This psychotic witch needs to go now.

Gov. Kate Brown to expand mask mandate throughout Oregon

By DIRK VANDERHART Oregon Public Broadcasting

Gov. Kate Brown will require Oregonians throughout the state to wear face masks while in indoor public spaces beginning Wednesday.

As new cases surge in Oregon, Brown announced Monday she is extending a seven-county face mask requirement that went into effect June 24. The statewide requirements kick in July 1, and will require residents don facial protection at locations like grocery stores, shopping centers, and restaurants and bars while not eating or drinking.

“Modeling from the Oregon Health Authority shows that if we don’t take further action to reduce the spread of the disease, our hospitals could be overwhelmed by new COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations within weeks,” Brown said in a statement announcing the requirement. “The choices every single one of us make in the coming days matter.”

While Oregon’s overall cases of COVID-19 remain low compared to many other states, the number of new cases has risen noticeably of late — with the state notching more than 200 confirmed or presumptive cases in each of the past three days.

While that’s well below the surge in new cases experienced by more populous states, it’s enough for Brown to begin considering pulling back on her decision to begin reopening businesses in all of Oregon’s 36 counties.

“I do not want to have to close down businesses again like other states are now doing,” Brown said in a written statement. “If you want your local shops and restaurants to stay open, then wear a face covering when out in public.”

The governor’s announcement spurred immediate support from an industry group representing hospitals.

“With cases on the rise rapidly across the state, it is now more important than ever to take this step to protect our loved ones, our neighbors, and our communities,” Becky Hultberg, of the Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, said in a statement. “Further, if we are to coexist alongside the disease, wide adoption of public face coverings is an essential factor in keeping our businesses and public spaces open.”

Brown’s initial order on face masks applied to seven counties: Multnomah, Clackamas, Washington, Marion, Polk, Hood River and Lincoln. But as new cases have mounted throughout the state, some have begun pushing for a more widespread policy.

Over the weekend, the city of Manzanita in Tillamook County requested that the governor order a mask requirement there. And the state’s grocery lobby has requested that the public wear masks when shopping, regardless of where they live.

In her announcement Monday, Brown acknowledged the upcoming holiday weekend, and the threat it might pose for spread of the virus.

“Please keep your Fourth of July celebrations small and local,” she said. “We saw a lot of new COVID-19 cases following the Memorial Day holiday. Another spike in cases after the upcoming holiday weekend could put Oregon in a dangerous position.”

Brown’s order on face masks was made under the authority of an emergency declaration she made in March. That order is currently set to expire on July 6.

https://www.heraldandnews.com/news/oregon/gov-kate-brown-to-expand-mask-mandate-throughout-oregon/article_6bbfb4a1-1ca3-56b4-8cf5-947c5c33fda8.html

>>9794493

Gov. Kate Brown, who can’t seek re-election in 2022, keeps raising and spending campaign cash anyway

Updated Aug 03, 2019; Posted Aug 03, 2019

Since taking office in 2015, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has almost continuously been on the campaign trail.

The unusual circumstances of her rise to the state’s highest office — she became governor when John Kitzhaber resigned amid an influence peddling scandal — meant she had to run for election twice in the last four years.

And strikingly, instead of taking a break after winning re-election last year, Brown has continued raising money for her political action committee and spending it on campaign efforts including polls, ads and political advisers. That’s despite the fact she can’t seek re-election in 2022.

She’s logged more than 50 hours this year on what her state staffers describe in her official calendar as “campaign” time or “personal political activity,” with a flurry of such appointments in recent weeks.

Much of the $800,000 Brown’s political action committee had on hand as of Friday was left over from her 2018 gubernatorial race. However, Brown also raised $355,000 in the first seven months of 2019 and reported spending even more: $460,000, according to state campaign finance records. Those figures might not show the full picture, since Oregon allows candidates 30 days to report transactions.

While House members are barred from accepting donations when the Legislature is in session and many senators also refrain from it, Brown raised $238,000 during the session that ran from January through June, with more than $40,000 of that from small donations of $100 or less.

The governor wouldn’t agree to an interview to discuss her campaign strategy or why a sitting term-limited governor who is not running for another office should engage in “private political activity” during the work week. But her political consultants told The Oregonian/OregonLive that at least part of that work is to accomplish her policy priorities as governor.

Brown’s deputy communications director, Kate Kondayen, also repeatedly suggested that a reporter go through Brown’s privately paid political adviser, consultant Thomas Wheatley, to ask such questions.

“State government employees do not participate in or discuss with the governor her political activity,” Kondayen wrote in an email.

