OC Political

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

  • Custom Campaigns

    Custom Campaigns
  • DMI

  • No On Yorba Linda Recall

  • Allen for Assembly

  • Ming for Supervisor

  • Ramos for Costa Mesa

  • Bennett for Fullerton

  • Sachs for Mission Viejo

  • Grangoff for Orange

  • Alexander for CUSD

  • Glasky for IUSD

  • Contact Us to Purchase an Ad

  • Lincoln Club of Orange County

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

We Are Back!!! Cash For Votes in LA

Posted by Chris Emami on August 25, 2014

It is with much appreciation that I announce to our readers that we are officially back from our candidate filing period hiatus. Due to some of our new partnerships that we have made a lot of candidates are now working with us for this November election especially after the success we had in June with Linda Lindholm, Eric Woolery, Tony Rackauckas, Ira Glasky, Robert Ming, etc… Now that candidate filing has closed we will have the time to start updating the blog more frequently.

voted

One item that I just noticed while catching up on news was the story of the city Ethics Commission in Los Angeles recommending a lottery in which $1,000 cash prizes will be offered to people as an incentive for voting. This comes as a result of extremely low voter turnout in the last city council election. I find this to be an absolutely horrendous idea with a number of potential negative results. The biggest problem with this is the potential for more uninformed voters turning out simply to earn a shot at $1,000 without researching the candidates.

If LA really wants to increase voter turnout they can do so with a couple of simple fixes:

1) Update who is on the active voter rolls. Orange County had their voter roll shrink by 17% this last year during a large-scale update. By shrinking the active voter rolls it will give a more accurate picture of voter turnout.

2) Consolidate the election with the Gubernatorial and Presidential elections. By having an election in an odd year fewer people will be motivated to turn out thus driving down voter turnout. If the elections are consolidated with the June Primary and November General Election in even years, turnout will see an increase.

I find voting to be a civic duty and am appalled by the idea of offering cash prizes to get people out to vote. One final gripe I have is about why the LA Ethics Commission has anything to say about this. What does voter turnout have to do with ethics?

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

Live from OC GOP Central Committee: Endorsements Round 1

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 18, 2014

We’re live from OC GOP Central Committee for the first round of endorsements for the November General Election.

As is normal for an endorsements meeting, a slew of new alternates are being sworn in (though several represent new ex officio members as this is the first meeting since the Secretary of State certified nominees for the November election).

There are so many elected officials and candidates present that I will not even attempt to list them all.

Pete Peterson, the Republican nominee for Secretary of State, addresses the Central Committee.

Ron Nehring, the Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor, addresses the Central Committee.

The endorsements agenda consists of:
1. Jim Righeimer – Costa Mesa
2. Lee Ramos – Costa Mesa
3. Yes on Charter – Costa Mesa (Measure O)
4. Peggy Huang – Yorba Linda (November Election)
5. Mark McCurdy – Fountain Valley
6. Tyler Diep – Westminster
7. Jeff Lalloway – Irvine
8. Steven Choi – Irvine Mayor
9. Lynn Schott – Irvine
10. Tom Lindsey – Yorba Linda
11. Tom Tait – Anaheim Mayor
12. Dave Harrington – Aliso Viejo
13. Derek Reeve – San Juan Capistrano
14. Pam Patterson – San Juan Capistrano
15. Jesse Petrilla – Rancho Santa Margarita
16. Robert Ming – Orange County Supervisor, 5th District
17. Craig Alexander – Capistrano Unified School District, Trustee Area 4
18. Fred Whitaker – Orange
19. Ray Grangoff – Orange
20. Steve Sheldon – Orange County Water District, Division 5
21. Timothy Surridge – Orange Unified School District, Trustee Area 5
22. Rick Ledesma – Orange Unified School District, Trustee Area 7
23. David Yang – Tustin Unified School District
24. William Hinz – Lowell Joint School District
25. John Novak – Savanna School District
26. Phil Yarbrough – Rancho Santiago Community College District, Trustee Area 6
27. Sandra Crandall – Fountain Valley School District
28. Measure E – County Contracting with FPPC (Yes)
29. Measure G – Supervisorial Vacancy (Yes)
30. Measure H – Anaheim Union High School District Bond (No)
31. Measure I – Fullerton Joint Union High School District Bond (No)
32. Measure J – North Orange County Community College District Bond (No)
33. Measure K – Orange Unified School District Bond (No)
34. Measure AA – Santa Ana Utility Tax (No)
35. Measure JJ – Yorba Linda Pension & Healthcare Elimination (Yes)
36. Measure W – Irvine Great Park Transparency (Yes)
37. Measure V – Irvine Term Limits (Yes)
38. Measure GG – Stanton Sales Tax (No)
39. Julie Collier – Capistrano Unified School District, Trustee Area 7
40. Ellen Addonizio – Capistrano Unified School District, Trustee Area 6
41. Brett Barbre – Municipal Water District of Orange County, Division 1
42. Diane Dixon – Newport Beach
43. Yorba Linda Recall (No)
44. Measure Y – Newport Beach General Plan Update (Yes)
45. Dave Ellis – Municipal Water District of Orange County, Division 5
46. Scott Voigts – Lake Forest
47. Erik Peterson – Huntington Beach
48. Lynn Semeta – Huntington Beach
49. Mike Posey – Huntington Beach

