New No on Measure 50 ad airs


This week a new No on Measure 50 television ad hit the airwaves. The ad hits the nail on the head by exposing the fact this is the first wild attempt to put a product tax in our state constuitition out of our 150+ year history as a state. Many Oregonians have not been informed.

Click here to see the ad.
Click here
to see campaign website.

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

Posted by at 05:15 | Posted in Measure 37 | 15 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Homer

    I dare say I think the politicians consider our constitution as a weapon to use agianst us fine citizens. Measure 50 is another example.

    • NME

      I think they see the constitution as more of a game, than a weapon.

    • eric Hartwig

      can you tell me how much tobacco prevention in Oregon received from the Master Settlement of 1998? Do your research and you will see why it must be a constitutional amendment.

  • Bob Clark

    I think another idea for a “no” on 50 ad would be to dramatize how the state government and the “yes” on 50 folks schemed to find the right child to feature in their ad for their largely bogus “it’s for the children” campaign.

  • DMF

    I love the way they trot out “the children” everytime they want something. Parents should really take a close look at what is happening. Their children are being used to further political ambitions. I don’t want my child or grandchiled used in such a dismal way.

    Parents, don’t let them use your children, don’t fall for their traps. I don’t care what it is. Next we’ll see them trotting out children playing in the trees and saying vote for measure 49.

    Disgusting

  • Jerry

    These idiot politicians are insane!
    VOTE NO or they will continue to do stupid, idiotic stuff like this again and again.
    They are dolts and morons and buffoons.
    It is NOT for any child.

  • Ted Kennedy’s Liver

    These ads are stupid. Whoever is producing them knows nothing about psychology. They’remaking an intellectual appeal, a tactic that always fails. If the “no” folks keep running them they will lose big time.

    They should be showing how 80% of the money for “healthy kids” goes to people earning over $40,000 a year and almost a third of that goes to people making over $70,000 a year.

    Measure 50 is not a healthcare subsidy, it’s a material goods subsidy for idiots who choose plasma TV’s and new cars over their children’s health.

    Let’s use class envy to our advantage once.

    • CRAWDUDE

      Unfortunately Ted, you just described the majority of the people in Oregon, if current election votes hold true.

  • Ted Fish

    WHY IS BIG TOBACCO SO UPTIGHT ABOUT MEASURE 50?

    Watergate was solved by following the money. That said, what REALLY is going on with Measure 50? Did our state legislators benefit financially by not passing this legislation? I suggest they did. Someone should find out what really happened. I’ve heard it both ways: they stayed away because it was bad law, or they stayed away because they were paid to.

    Next, about 90% of money spent opposing Measure 50 comes from Big Tobacco. I appreciate that just because they don’t like Measure 50 does not automatically means Measure 50 is good. But it does make you wonder just what the tobacco industry hopes to gain – or expects to lose – by Measure 50.

    I love this country and our system of government. But our system assumes that the electorate is informed and therefore able to vote intelligently! Democrats, Republicans and Independents see nothing wrong with distorting the truth, telling outright lies. How do we defend ourselves against this; how do we know what is true or not, regarding ANY legislation? That’s what we should all worry about now with Measure 50. I hope there is a trained journalist somewhere who can figure this one out before we have to face it on the ballot.

    • CRAWDUDE

      I think the plan was to get it in the Constitution, at which point when the funding vehicle does not produce enough a judge can then rule that the people of Oregon “by law ” must fund it another way.

      If the legislature at that time cannot come up with a plan to fund it than judges will step in and do so. It’s one more step closer to a socialistic, elitist society envisioned by our liberal leaders.

      …..either that or our legislators are just plain morons.

  • Frank

    Gosh folks, if a tobacco company says something about a tobacco tax, you have an obligation not to believe it or act the ways they suggest just because thye said it.

    I fail to see why the source of a statement necessitates rejecting the comment outright.

    If that is the case, then how do you know a politician lies? Her lips move.

    • John

      FRANK said: I fail to see why the source of a statement necessitates rejecting the comment outright.

      Really Frank? Then let me explain it to you. The source of a a statement does not ALWAYS necessitate rejecting the comment outright.
      In this case, however, the source is an out-of-state corporation that will be negatively affected. RJR has been running adds about the Oregon Constitution. They are an east-coast corporation! What makes you think they really give a toss about our Constitution, or anything except for getting you to buy more death-sticks?