In practice, Brown’s state staff do interact with her political action committee and political consultants.

One of Brown’s most veteran staffers, communications director Chris Pair, has functioned as a conduit to her campaign, notifying Wheatley when a reporter from The Oregonian/OregonLive sought a response from the governor’s office last month to Republicans’ effort to recall her.

Nikki Fisher, the governor’s taxpayer-paid deputy press secretary who plans Brown’s events and handles messaging on topics including climate change and energy, confirmed last week that she worked as a volunteer for the governor’s political action committee as recently as July. The committee reported reimbursing Fisher $56 on July 20, which Fisher explained was reimbursement for lunch she bought while volunteering with the committee. Fisher didn’t respond to a question about whether any other members of Brown’s state staff volunteer their time working for the governor’s political action committee.

Wheatley has declined to explain what he does on a day-to-day basis as the governor’s political adviser. Brown’s committee reported paying Wheatley’s consulting business $32,000 during the 2019 legislative session, campaign finance records show.

Kevin Looper, who described himself as a strategic consultant to Brown, explained the work this way: “I literally answer the phone and give advice as it’s requested.” Brown’s political action committee reported paying Looper’s consulting business $18,000 during the 2019 legislative session.

As for the many hours Brown recorded in her calendar as “personal political activity,” Wheatley declined to say how much of it the governor spent fundraising for her committee or other entities. He did cite a couple specific examples of time Brown logged as personal political activity: attending a Pride festival event hosted by Human Rights Campaign, which endorses political candidates, speaking at a fundraiser for an environmental group and speaking at an “event with the disability community that raised money for the Democratic Party's work on disability issues.” And Wheatley pointed to Brown’s time spent as a member of the board of advisers to Let America Vote, a national organization focused on voter rights that has touted its work electing Democrats in the New Hampshire and Nevada legislatures.

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/08/gov-kate-brown-who-cant-seek-re-election-in-2022-keeps-raising-and-spending-campaign-cash-anyway.html

>>9794493

https://www.facebook.com/oregongovernor

https://twitter.com/OregonGovBrown

Oregon Supreme Court vacates court’s injunction in churches vs Brown lawsuit

Posted: Jun 12, 2020 / 08:45 AM PDT / Updated: Jun 12, 2020 / 11:21 PM PDT

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The Oregon Supreme Court is siding with Gov. Kate Brown in limiting large in-person gatherings such as church services, vacating a previous lower court’s ruling that said the executive order was subject to a 28-day limit.

The ruling against the preliminary injunction came Friday morning.

The state’s highest court decided the Baker County Circuit Court had “erred in its ruling” that an executive order from Brown’s office related to the coronavirus pandemic violated a 28-day statutory time limit and had expired. Baker County Circuit Court Judge Matthew refused to vacate his order on May 26 after the Supreme Court had ordered him to either nullify the lawsuit or present a case as to why it needed to move forward.

However, the state did not decide on the lawsuit itself, which is still pending in Baker County.

Kevin Mannix of Common Sense Oregon is the attorney representing the Elkhorn Baptist Church in the suit. He released a statement on Friday morning over the ruling, saying he is disappointed but not surprised.

His statement read, in part:

“The key legal component to the Oregon Supreme Court decision is that they have infused a specific power from the public health emergency law into the general emergency law. The general emergency law, adopted in 1949, allows the Governor to declare an emergency to deal with disasters such as fires, floods, and storms. It was not designed for epidemics, although it can address outbreaks of disease following a disaster. The general emergency law does not include a provision which allows the Governor to close down churches and businesses throughout the state.

There is one specific provision of the public health emergency law, in ORS 433.441(3), which creates a new power for the Governor, which is to close down businesses and other places where the public gathers, including churches. This lockdown power did not exist before the public health emergency law was enacted. This law, passed in 2003 and 2007, limited public health emergency powers to 28 days.

The Supreme Court has now ruled that, because the public health emergency law co-exists with the general emergency law, the time limits of the public health emergency law do not limit the length of time that the Governor can issue lockdown orders when the Governor declares a general emergency.”

https://www.koin.com/news/oregon-supreme-court-kate-brown-church-lawsuit/

>>9794562

>>9794562

Oops.

https://www.instagram.com/oregongovbrown/

>>9794608

Maybe because of this?

Q

!!Hs1Jq13jV6

29 Jun 2020 - 1:58:15 PM

EVl0xrPXQAsAX3e.png

When does COVID-19[2] MSDNC [fear] push end?

Think 2020_P election +1.

