OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

  • Custom Campaigns

    Custom Campaigns
  • DMI

  • Lindholm for County Board of Education

  • Glasky for IUSD

  • Woolery for Auditor-Controller

  • Ming for Supervisor

  • Rackauckas for District Attorney

  • Contact Us to Purchase an Ad

  • Lincoln Club of Orange County

Author Archive

Harris v. Quinn, an Important Limitation on Forced Unionization

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on July 1, 2014

On Monday, June 30, 2014 the United State Supreme Court issued its ruling in the important case of Harris v. Quinn. While the case is limited in its ruling and scope, it is a critical one where the Court boxed in the ever expansionist reach of government employee unions.

Background:

Mrs. Pamela Harris is the mother of a severely disabled adult son who needs constant care due to his disabilities.  A federal Medicaid program funds many state run programs that provides financial assistance by paying caregivers for these individuals who reside at home rather than in a more expensive nursing care facility.  Most often it is a family member who is providing this care and who is being paid to do so under this program.  The State of Illinois has such a program and by law declared these caregivers to be state employees but without any right to benefits, not subject to any control as to their time, place or methods of provision of care services (and provides that the caregiver is solely responsible to and is an at will employee of the customer (the disabled person)) and the State is immune from any liability to the disabled customer for any home caregivers negligence or intentional conduct.

In 2003, first by executive order then legislation, the caregivers were forced to join a union, the SEIU, and pay dues, which the State withheld from their Medicaid payments.  Mrs. Harris and others challenged this forced unionization via this case.  She lost at the federal trial court and intermediate appeals court levels with those courts relying on a past U.S.S.C. court case Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Ed. 431 U.S. 209 (1977).  The Supreme Court, noting the importance of the factual situation described above, ruled in Mrs. Harris favor.

Limited Ruling:

The Court (Justice Alito) performed a detailed analysis of the reasoning behind the Abood case, which upheld the unionization of full time government employees (there teachers) who were directly the employees of the Board of Education.   Justice Alito and the rest of the majority found that full time direct state employees are vastly different factually to what I would call akin to in-home independent contractors and limited the extent of the Abood ruling to full time direct government employees.  Further to extend the finding in Abood upholding required union membership (or agency fee paying) to this situation was a reach to far.  The Court stated:

“If we allowed Abood to be extended to those who are not full-fledged public employees, it would be hard to see

just where to draw the line, and we therefore confine Abood’s reach to full-fledged state employees.”

Once the Court found the holding in Abood was not controlling in this situation, it then did an analysis of the facts of this situation under “generally applicable First Amendment standards.”  Relying on cases like Knox v. Service Employees 567 U.S. ___ , 132 S. Ct. 2277 (2012), the Court ruled that the justification of preventing “free riders” benefiting from union negotiations for its members applying to those not paying for union dues / expenses, did not apply in the context of the Harris facts (in-home workers as described above).

Once again, the Court noted several significant differences between the regular full time government employee and the in-home caregivers the Illinois statute attempted to force unionization upon.   For example, one justification cited by the unions is “labor peace” in not having conflicting unions vying for membership in the same union shop locations.  The Court noted that in-home caregivers are not in one place but always in the customers’ homes (which are often the caregivers homes’ as well).  Space does not permit me to go through all of the Court’s reasoning here.  The Court ordered that union dues and agency fees can no longer be withheld from a home caregivers’ Medicaid payments if they object.

Implications from this Ruling:

1. The Court effectively blocked forced government unionization of recipients of funds under government programs like Medicaid where the person receiving the payments is not a true “government” worker where the state agency controls the time, method and means of employment.   This is especially true where the legislature declares the “employee” is not entitled to any typical government employee benefits like pension rights.  The Court was very specific about the limited nature of the “employment” between the State of Illinois and the home caregiver.

2. The Harris decision is not banning forced union membership (or agency payments to a union by those who do not join the union) for traditional full time government workers such as public school teachers, CHP officers, firefighters, etc.   This is not a “right to work” decision for all government employees.

3. However, a close reading of the Harris majority’s analysis of the Abood decision notes the current majority’s concerns that the policy and practical implications of Abood’s approval of closed shop laws for government employees.  Thus the majority justices may be open to a challenge from a more traditional full time government employee.