26 of the 49 items were passed as a consent calendar, except the following 23 people/measures who were pulled for discussion or for referral to the Endorsements Committee:
2. Lee Ramos – Costa Mesa
4. Peggy Huang – Yorba Linda
10. Tom Lindsey – Yorba Linda
11. Tom Tait – Anaheim Mayor
15. Jesse Petrilla – Rancho Santa Margarita
16. Robert Ming – Orange County Supervisor, 5th District
18. Fred Whitaker – Orange
19. Ray Grangoff – Orange
21. Timothy Surridge – Orange Unified School District, Trustee Area 5
22. Rick Ledesma – Orange Unified School District, Trustee Area 7
23. David Yang – Tustin Unified School District
24. William Hinz – Lowell Joint School District
25. John Novak – Savanna School District
27. Sandra Crandall – Fountain Valley School District
30. Measure H – Anaheim Union High School District Bond (No)
31. Measure I – Fullerton Joint Union High School District Bond (No)
32. Measure J – North Orange County Community College District Bond (No)
33. Measure K – Orange Unified School District Bond (No)
38. Measure GG – Stanton Sales Tax (No)
43. Yorba Linda Recall (No)
47. Erik Peterson – Huntington Beach
48. Lyn Semeta – Huntington Beach
49. Mike Posey – Huntington Beach

8:02 PM: Chairman Scott Baugh reveals more than $10,000 in union contributions for Lucille Kring despite her signing the nonunion pledge. He makes a scathing speech blasting Kring for breaking her word. If she disagrees with the pledge, she shouldn’t have signed it, Baugh says. Kring attempts to protest, but cannot speak as a nonmember of the Central Committee. Baugh entertains a motion from Tim Whitacre to endorse Tom Tait for Mayor of Anaheim.

TJ Fuentes speaks in favor of Tait. He speaks of Tait’s servant leadership, Tait’s grassroots activism and efforts to support the Republican Party. Fuentes speaks of Tait standing by his principles of lower taxes, limited government, kindness, and transparency. Fuentes notes Tait is the OCGOP’s 2013 Local Elected Official of the Year.

Alexandria Coronado says the Tait of the past is not the Tait of today. She says he’s given money to Jordan Brandman and Jose F. Moreno. She says Tait is working with unions and was a speaker at a Democratic Party-sponsored event.

By a voice vote:

TAIT ENDORSED.

Fred Whitaker moves the endorsement of Lee Ramos for Costa Mesa City Council. He says Ramos will help unify the city. He says Ramos is the leading conservative candidate for the open seat.

Baugh asks how much Ramos has raised, how much his opponents have raised, and if he has endorsements from Righeimer, Mensinger, and Monahan.

Ramos says he’s raised about $40,000 while the nearest opponent had $9,100. Ramos does have the endorsements.

Desare Ferraro urges delaying this to allow Tony Capitelli to be considered for endorsement.

By voice vote:

RAMOS ENDORSED

One person pulled the endorsements in Huntington Beach, but there is little debate on the Huntington Beach candidates.