  • CRAWDUDE

    No on 50, the constitution in no place to put a idea like this. A statute would have surficed!

  • John

    Crawdude wrote: A statute would have surficed!

    Yes, it probably would have and I’d would like to hear why they went for an Constitutional Amendment instead.
    However, I don’t think that it’s enough of a problem to prevent funding heath care in Oregon by taxing unhealthy behavior. RJR has suggested that they might go after soda pop and fast food next. Fine. These products are also unhealthy. Not as bad as tobacco, but people really should not be guzzling 2 liters of pop per day.

  • Ed Johnston

    PLEASE FORWARD

    PETITION TO PROTECT Americans “RIGHTS”, To use THE
    OREGON COAST FREE,Without user FEE’s

    PETITION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS ON THE OREGON COAST

    Some of us support the idea of marine reserves; some
    do not. We all want to keep the Oregon coast, ocean
    seafloor and Oregon beaches available to all
    Oregonians. Hasn’t this all be debated once before. So
    why are we to debate this again? This has to stop now!
    So we oppose the creation of marine reserves which
    sets aside even more coast, ocean seafloor and beaches
    that, under federal law, much already very much like
    marine reserves. In 2006, through Amendment 19, NO AA
    Fisheries and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council
    protected huge chunks of marine waters and seafloor
    off the West Coast as Essential Fish Habitat (EFF).
    There is EFF for ground fish, salmon, migratory
    species and for other food resources. For ground fish,
    it is from the high tide line to the 3,500 meter line.

    Habitat areas of particular concern include reefs,
    kelp, estuaries, sea mounts and undersea canyons. In
    these previously established (2006) areas, regulators
    may close off some or all fishing.

    This is essential fish habitat that provides needed
    food resources (lets not forget when Katrina destroyed
    Louisiana, National Guards against their will were
    required to arrest people for no more than catching
    fish to feed themselves, according to media reports).

    What exactly are the proposed new marine reserves
    protecting? Financing a study of the existing areas
    would show what works, what doesn’t and what
    corrections are needed. To close these areas to
    fishing without clear knowledge of what has worked
    seems harmful. What information and studies justify
    closing these areas for fishing and showing people
    have done more harm then what is being proposed. For
    that matter what harm have people done in fishing and
    enjoying their beaches? Don’t these same people clean
    the beaches annually and actively participate in
    seeing to it they are kept from pollutants, filth, and
    chemical endangerment.

    Certainly without an independent study closing further
    areas to fishing and human presence simply isn’t
    justified. Worse, yet, all this may be a preview of a
    coming federal and/or state effort to zone and
    privatize, resulting in closing off much of our
    publicly owned ocean. As the proposed Senate and House
    Bills as well as the media have already shown,
    detailed areas will be set aside for undersea frozen
    methane research and development (will this have any
    effect on global warming or cause additional loss of
    water); some areas are to be for huge fish farms (how
    will the additives given to fish in these farms affect
    our food supply or us); developing reserves for oil
    and gas is of less importance than seeing to the
    development of other energy sources and until they
    exist having oil companies plants open and able to
    process. An Honor the 1846 Treaty and thier OTHA”S.
    .
    In time, all public access to fish whether
    commercially, for subsistence and even for pleasure
    will be lost. Families won’t be able to take their
    families to picnic, play volleyball in the sand, to
    walk hand-in-hand on the beach anywhere on the Oregon
    coast.
    Losing our public right to access and enjoyment of our
    beaches sets a precedent that will surely be followed
    in other areas now available to the public. A legacy
    entrusted to us and for which we’ve paid taxes to
    sustain for generations will be lost.

    Hon. Tom McCall proposed this without including his
    constituents, the public – with no debate, no
    discussion of the larger picture. We oppose having
    this Bill which benefits many large corporations and
    businesses at the expense of the tax paying public. We
    sign
    below to keep Oregon Shores in as Oregon’s Territory
    and Keeping the vision of Former Gov. Tom McCall, Not
    to divide our community’s and public’s access to the
    beaches and our ocean’s coast.ODFW is Employee of the
    General Public ,And IS NOT A PRIVATE CORPORATION,
    Not to privatized any more Public lands
    WITH NO USER FEE”S

    Sign: PRINT Name:
    Date

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    Mail to

    your Oregon Senator and House

    900 Court Street
    NE, Salem, Oregon 97301

    and local County, City Representatives in your local
    area,

    and local newspapers.