4. Elections matter – the Harris decision and the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case (both critically important First Amendment cases decided on the same day) were five to four votes that included the swing vote of Justice Kennedy.  All of the four “liberal” justices voted in the dissent to uphold the forced unionization of the home caregivers in Harris (and to deny religious expression as argued in the Hobby Lobby case).  Thus the outcomes of the elections in the fall for control of the U.S. Senate and the White House in 2016 are critical as the make up of the Court could be the deciding factor on these important issues one way or another in the near future.

To read the Court’s opinion go to: (Harris v. Quinn).

*   *   *

 Craig P. Alexander, Esq. is an attorney at law who practices in the area of insurance coverage, construction defect, business dispute and general civil litigation.  His office is in Dana Point, California. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Post Script on the Election and the CRA Slate Mailer Newspaper

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on June 4, 2014

Chris Emami reported on the CRA Slate Mailer Newspaper a few days ago (CRA) which CRA Vice President Dale Tyler and I put together with some able help from former CRA Treasurer John Fugatt.  Obviously I believe it is the best of the slate mailers newspaper (it is open only to CRA endorsed candidates).

Assuming there are no upsets with the provisional ballot count, 100% of the candidates who placed articles / ads in the mailer either won their races or advanced to the run off in November.  Congratulations to Diane Harkery, Eric Woolery, Linda Lindholm, Robert Ming, Bill Brough, Jeff Ferguson and Tony Rackauckas for your win and thank you for believing in our mailer!

Posted in 5th Supervisorial District, 73rd Assembly District, Board of Equalization, Dana Point, Laguna Niguel, Orange County, Orange County Auditor-Controller, Orange County Board of Education, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Orange County District Attorney's Office, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why I Am Supporting Robert Ming for Supervisor

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on May 28, 2014


One of the important races on the June 3rd ballot is for the Orange County Supervisor, 5th District which is basically south Orange County.  Of the candidates in that race, I am supporting Laguna Niguel City Councilman Robert Ming (Robert Ming).  In the decade plus that I have known Robert, he has been a consistent movement conservative who judges decisions he makes on the City Council through the prism of questions such as 1. Is this something the Government should even be doing in the first place (instead of private enterprise), 2. is it Constitutional? and 3. is it the best deal for the taxpayers?  Whenever possible and legal Robert Ming (who is an attorney by profession) seeks to have government outsource functions to private contractors rather than have in-house employees hired with the attendant salaries, retirement benefits and retiree health care costs burdening the taxpayers.  He is also not in favor of government choosing winners and losers at the taxpayers’ expense (also known as “crony capitalism” which favors the politician’s friends and supporters).  Robert believes that when the government does business with private enterprise, all parties should play by the same rules and the government should remain neutral with the taxpayers getting the maximum benefit from open and fair competition.

While on the City Council Robert’s city built Laguna Niguel’s City Hall on time, under budget and for cash (no debt, bonds or loans of any kind).  When he was on the Board of the Orange County Vector Control agency, he insisted on transparency by the senior management that revealed wasteful spending by the Agency and the resignation of the former Executive Director.  Robert Ming was one of the main leaders in forming the Association of California Cities Orange County to counter the big government left leaning League of Cities.  He currently is the chairman of the ACCOC’s committee on pension reform.

Several years ago, Robert and I co-founded a public policy ministry at our church to help parishioners understand matters of public policy that are facing them in votes they are being asked to cast at elections.

In all of the decisions and situations (personal and as an elected leader) I have seen Robert in, he has always been consistent and honorable in his decision-making.  He will make an excellent choice to replace Pat Bates (who is termed out) which is why current Supervisors John Moorlach and Board Chairman Shawn Nelson have endorsed Robert Ming.  Robert has also been endorsed by the California Republican Assembly, the Lincoln Club of Orange County, the Family Action PAC and Atlas PAC and many, many local elected officials and South County citizens.  Of all of the South Orange County activists who research candidates and make voter recommendations, all of them recommend Robert Ming to be our next representative on the Board of Supervisors.  My friend Robyn Nordell, who hosts her own voter recommendation web site (www.robynnordell.com) and puts up the lists of most of the other activist lists’, also recommends Robert for this position (see the Orange County section of Robyn’s site).

Running against Robert for this seat are three other candidates.  One is the current Mayor of my town Dana Point.  Lisa Bartlett’s votes and actions on the City of Dana Point City Council and on the Transportation Corridor Agencies have proven that she is not a true conservative or qualified for this position.  While on the City Council she voted to raise taxes on guests at certain Dana Point hotels, ban plastic shopping bags and increase the size of the Dana Point city government (more employees and eliminating most outsourcing to independent contractors).