PETERSON ENDORSED

SEMETA ENDORSED

POSEY ENDORSED

There is no debate on Peggy Huang for Yorba Linda City Council.

HUANG ENDORSED

Desare Ferraro objects to the endorsement of Tom Lindsey for the November General Election. She says it would be divisive with the recall going on.

Brenda McCune notes she ran against Tom Lindsey in 2010, but she supports his endorsement now. She calls the recall a power grab. She calls Lindsey an independent mind and listener. She calls him a good Republican and family man.

Baron Night proposes a substitute motion to go to Endorsements Committee. He cites the recall.

Brett Barbre notes the recall is October 7 and general election is November 4. He notes the recall costs $300,000. He says Lindsey is a good Republican.

Night’s substitute motion gets 17 votes. There are far more votes against Night’s substitute motion.

A debate of parliamentary procedure ensues.

By a standing vote, there are 39 votes to endorse Lindsey. 37 were needed.

LINDSEY ENDORSED.

Brett Barbre of Yorba Linda moves to endorse against the recall. Scott Peotter of Newport Beach seconds.

Baron Night of Buena Park offers a substitute motion to send it to Endorsements Committee. Tim Whitacre of Santa Ana seconds.

Night argues the recall is a local issue.

Brenda McCune of Yorba Linda says the people of Yorba Linda want to hear from the party because these issues have gone on for quite some time in Yorba Linda.

Scott Baugh speaks of becoming an Assemblyman in the Doris Allen recall. He warns of recalls against Jeff Lalloway, Jim Righeimer, and Deborah Pauly. He warns against recalls for anything other than malfeasance or betrayal of Republican principles.

Night withdraws his substitute motion.

Peotter notes that Young and Lindsey are following the law and the will of the people. He blasts NIMBYs for launching the recall and says that removing Young and Lindsey should be in a general election, not a recall.

Whitacre of Santa Ana helped collect recall signatures in Yorba Linda. He claims that Young and Lindsey received PAC contributions. He claims Mark Schwing and Nancy Rikel are conservatives.

Barbre of Yorba Linda says it seems the longer you live in Yorba Linda the more credibility you have. He says he’s lived there for 45 years. He says the recall is the biggest waste of money he’s ever seen. He notes the recall supporters were the same people who opposed making Imperial Highway a city road. He notes there is ballot box zoning in Yorba Linda. He notes that Young and Lindsey voted for densities 35% below the cap imposed by voters.

Nancy Rikel attacks Young, Lindsey, and Hernandez. She criticizes the Central Committee for endorsing Lindsey. She blasts Young and Lindsey for supporting the Brea Police contract with Yorba Linda. Disruptive audience members who appear to have been brought by Rikel are cheering for Rikel. Rikel complains that the recall cost more because opponents tried to stand at supermarkets to oppose the recall.

Baugh asks Rikel if she’s actually arguing that the taxpayer cost of the recall went up because people opposed the recall. She admits she meant her side’s campaign contribution dollars.

Peggy Huang notes that unions spent $80,000 in the 2012 Yorba Linda election. She notes Rikel lost in 2012 and is running in the recall.

Dennis White recaps the Brea Police Department versus Orange County Sheriff’s Department contract debate in Yorba Linda. Rikel’s disruptive audience members applaud again.

By a voice vote:
ENDORSEMENT FOR “NO” ON THE YORBA LINDA RECALL

By motion of Tony Beall and seconded by Jennifer Beall, the Central Committee votes to send:
JESSE PETRILLA TO ENDORSEMENTS COMMITTEE

Bill Dunlap speaks about Robert Ming being a public servant who is a state leader.

Bill Christiansen speaks on behalf of Darrell Issa that there are two good Republicans running for Fifth District Supervisor.

Baron Night says Lisa Bartlett failed to ask for the endorsement in the general though she did ask for the endorsement in the primary. He calls Ming an active supporter of other Republicans, a conservative, and a successful Councilman.

Steve Nagel speaks on behalf of Lisa Bartlett. He has served with her on various regional committees. He says she is a hard worker and has been a strong Republican in Dana Point and statewide. He says both Ming and Bartlett are good Republicans. He says both applied for the endorsement in the primary and that should stand.