    ODFW concerns

    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Concerns

    Let’s not forget the Oregon Department of Fish and
    Wildlife LIED to all of us in 2004. The cost was loss
    of local jobs, lost tax revenue from local business in
    counties and cities businesses closed and family
    incomes were destroyed causing a welfare burden to the
    middle class and working poor; including public and
    private employees. This proposal affects all of us in
    one form or another.

    In the 2005 Senate hearings I testified to our natural
    inherent. Former Representative Jeff Kropf stated that
    they (ODFW) are not off the hook for damages they
    (ODFW) caused to the taxpayer’s.

    ODFW “Recreational” Ground Fish Management Issues and
    Closure

    As an eighth generation American born I personally
    feel it is our Constitutional right to feed ourselves
    and not be dependent upon handouts, I’m a sustenance
    fisherman from necessity, though commercial and
    pleasure fishermen will also be affected.

    Below are links to pertinent information you need to
    form your opinion,

    Status

    The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) has
    closed the sport fishery for major ground fish species
    in all saltwater areas (including fishing from shore,
    in estuaries and the ocean) effective Friday,
    September 3, 2004. This closure includes all rock
    fishes, ling cod and green ling. OFWC closed the
    carbon sport harvest August 18 because the harvest cap
    was claimed to be reached. Carbon have good survival
    rates when released (because they do not have air
    bladders), which allowed the Commission to impose
    non-retention for carbon without affecting other
    fisheries.

    When a rock fish species attains its harvest target,
    however, non-retention is not an option. Most rock
    fish will suffer embolisms (because they have air
    bladders), and will not survive landing and release.
    Therefore, when the black rock fish cap was reached, a
    full closure was necessary because most black rock
    fish caught inadvertently with other ground fish
    species would not survive. Federal and state harvest
    management harvest limits are set for both commercial
    and also by selected recreational fisheries. Harvest
    caps result from the formal federal stock assessment
    of each species.

    The Oregon sport ground fish fishery has operated
    under federally imposed impact limits for several
    species designated by the agency(CLAIMED) to be
    “OVER-FISHED”during recent years. This includes ling
    cod, canaryand yellow eye rock fish.

    Harvest caps for these species are developed through
    the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). The
    Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) adopt these
    caps for state waters (three miles from shore) and may
    impose more restrictive (but not less restrictive)
    conditions.

    OFWC also sets management measures for near-shore
    species and sets harvest caps for these species, which
    include carbon, green ling, “other near shore rock
    fish,” and black rock fish and blue rock fish
    combined.

    The Harvest Targets for 2004 (ODFW Claimed) allocated
    76% for black rock fish in Oregon recreational and 24%
    commercial.(But the truth is Commercial fishing has
    more than 50% as stated at 2005 hearing on Senate Bill
    805 regarding Public Resources without Public
    Compensation)

    The 2004 Oregon recreational targets for these species
    are as follows. (The harvest as of August 22, 2004, is
    in bold.) black rockfish (342 metric tons/322 mt),
    canary rockfish (6.8 mt/3.0 mt), yelloweye (3.2 mt/2.1
    mt), lingcod (110 mt/108 mt), cabezon (15.8 mt/ 17.2
    mt closed 8-18-04), greenling (5.2 mt/4.3 mt) and
    other nearshore rockfish (11.4 mt/6.5 mt).

    Plus LETS NOT FORGET WE the public still had 80 mt to
    go,(2004)

    ODFW omitted that they closed it down when it didn’t
    need to be (Thank you Miss Burke for your honesty).
    But as the former director Lindsey Ball stated, they
    went for federal funds. So you understand Mr. Ball is
    an Honorable MAN in my opinion he plays it by the
    book.

    Recent history of recreational harvest management

    2003 California exceeded the entire West Coast harvest
    of lingcod and canary rockfish in its sport and
    commercial fishery. This caused a late season closure
    for lingcod and an offshore closure to protect canary
    rockfish COASTWIDE.

    All three states were subject to this federal closure
    in November.

    Oregon and Washington sport and subsidence anglers
    were strongly opposed to another state driving
    closures coast wide.