[D] party death spiral.

Q

2020 P election plus one more election. The one in 2022? Take the house?

>>9794586

Chinese spread fortune cookies? KEK.

>>9794592

Thanks neighbor.

>>9794682

Boy ain't that the truth, the same with morals.

>>9794696

Argument from ignorance

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.[2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. In research, low-power experiments are subject to false negatives (there would have been an observable effect if there had been a larger sample size or better experimental design) and false positives (there was an observable effect; however, this was a coincidence due purely to random chance, or the events correlate, but there is no cause-effect relationship). The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>>9794717

Thanks and God bless. Nice chess moves.

>>9794856

I particularly like knight forks and pins.

>>9794824

One, learn to read, two, learn to comprehend what you read, three,

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

― Socrates

>>9794881

I think that would be a more specific name for the bun.

Gov. Kate Brown to expand mask mandate

throughout Oregon

CV is pretty vague.

>>9794951

KEK!!

>>9794414

Argument from ignorance

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to

ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal

logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a

proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false

dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient

investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the

possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true

nor completely false.[2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to

shift the burden of proof. In research, low-power experiments are subject to false negatives

(there would have been an observable effect if there had been a larger sample size or better

experimental design) and false positives (there was an observable effect; however, this was a

coincidence due purely to random chance, or the events correlate, but there is no cause-effect

relationship). The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.[3]

[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>>9795030

Damn notepad spacing.

>>9795036

Palestine is not, nor has it ever been a country. It was a region of the Roman empire.

Syria Palaestina

Syria Palaestina (Latin: [ˈsʏ.ri.a pa.ɫaesˈtiː.na]; Koinē Greek: Συρία ἡ Παλαιστίνη, romanized: Syría hē Palaistínē, Koine Greek: [syˈri.a (h)e pa.lɛsˈti.ne]) was a Roman province between 135 AD and about 390.[1] It was established by the merger of Roman Syria and Roman Judaea, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 AD. Shortly after 193, the northern regions were split off as Syria Coele in the north and Phoenice in the south, and the province Syria Palaestina was reduced to Judea. The earliest numismatic evidence for the name Syria Palaestina comes from the period of emperor Marcus Aurelius[citation needed], although the Classical Greek version of name has been recorded in usage since at least the 5th century BC.

Syria was an early Roman province, annexed to the Roman Republic in 64 BC by Pompey in the Third Mithridatic War, following the defeat of Armenian King Tigranes the Great.[2] Following the partition of the Herodian kingdom into tetrarchies in 6 AD, it was gradually absorbed into Roman provinces, with Roman Syria annexing Iturea and Trachonitis.

The Roman province of Judea incorporated the regions of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, and extended over parts of the former regions of the Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms of Israel. It was named after Herod Archelaus's Tetrarchy of Judea, but the Roman province encompassed a much larger territory.

The capital of Roman Syria was established in Antioch from the very beginning of Roman rule, while the capital of the Judaea province was shifted to Caesarea Maritima, which, according to historian H. H. Ben-Sasson, had been the "administrative capital" of the region beginning in 6 AD.[3]

Judea province was the scene of unrest at its founding in 6 AD during the Census of Quirinius and several wars were fought in its history, known as the Jewish–Roman wars. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD as part of the First Jewish–Roman War resulting in the institution of the Fiscus Judaicus. The Provinces of Judaea and Syria were key scenes of an increasing conflict between Judaean and Hellenistic population, which exploded into full scale Jewish–Roman wars, beginning with the First Jewish–Roman War of 66–70. Disturbances followed throughout the region during the Kitos War in 117–118. Between 132–135, Simon bar Kokhba led a revolt against the Roman Empire, controlling parts of Judea, for three years. As a result, Hadrian sent Sextus Julius Severus to the region, who brutally crushed the revolt. Shortly before or after the Bar Kokhba's revolt (132–135), the Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Judea province and merged it with Roman Syria to form Syria Palaestina, and founded Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem, which some scholars conclude was done in an attempt to remove the relationship of the Jewish people to the region.[4][5][6][7]

Hadrian's connection to the name change and the reason behind it is disputed.[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina

>>9795080

You are assuming that nothing happens between now and then. Lots of things could happen between now and then that could mitigate your concerns.

>>9795084

Looks better thanks.

>>9795101

I've been reading and studying history off and on for over 40 years. I like ancient history.

>>9795132

So? The region actually used to be called Judea but after the revolt, I think it was the Hasmodian ruler of the Herods was so pissed he made them change the name to Palestine.