By a voice vote:
MING ENDORSED

Fred Whitaker notes his long term service to the party. He states he is willing to compare his conservative record against anyone else’s. He notes he led the successful effort to eliminate Council compensation. He notes that Orange unions are paying their employee contributions without raises, the only city in the County with this accomplishment.

Deborah Pauly points to Whitaker’s $1,000 campaign contribuition to Democrat Tita Smith for Mayor of Orange. She points to Whitaker’s front yard included a sign in support of Smith.

By a voice vote:
WHITAKER ENDORSED

With no debate:
GRANGOFF ENDORSED

A whole lot of people move to send:
SURRIDGE TO ENDORSEMENTS COMMITTEE
LEDESMA TO ENDORSEMENTS COMMITTEE

Alexandria Coronado moves to send:
YANG TO ENDORSEMENTS COMMITTEE

With little debate since he’s unopposed on the ballot:
HINZ ENDORSED

No one makes a motion on Novak.

Mark Bucher moves to oppose Measures H, I, J, and K, with a second by Deborah Pauly.

Fred Whitaker makes a substitute motion to send all of them to Endorsements Committee, with a second by Baron Night.

Whitaker says four conservative school board members voted for Measure K. He says he doesn’t know anything about the other three measures. He wants the Endorsements Committee to vet them.

Bucher says it’s a simple question of whether the Republican Party stands for or against higher taxes.

There are 24 votes to send the four measures to Endorsements Committee. There are 22 votes against sending the four measures to Endorsements Committee.

MEASURES H, I, J, AND K TO ENDORSEMENTS COMMITTEE

David Shawver speaks in favor of Measure GG. He says the City of Stanton cut $9 million, have 26 employees left, cut spending on public safety. He says the Register said that Stanton has done a good job. Shawver says only three people have opposed this and they’re not Stanton residents.

Mark Bucher says Measure GG is a sales tax for public employees. He says that there are alternatives to higher taxes. If the Republican Party does not oppose higher taxes, the party should fold its tent and go home. Bucher says that sending this to Endorsements Committee will simply result in this coming back to Central Committee.

Shawver attacks Wayne Lindholm. Shawver says the City has cut 6 out of 20 officers. He says they’ve cut everything they can. He encourages people to look at his books. He claims only outsiders oppose this tax and that Stanton voters should decide.

Jon Fleischman notes Diane Harkey opposes this tax. Fleischman agrees with Bucher that approving this tax hike in Stanton will set a precedent where other cities will turn to higher taxes rather than reducing public employee salaries.

By a voice vote:
ENDORSEMENT FOR “NO” ON MEASURE GG

Round 1 of endorsements are complete. Round 2 will be considered in September.

Mary Young thanks everyone who volunteered for the Party at the OC Fair. There’s also a presentation for the Volunteer of the Month.

Mark Bucher says the bills are all paid. Baugh jokingly disputes that.

TJ Fuentes welcomes the new ex officio members and reminds them to pay their $25 dues.

Captain Emily Sanford, USN (Ret.) thanks the Party members for donations of goods to the troops. She encourages more donations, particularly those of the dental variety.

CENTRAL COMMITTEE ADJOURNS AT 9:23 PM.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

O.C. Senate Candidate Jose Solorio Voted Illegally To Give Construction Contract To His Political Donors

Posted by Dave Everett on August 18, 2014

Jose Solorio Plans On Giving Away $29 Million Dollars of Santa Ana College Funds To Special Interests This Monday (3/24/2014)! This money should go to new buildings and improving conditions for our students, not to pay off Jose Solorio’s political donors. Worse yet, this special interest deal discriminates against over 80% of local construction workers in favor of Big Labor bosses and union companies from Los Angeles.

Jose Solorio Voted To Give Away $29 Million Dollars of Santa Ana College Funds To Special Interests! This money should have gone to new buildings and improving conditions for our students, not to pay off Jose Solorio’s political donors. Worse yet, this special interest deal discriminates against over 80% of local construction workers in favor of Big Labor bosses and union companies from Los Angeles.

…In the recent vote to limit the construction at Santa Ana College with one of these forced union agreements, Orange County State Senate candidate Jose Solorio voted illegally to give construction contract to his political donors.