    Approximately 94 percent of the Oregon sport allowable
    black rock fish take of 345 metric tons was harvested.
    While this was extremely close to the limit, factors
    such as weather and a healthy salmon fishery prevented
    an early closure. We lost over 40 mt(down from 382
    prior of 2004) harvest rate in roughly three years.

    (2004)
    With the support of the state’s sport fishing
    community, Oregon worked with the PFMC to support
    separate state stock fishery targets for the limiting
    species such as black rock fish, ling-cod, canary and
    yellow-eye. California imposed severe restrictions on
    its sport fishery. For federal and local jobs and
    money as well, California has closed its black
    rock-fish fishery in the north most of this summer
    through December.

    New for the 2004 Oregon sport fishery were offshore
    closures outside of 40-fathoms during the June through
    September period to reduce impacts on canary rockfish
    and yelloweye rockfish. This closure shifted fishing
    effort closer to shore where more reef black rockfish
    and lingcod harvest was likely. ODFW realized this had
    the potential to drive early closure-sin 2004, but
    scientific “models” did not have a way to predict
    exactly how the fishery would shift. A strong salmon
    year could have mitigated this shift, as occurred in
    2003. Public decision-making should be done by the
    general public only and represent the public’s
    opinion. Not by our public employees because that pose
    a conflict of interest.

    I attended many of the public meetings when ODFW held
    a series of coast wide public meetings beginning in
    March 2004 to discuss the 2004 fishery and options for
    2005-2006 fisheries. The options and findings were to
    be adopted under the federal PFMC process during 2004.

    During those meetings the public was informed that the
    result of the new offshore closures on angler behavior
    was unknown and that catch of black rockfish, the
    backbone of the sport groundfish fishery, could be
    escalated, which might result in fishery closures as
    early as September. Oregon’s sport monitoring program
    is extensive. One in every three sport anglers is
    interviewed at the landings, and ocean boat
    observation provides data on discards. Data sets are
    fact-checked and analyzed with a population model
    factoring in length, weight and by-catch estimates.
    This provides ODE with the ability to track the
    fishery monthly.

    Catch levels for black rock fish were evaluated
    monthly through July 2004 when the catch was
    approximately 242 of the 342 metric ton limit. With
    100 metric tons remaining, ODE staff projected the
    black rock fish fishery would sustain through Labor
    Day and into September based on the modeling.

    As summer continued, ODE staff made more frequent
    estimates. After the first week in August 2004, the
    sport catch was reviewed. Increased catch of black
    rock fish was relatively minor as weather had been an
    issue. During the next two weeks ocean conditions were
    much improved, catch rates increased and the average
    size of fish had increased. The poundage/catch impact
    for ground fish species is in metric tons, not numbers
    of fish, as with salmon.

    A review of catch through August 22 (by ODE) resulted
    in only 20 metric tons remaining of the sport black
    rock fish limit. It takes several days after the catch
    week for data from the field to be entered,
    error-checked, analyzed and catch-estimated, thus it
    was not until Friday, August 27, that this black rock
    fish catch numbers were established. The numbers made
    it clear that an early closure was necessary, but ODE
    staff was not sure if the fishery could be sustained
    through Labor Day weekend, which would greatly
    mitigate impacts of the closure. It was decided to use
    a manual call-in system to estimate the August 28-29
    weekend harvest so that staff could establish whether
    the fishery could remain open over Labor Day.

    An informal emergency meeting with sport anglers,
    charters, ports and community leaders and the Newport
    media was set for Monday, August 30, at 10 a.m. at the
    Marine Resources Program office in Newport. Others
    along the coast joined in the discussion through a
    conference call (approximately 40 individuals
    participated). By 10 a.m., staff had hand-analyzed the
    weekend sampling data, which showed that the harvest
    exceeded 12 metric tons (of the remaining 20 mt), with
    some ports still not reporting. It was clear that a
    closure before Labor Day would be necessary. Within 30
    minutes staff shared this information at the public
    meeting. A number of options were discussed for
    extending the fishery (hook and release in shallower
    water, for example) or opening up other sport fishing
    opportunities (salmon, halibut or yellow tail rock
    fish in the deeper closed area), but because of
    alleged enforcement concerns and the risk of
    additional mortality, most suggestions had to be ruled
    out and the black rock fish fishery had to be closed
    in order not to exceed newly federally adopted limits.