In addition, recently Ms. Bartlett was stripped of her authority as Chairman of the Transportation Corridor’s Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (Lisa Bartlett Stripped of Authority to Approve Contracts at TCA) largely due to her approving very questionable contracts without notice to her fellow board members.  Part of her duties were to approve or disapprove of certain types of contracts and contract extensions presented to her by the Executive Director of the TCA.  During the March 18, 2014 Dana Point City Council meeting I asked her which of the contracts the Executive Director of the TCA presented did she disapprove.  She responded that she did not disapprove of any of the contracts presented to her.  Further that the total amount involved was only $200,000.00 (Dana Point City Council: Scrutinizing TCA).

Her answers reveal two important shortcomings: First she considers $200,000 to not be an important amount of money – I find this attitude regarding ratepayer / taxpayer funds to be irresponsible.  It also appears she simply rubber stamped what the executive staff placed in front of her which tells me she does not ask the proper or “hard” questions of the staff that report to her as an elected official.  Given that the County’s total budget is several billions of taxpayer dollars – Ms. Bartlett’s votes and actions do not give me confidence she will be a good steward of our county taxpayer funds.

Another candidate for the 5th District Supervisor position is Mission Viejo city councilman Frank Ury.  Some of Mr. Ury’s votes on his city council cause me to have concerns about his motivations and how he would handle responsibility at the county level.  For example in 2008 or 2009 at the start of the Great Recession when Mission Viejo (and other Orange County) families were facing layoffs and cut backs, Frank Ury voted to approve the city spending approximately $350,000 in Mission Viejo taxpayer funds to buy a parade float in the Rose Bowl Parade.  There are many cities and other public entities that have Rose Bowl floats but they are normally financed by private donations not taxpayer dollars.  Some like to defend this vote by claiming there were hundreds or thousands of volunteers who came out to work on the float.  Even if that is a true statement (which is questionable), then the City Council could have asked each of these “thousands” of excited and motivated volunteers to help finance this project with $25 and $100 contributions (which could be set up to be tax-deductible) and pay for the float with volunteer funds with the City simply being a conduit for that civic effort.  Instead Mr. Ury voted to use taxpayer dollars to fund this unnecessary expenditure while the economy was shrinking rapidly.

Another of his questionable votes was for life time health care benefits for city council members who serve three terms on the council.  This would be a significant cost to Mission Viejo taxpayers for the health care of prior city council persons long, long after they have left office.  For a politician who claims to be a fiscal conservative to cast such a self-serving vote strongly suggests he was placing his own interests above those of the citizens he was elected to represent.

I am aware that in the distant past Mr. Ury worked on several projects such as proposition 226 to curb unions taking funds for political purposes.  However, while I applaud Mr. Ury’s good work of about fifteen years ago, it is his recent votes that are troubling and do not show good leadership or stewardship for our County.

Neither Mr. Ury nor Ms. Bartlett came to the CRA’s endorsing convention to ask for the endorsement or explain their current and past voting records.  Robert Ming was endorsed unanimously by the CRA (CRA Wrap Up).

The final candidate for this position is a Deputy District Attorney Joe Williams (he is registered No Party Preference).  Mr. Williams is a complete unknown in that he has never held public office so there is no voting track record to give an indication of how he might vote on the dais of the Board of Supervisors.  He is not running any type of campaign to communicate to voters like myself what he stands for and his priorities if he were to be elected.   The only thing I have seen of his campaign are a few yard signs sitting on the side of busy roadways.  The Board of Supervisors, with its very large budget, its budget shortfalls, thousands of employees, with serious problems such as unfunded employee pensions and retiree health care costs, is no place for someone wanting to do “on the job training.”

For these and many more reasons (but keeping in mind this blog post is already very long) I support and hope you will also support Robert Ming for the Orange County Board of Supervisors, 5th District.

In the interest of full disclosure I am the majority shareholder of a private company known as IC Media, Inc. and Robert is a minority shareholder in the company.  Also, I am a practicing  attorney, a former elected member of the OC Republican Central Committee, a former officer with the California Republican Assembly and a volunteer activist.  I am not on the payroll of any candidate or campaign and I do not act as a paid consultant to any political campaigns.

 

 

Posted in 5th Supervisorial District, Dana Point, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

The Munger Games Blog is Spot On Again!

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on May 26, 2014

The folks over at The Munger Games blog are once again spot on about Charles Munger trying to purchase a seat in the Assembly for candidate Anna Bryson.