Because of the two illegal votes that began and finalized this forced union agreement (or Project Labor Agreement; PLA) have now come to light, the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern California will be submitting a letter to the Rancho Santiago Community College Board of Trustees today (August 18, 2014) asking them to invalidate the forced union agreement on the nearly $200 million dollar Measure Q bond passed by voters in November 2012. ABC So-Cal will request that the RSCCD Trustees open the bidding up to everyone in the free market, including the 84% of California construction workers who choose not to be in a union. This will ensure that the bidding is legal, first of all, but also will allow more local Santa Ana residents to work on the project.

As you may know, political contributions are exempt from the 1974 Political Reform Act, but gifts are not. If there was a gift of $250.00 or more in the last 12 months that was reported, usually on form 700, then that would exempt Jose Solorio from voting on the PLA due to a conflict of interest.

Solorio not only took a gift over the legal limit within 12 month prior to voting to begin the PLA negotiations, he took another gift over the legal limit just two months after the final PLA vote. Both entities that he took gifts from were Big Labor unions that would directly benefit from the PLA. If you have any doubt about their direct benefit, just scroll to the last page and look at the list of union bosses that are to sign the forced union agreement…

For the full article, CLICK HERE.

Posted in 34th Senate District, Rancho Santiago Community College District, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

AB2393 going to raise taxes/fees thanks to OC Elected’s

Posted by Thomas Gordon on August 12, 2014

In what can only be described as yet another ruthless tax grab by money hungry politicians, get ready to hand over more cash next time you register your automobile.

Local Elected’s who voted to further pick your pocket include Assembly member Sharon Quirk Silva and Senator Lou Correa.

It appears the “enhanced funding” will allegedly be used for fingerprint identification.

Read more HERE

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

One Race May Determine Whether Taxes Go Up By Billions In The U.S.’s Largest Economy

Posted by Thomas Gordon on August 8, 2014

Received via email:

The top prizes up for grabs in the 2014 mid-term elections are control of the U.S. Senate and 30 of the nation’s governorships, but of more immediate consequence to taxpayers in the most populous state in the union – California – is one single state legislative race that is likely to determine whether or not taxes will rise by billions in the world’s eighth largest economy.
A two-thirds vote is required to raise taxes and fees in California; meaning that if Republicans cannot win over a third of the seats in the Assembly and Senate this fall, they will have no ability to stop Democratic proposals to raise taxes. The only reason that California Democrats are temporarily without a supermajority in both chambers right now is due to the indictment of three Democratic state senators this year. Many of the Golden State’s top political and electoral experts say Democrats’ unchecked ability to raise taxes in 2015 and 2016 depends on one state legislative race in Orange County: California’s 34th state senate district.

“Even with California’s already inhospitable tax climate, the public employee unions desperately need higher taxes to keep their unsustainable pensions and bloated salaries afloat, and they can be expected to pump millions into this one state senate race to ensure that they can continue to advance their agenda at the expense of California taxpayers,” said Jon Fleischman, publisher of California’s Flash Report.

Fortunately for California Republicans, they have a strong candidate in Janet Nguyen, a current Orange County Supervisor, to go up against former Democratic Assemblyman Jose Solorio in this crucial race. Nguyen, who emigrated to the U.S. from Vietnam at age 5, describes herself as “a believer in limited government,” and says that if elected, she would spend taxpayer dollars the way she spends her own. That would certainly represent a stark contrast between both the status quo in Sacramento and her opponent’s legislative record.

During his time in the state Assembly, Solorio was a champion of higher taxes and the state’s high-speed rail project, which is shaping up to be a boondoggle of historic proportions. Solorio, like most California Democrats, also appears to be a candidate safely in the back pocket of the state teachers union. As the Orange County Register recently noted, “he disagrees with the recent landmark Vergara ruling that struck down California’s two-year tenure and seniority (“last-in-first-out”) rules for teachers, saying he would not change those rules.”