    Expanding sport halibut and salmon opportunities are
    still being pursued. Staff analyzed public options,
    briefed the department’s leadership and prepared a
    final position by 4 p.m. Monday, August 30. A news
    release was distributed by 5 p.m. At 7 p.m. a
    previously scheduled halibut management public meeting
    provided further opportunity to share this information
    and discuss public concerns. In November it was stated
    at a meeting held at the Embroidery in Newport that it
    was determined that the agency (ODE) did not have to
    close public fishing. But it was to late to open it up
    again. By whom? Employees at ODFW???????.

    Continuing sport-fishing opportunities
    This closure does not limit all marine recreational
    fishing opportunities. Anglers still may fish for
    salmon, tuna, flounder, sole, sand dabs, perch,
    herring, anchovy, striped bass and other offshore
    pelagic species.

    Commercial groundfish fishery
    Commercial harvest of these species also is being
    closely monitored. Projections are made on a biweekly
    basis using fish ticket landings. Black rockfish were
    projected to be harvested at a rate that would close
    that fishery early, so the bimonthly trip limits were
    severely reduced by an OFWC temporary rule in July.
    All commercial fisheries for near shore species
    currently are projected to be sustained to October 31
    through trip limit controls. “NO public fishing”

    What follows is a letter I wrote regarding this:

    October 30, 2004

    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
    Lindsay Ball, Director
    3406 Cherry Ave.
    Salem OR 97303

    Dear Mr. Ball:

    I am writing to present the recommendations of the
    Lincoln County PAC for the upcoming sport/charter
    groundfish season. A large number of ideas have been
    presented, and the job is to work through them to
    select the best or best combination.

    1. If we have to reduce the catch and/or effort in
    sport ground fishing, the best time to do it is during
    the winter. These months are the period when many
    groundfish species are giving birth to young, and
    therefore is the time they and their offspring are
    weakest and most need protection. Happily, this period
    is also the time when there is already very little
    groundfish fishing going on at the coast due to the
    weather conditions. It is true that, over the years,
    coastal businesses have struggled to bring business
    into the coast in the winter. But that business is
    still pretty small – far less than, say, the Labor Day
    weekend. And it is not only the tiny groundfish sport
    fishery that brings wintertime visitors. People come
    to Newport and the rest of the Oregon coast for the
    Seafood & Wine and similar festivals, and to enjoy
    watching stormy seas from safe hotel rooms overlooking
    the ocean. If we have to cut the groundfish charters,
    the dead of winter is better than the high point of
    summer or Labor Day – times when, many charter fishers
    say, a cut in catch levels could hurt them at least as
    much as a cut in winter sport catch. If we want to
    protect weak species:

    1. Closing the tiny winter season is probably the best
    way to do it.

    2. Also, many commercial fishers said that we should
    allow a higher commercial trip limit, so as to have
    fewer trips, while not changing total catch allowed.
    This will save on gas and other costs without cutting
    the revenues brought in. If we allow higher trip
    limits – or at least don’t cut them – in the summer,
    we can to some extent make up for winter losses to the
    broader coastal economy if we stop wintertime
    groundfish sport catch.

    3. It is a continuing scandal that we force fishers to
    throw back large quantities of fish that are dead or
    will, in many cases, die anyway – either because their
    air bladders burst or because they are otherwise
    injured or because they become weak and are easily
    eaten by predators. We should find ways to use these
    fish – other countries already commercially use many
    species we do not – instead of killing them and
    wasting them. For example, batfish can be used for cat
    food processing, instead of just thrown out. As it is
    now, lower dollar value fish get thrown back, like bat
    fish, so fishers can get the extra volume of higher
    value fish. If we had the fishers retain what they
    catch, they could still make money, spend less time
    out there (and less on gas and other costs) and not
    wreck species not now used as commercial catch.
    Here’s a way to make ecological sense at minimal
    economic cost.

    We need the Elected and Public Official (IN HONORING
    THEIR Oath’s), elected and Public employees,
    environmentalists and the fishers to work together for
    all our Americans children’s food resources future.
    These are ways to do so right.