I reported a few days ago about about Mr. Munger’s big buy into Ms. Bryson’s campaign with his dropping over $250,000 into his Spirit of Democracy IE PAC in support of her campaign for the 73rd Assembly District (Charles Munger Dipping…) and my fellow blogger Allan Wilson reported about the same thing happening in the 55nd Assembly District (Charles Munger and California Dental IE PAC) with his Dental IE PAC.

Now the Munger Games folks have noted that Mr. Munger has put in another $71,000 for pro-Bryson mailers over the last few days (Munger Money-Mongering).  As a resident of the 73rd Assembly District I can attest that I have been receiving multiple pro Anna Bryson mailers over the last few days – in fact they appear to be using the same mailers over and over again.  Some of these mailers come directly from her campaign and some from the Spirit of Democracy PAC (i.e. from Charles Munger).  All of them tout her conservative credentials even though such a claim is, in my opinion, false (Why Does the Teachers Union Love Anna Bryson).   Friends also tell me they have seen Anna Bryson commercials while watching TV.  It is apparent that Charles Munger wishes to buy this seat for Anna Bryson.

With this  much money being spent for her, in my opinion there is a definite expectation that if she wins she will be beholden to do as Mr. Munger demands for things like appointments of delegates to the California Republican Party and votes in the legislature for left of center positions on social issues, etc.  From her votes on the school board since late 2010 I conclude that she has already proven Anna Bryson will switch sides if she perceives it to be to her benefit.

Of all of the local activists in Orange County who put out voter recommendation lists, none of them to my knowledge have recommended that you vote for Anna Bryson.  Almost all of them recommend voting for Bill Brough as the true conservative in this race (Why I Support Bill Brough).

My thanks to The Munger Games folks for helping us keep track of Mr. Munger’s meddling in our Assembly race in South OC.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District, Capistrano Unified School District, Dana Point, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Charles Munger Dipping His Financial Finger Big Time into South Orange County

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on May 21, 2014

It is no secret that Palo Alto physicist and political financier Charles Munger likes to put his money into Republican v. Republican races.  What is his goal?  In my opinion to remake the California Republican Party in his own liberal / moderate image complete with a platform that takes no position on social issues (or takes pro-abortion / pro-homosexual marriage positions).  Thus  you can count on the candidates he backs to appoint delegates to the CRP who will be Charles Munger approved and vote they way he wants.

In the 73rd Assembly District (where I live) there are four Republicans and one Democrat running to replace Diane Harkey who is termed out (and running for the State Board of Equalization).  One of the Republicans is CUSD school board trustee Anna Bryson who I used to support.  However after she won re-election in 2010 she took a sharp turn towards the teachers union and started voting for their causes and positions.  I have posted about this before: Why Does the Teachers Union Love Anna Bryson?  Due to these votes, I and many others who supported her previously do not support her for any elected position including this one.

Now her major financial backer, Charles Munger, has put into his Spirit of Democracy PAC $250,000 to support Ms. Bryson in her quest for the 73rd Assembly seat. John Harbe over at CalNewsroom.com blog has posted an excellent article outlining how Mr. Munger has spent $322,713 (inclusive of the recent $250,000 into his PAC for her) in support of Ms. Bryson (73rd Assembly: Charles Munger).  This is more than all of the candidates have raised for this race combined.

Apparently those of us living in the 73rd Assembly District will now be subjected to TV and other media ads for Ms. Bryson.  While she touts herself as a conservative – her voting record (as I have posted about in the above link) tells a very different story.  In addition, she recently lost a challenge to her ballot statement when the judge found she had made a false and misleading statement in it (and it was stricken and amended by the judge).  I posted on this blog twice about that.  Breaking News & Follow Up the latter post including a link to an excellent article by Katy Grimes over at the Flashreport on this subject.

What is particularly disappointing to me are the number of conservatives who have either not vetted her record, spoken to local activists like myself or simply don’t care about her record and endorse her anyway.  These include people like Edwin Meese, III, George Shultz, Hugh Hewitt and Assemblyman Don Wagner.  I note that none of them live in the 73rd Assembly District.  I don’t know if these conservatives realize it, but by supporting someone like Anna Bryson, they are supporting someone who is now extremely beholden to Charles Munger.  She will likely join him in making the CRP are much more liberal place where conservatives like them are not welcome.  This is in addition to adding her wobbly voting record to the floor of the State Assembly.

