police officers?

          • Phoebe’s Unicorn Sees’m

            Libtard Appell is hoarse caller of a Neville Chamberlain mind, Brexit, Brexit!

          • Eric Blair

            I’m not entirely sure how making liquor illegal was giving more rights to citizens. That one puzzles me.

          • Smokey the Bare

            Egad, Whap about the LA zoot suitors of WW2, smartsell Appellsauce ?

          • guest

            Urine a number two, pool stead for Appell pagan doobie

          • Chicago Poker

            BLM main-streets 24/7 at your surveillance, crab Appell.

        • guest

          Spook ewe and your Dem asinine ramifications

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)