    Sincerely,

    Ed Johnston

    ODFW Recreational Groundfish Management Issues and
    Closure

    http://www.dfw.state.or.us/public/NewsArc/2004news/sept/090104news.html

    http://www.dfw.state.or.us/Comm/schedule.htm

    We have seen the Oregon Department of Fish and
    Wildlife make serious mistakes (in my opinion), if not
    worse, in the past. The stunning Labor Day weekend
    closure of ground fishing in 2004 when there was no
    need for it in terms of the condition of the protected
    ground fish is certainly at the top of that list.
    ODFW’s destruction of hatchery salmon runs is another.
    The imposition of protections not only for fish that
    professional fishermen, sport and subsistence fishers,
    scientists and regulators believe are in trouble, but
    also fish whose condition is in dispute – and even on
    some species their own scientists say are not in
    trouble. In one amazing Case the individual fishermen
    reported having landed many more tons than ODFW had
    stated were brought in by all Oregon fishermen, is
    another example.

    Fishing for many people on the Oregon Coast, and
    elsewhere, is not a past time or hobby. It is a way of
    feeding their families, enabling them to make ends
    meet. For those it is a right to life (as in “life,
    liberty and happiness” in the Declaration of
    Independence, and “life, liberty or property” in the
    USA Constitution). It is also a tradition that helps
    define many of our cultures, our way of life. As a
    source of food, salmon and other marine fish are among
    the most nutritious and healthy around.
    Due to the factors mentioned on the petition, we in
    Oregon and many other coastal states will lose our
    rights to fish, as well as our rights to enjoy and use
    the ocean and the beaches.

    XXX
    Lets not forget that former Rep. Jeff Kropf and other
    members of the state legislature stated that the state
    and federal regulators are not off the hook for the
    damages that they caused to the taxpayer’s, citizens
    and residents of Oregon. Lets not forget the agency
    LIED to all of us in 2004,For Federal Grants as I was
    told at a ODFW meetings in 2005-2006. XXX

    As to ODFW’s “Recreational” ground fish management,”
    like so many other Oregonians, I want to know when we
    lost the Rights to feed ourselves. Was it when the
    agency attempted to take total control of Oregonians
    food resources? Or when they made all these mistakes
    in doing so? This is not “Recreational fishing.”
    Without fish, we do not eat right. This is the case
    for all classes of fishermen, and under both the
    constitution and the Declaration the fish belong to
    all of us. The government and private interests have
    only as much right as we allow. In my opinion,
    commercial BY-Catch should be deducted from the
    commercial industry only.
    Its true ODFW has stated that only 4% of those fishing
    are subsistence fisher persons. The 4% is so
    negligible as to have no real effect. Certainly not
    impinging upon their Constitutional right to feed them
    self should be upheld. As ODFW has stated in June and
    July 2006 meetings, it is federal MONEY that is more
    important to them then Oregonians’ Constitutional
    right to feed themselves. We certainly do not want to
    have our elected and pubic officials just sign away
    our Americana’s Constitutional rights. We need to work
    with the agencies not 501(c)(3)agencies should not
    allowed to have any authority over public land. Nor
    should they dictate how public lands should be used.

    But let us not forget to respect each other on this
    very important issue.

    For our family, friends, neighbors, elected and public
    employees. We have to remember Oregonians all equally
    share responsibility for our publicly owned coast and
    resources we are stewards of the land for all
    Americans to enjoy.

    This is my opinion. I believe it may well be yours
    after reading the information, citations and
    documentation contained within the web sites listed
    above. I am asking you to do your homework and make
    informed decisions, so you and your children retain
    Yours and thier Consitional Rights and access to
    fishing, beaches, seashore and the joy our beautiful
    Oregon coast provides.
    Also scientists can only give us a “Guesstimate” as
    they have stated, because there is no way we can ever
    know how many fish are in the oceans.

    “Everything that is really great and inspiring is
    created by the individual who can labor in freedom.” –
    Albert Einstein (1879-1959)

    Ed Johnston
    1540 N Nye St
    Toledo,Oregon 97391
    http://www.oregonrackers.com

    Lets not forget you will lose your constitutional and
    civil rights to use your beaches, and why some are
    willing to pay for for their born Americans “RIGHTS”
    of our FREEDOM of our American PUBLIC LANDS.

    Also you can Forget that our founding fathers gave us
    the Bible and The United States Consitution for our
    freedom.
    Blessed are the peacemakers.
    OR Good by to the Amirican DREAM of FREEDOM

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)