For me, I will continue to support the real conservative in the race for the 73rd Assembly District: Dana Point City Councilman Bill Brough. (Why I Am Supporting Bill Brough) I should note that the California Republican Assembly endorsed Bill Brough (CRA RECAP) and he was featured in our recent mailer which Chris Emami just reported on (CRA Newspaper).  Anna Bryson did not even show up to the CRA endorsing convention to ask for the endorsement or defend her voting record – even though she was invited to do so.  Naturally I hope that Charles Munger cannot buy this seat for her and Bill Brough will be one of the top two to advance to November.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District, Capistrano Unified School District, Dana Point, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Robyn Nordell’s Conservative California Election Website is Up and Running for the June 3, 2014 Election

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on May 13, 2014

A long time ago friends of mine started asking me who to vote for on election day as they know I am involved in politics as an activist and I do research on candidates and causes. I began to prepare and send out by e-mail my voter recommendations which I call “Craig’s Pics.”

I also discovered that my friend Robyn Nordell was doing the same thing but she was several steps ahead of me by publishing her own web site called Robyn Nordell’s Conservative California Election Website. Robyn, a conservative Christian, does her own research which includes extensive interviews of candidates, other local elected officials who are her friends, other activists like myself and she attends every CRA endorsing convention even when she is not a delegate.  Robyn always takes extensive notes of what she observes and hears form candidates and others commenting on the choices before voters.  Several years ago Robyn offered to publish my Craig’s Pics on the Orange County portion of her web site along with other friends who also prepare their voter recommendations to distribute.  I consider it a privilege to have my Pics on her site and to call Robyn a trusted friend.

One of the things I like about Robyn is that she and I do not always agree on our recommendations and some of our friends do not always agree with Robyn’s recommendations.  Yet she publishes our Pics because Robyn is not looking for universal uniformity in our recommendations but for thoughtful conservatives giving their opinions and recommendations for voters.  Are you looking for some voter recommendations that are well thought out and researched?  Are you looking for a place to send friends who would like to receive recommendations for voters that are not paid advertisements (slate mailers), are not self serving mailers by candidates and are not “hit” pieces from some unknown PAC using sleazy innuendo to try and falsely paint the opponent as the political reincarnation of Charles Manson?  Then you can recommend friends and family to Robyn’s web site with confidence that you and they will see none of that there.

Of course as I am honored that she allows my Craig’s Pics to be on her site, I would be honored if you would stop by my Craig’s Pics on her site as well.  Check out the our other friend’s recommendations on that page too.  You may not agree with all of my Pics or all of Robyn’s – but I don’t expect uniformity from everyone who visits the site or reads my Pics either.

God Bless You Richly as you vote for our future elected leaders!

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Followup on The Anna Bryson Loss in Court

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on April 1, 2014

As I reported last week, 73rd Assembly candidate Anna Bryson was found by a Superior Court Judge in Sacramento to have made a false and misleading statement in her ballot statement.  Here is my post about that: Sacramento Judge Rules.

Today Katy Grimes (a Flash Report Senior Correspondent) did a through post over at the Flashreport about this situation including the various press releases from the Bryson campaign in which Ms. Bryson tries to spin a loss into a win.  Ms. Grimes’ article (which includes some quotes by this blogger) is at AD73: Bryson Campaign Tries…  and it is obvious Ms. Grimes put in a lot of time researching this article including speaking with various members of the Bryson campaign including Anna Bryson herself.  Katy also includes a copy of the Court’s order which clearly states the Judge found Ms. Bryson’s original statement to be false, misleading and inconsistent with the Elections Code by clear and convincing evidence.

I highly recommend you read Ms. Grimes article and her insights into the Bryson’s campaign’s attempts to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

Again, for full disclosure I am supporting Dana Point City Councilman Bill Brough who is running to be my next Assemblyperson from the 73rd Assembly District.  I recommend you check out Bill Brough and contact him through his web site at:  http://billbrough.org/  Bill’s next event will be on at 5:30 p.m. on April 22nd at Paradise Automotive in San Juan Capistrano.  For more information contact gina@zariconsulting.com or 714-388-6515.  If you met Bill and talk with him about the issues and his background, I believe you will come away supporting him as I am.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District, Capistrano Unified School District, Dana Point | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Breaking News – Sacramento Judge Rules A Portion of Anna Bryson’s Ballot Statement is False and Misleading

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on March 28, 2014

Today Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang ruled that 73rd Assembly candidate Anna Byrson made a false and misleading statement in her campaign statement.  The judge ruled that the statement “On the school board, I returned $59 million to taxpayers” was false and misleading and ordered the statement stricken and re-written.  In this type of ballot challenge the burden of proof the person challenging the statement is “clear and convincing” not the easier to prove “preponderance of evidence” standard.  The petitioner, Mission Viejo resident Dale Tyler, via his attorney Chad Morgan, was successful in submitting clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Bryson’s statement was both false and misleading to voters.

Ms. Bryson, as part of her opposition, submitted a declaration by her fellow CUSD Trustee John Alpay wherein he stated (among other things) that Ms. Bryson was “instrumental” in returning $59 million to taxpayers.  Yet the Court still found the statement false and misleading!  I represented Greg Powers in his challenge to Mr. Alpay’s ballot statement when he challenged former Trustee Mike Winston in the recall election of 2010.  The Court at that time struck two statements contained in Mr. Alpay’s ballot statement as being false and misleading.  So it is no surprise to me that Judge Chang found Mr. Alpay’s declaration in support of Ms. Bryson to not be convincing either.

Full disclosure: I am supporting 73rd Assembly candidate Bill Brough  (who currently serves on the Dana Point City Council).  I was a supporter of Ms. Bryson in the past, but not any longer due to her voting record: Why to the Teachers Unions Love Anna Bryson?   Check out Bill’s web site at Bill Brough for Assembly.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District, Capistrano Unified School District, Dana Point | Tagged: , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

How Low Will They Go!

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on March 13, 2014

I have known Matt McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) for many years now. Matt is a wonderful man and a great attorney for the conservative cause.  When Matt lost his sight a few years ago, I never heard of him complaining about it once.  Instead Matt focused on applying his excellent attorney skills for the benefit of PJI’s clients as an attorney who happens to be blind instead of playing the victim.  I also give kudos to the Pacific Justice Institute and its President Brad Dacus for working with Matt to help him continue to be an effective attorney for PJI’s clients.

Matt and PJI have been heavily involved in the effort to place on the ballot a referendum about AB1266 the “Bathroom Bill.”  The effort came close to qualifying for the ballot but is just under 17,000 short of the number needed and PJI, many other attorneys and activists are going over the disqualified signatures and finding many, many instances of institutional bias by some Registrar of Voters offices and the Secretary of State’s office.

Now Matt has discovered that even his own signature was disqualified!  I commend Matt’s article over at the Flashreport (Disenfranchising the Disabled) to you.  This is a new low for the various Registrars of Voters and the Secretary of State’s office involved.  Of course I hope my friends fighting against AB1266 are successful not only because of the specific issue involved, but for the sake of our Initiative process and election integrity in California.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Tea Party, Conservatism and the Constitution – a Thought Provoking Article by Professor Charles Kesler

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on March 7, 2014

Conservative Hillsdale College (Hillsdale) publishes a monthly newsletter called Imprimis. In this newsletter Hillsdale publishes speeches by visiting professors and other dignitaries. Most of the speeches are worth the time to read them but every now and then one is exceptional in its thought provoking and timely commentary.  The January 2014 version is such an article / speech.  It is by Professor Charles Kesler who is an editor of the Claremont Review and an editor of the Signet Classic edition of The Federalist Papers.

Professor Kesler’s article is entitled The Tea Party, Conservatism, and the Constitution.  In the article the Professor gives a timely commentary on the current state of the Tea Party and its relationship with the Republican Party with a call for both of them to work together for the good of the country.  The Professor also notes several areas in which Obamacare is an affront to the Constitution that calls out for us all to fight together against this usurpation in general and specifically the People’s right to legislate via Congress as provided under the Constitution (Hint: there is a very specific and troubling example near the end of the Professor’s article) .  You may not agree with everything the Professor states in his article (some of his conclusions seem to be generalities and in my opinion some establishment Republicans are as much of the problem as Democrats), but you will find it very worth your while to do read it.  Here is a link to the article: The Tea Party, Conservatism, and the Constitution.  The link is to the Hillsdale site and downloads the article as a PDF.  You will need Acrobat Reader to open and read the PDF.

Of course the article is the copyrighted property of Hillsdale College.  Hillsdale allows the articles to be reprinted with credit to Hillsdale but since the article is long and there is a link to obtain it as a PDF for your reading pleasure, I have not reprinted it here.

I highly recommend the article to you and that you pass it along to your friends.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 946 other followers