“Janet Nguyen’s candidacy for state senate is the most important political fight in 2014 for Californians,” said Brian Calle, Opinion Editor for the OC Register and Editor-in-Chief of CalWatchdog.com. “And if Nguyen is victorious,” added Calle, “Democrats would not have the necessary two-thirds majority in the Legislature to unilaterally raise taxes in the Golden State”

California Democrats have made no secret of their desire to further raise taxes. Many of their proposals have already been filed as legislation. Proposals have been put forth in the past two years that would impose statewide tax increases on soda, energy production, the profits of companies whose executive salaries exceed some arbitrary threshold set by Sacramento bureaucrats, and business property taxes, just to name a few. In fact, California lawmakers are using this time before their September recess to push a plastic bag ban and ten cent tax on paper shopping bags. This bill, which Solorio voted for while in the Assembly, would then take this tax on every paper bag, which will disproportionately harm lower income households, and then turn and give it to the likes of Safeway SWY +0.47%, Ralph’s, and other large corporations.

Republican ability to stop the tax increases is even more important given that the Golden State is already one of the most heavily-taxed jurisdictions in the U.S., and the world for that matter. According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, California has the fourth highest state and local tax burden in the nation, consuming 11.35 percent of the average California taxpayer’s income. Following passage of the personal and corporate income tax increases championed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2012, California is now home to the nation’s highest top marginal income tax rate (13.3 percent) on California workers and small businesses. Extending those “temporary” personal and corporate taxes is something California Democrats could do all by themselves if they return to Sacramento in 2015 with a supermajority.

“We have three Democratic state senators that were either convicted or indicted this year alone. Some would say that such corruption is a symptom of the one-party rule that has existed in Sacramento for years,” said Fleischman. “This race,” said the OC Register’s Calle, “will decide whether there is balance of ideas in state government or one-party rule.”

Like George Wallace standing in front of the schoolhouse doors telling Yankees to butt out, many California politicians are fond of telling folks from around the country to mind their own business while the state runs off the rails. However, California’s economy is simply too large and too important to the nation’s economic health for the rest of the country not to be concerned. Keep an eye on California’s 34th state senate district this November. Depending on the outcome, it could cost taxpayers billions.

Read Patrick Gleason’s original story at Forbes HERE

Posted in 34th Senate District, Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Abortion: Yeah, Let’s go there.

Posted by Brenda McCune on August 1, 2014

No one wants to talk about it.  No one.  Well maybe a few people.

The people that are often considered the fringe.  Those who are willing to stand on the street corners or outside Planned Parenthood clinics with posters depicting bloody aborted fetuses.  The ones who believe that since deadly force can be a response to deadly force that it’s okay to bomb abortion clinics or kill doctors who perform them because in God’s eyes, abortion is murder.  These people believe they are licensed, usually through their relationship with Jesus Christ and knowledge of the holy scriptures, empowered to deliver this judgment and condemnation to those participating in the murder of unborn fetuses.  

Of course there’s another side.

There are the ones who wear tampons as earrings, proclaim their God given right to have an employer or educational institution pay for their birth control.  These are the same people who want to rant and rail against the “establishment” that is holding women back.  They opine that a woman’s body is her own and by all means, she should have “Access” (and by access they usually mean, without paying for) an abortion under any circumstances at anytime.  After all, it is “her” body and the fetus is merely a parasitic organism that can not exist without it’s host.  

Most human beings do not identify with either of these perspectives, yet these are the two schools of thought that dominate the debate.  Unless and until the reasonable humans in the midst of these competing ideals, start thinking and speaking, and voting, we will continue to have these viceral and pointless oppositions dominating our political landscape and we, yes all of us are the problem, WE will continue to experience recurring, abhorrent events and places like the Kermit Gosnell house of abortion horrors.  There is no one that thinks that was a good place or process for women or children and BOTH SIDES blame the other side for creating an environment surrounding abortion that such a place evolved into existence.  They are right, BOTH side are to blame for the development of such a place that atrocities could occur, but they miss the real point,  You and I, those of us in the middle, we are ALSO to blame. Our inaction, our silence, our failure to speak our mind, to donate to charitable organizations who help women with unplanned pregnancies and for voting without being informed.  

The business of abortion, contrary to what you might believe, is not just the business of performing abortions.  The big money is in the debate.  Most of the money, and there is a lot of it, raised by the “Pro-Life” movement, goes into political campaigns.  Not to unwed mothers, not to homeless or poor women or children, not to orphanages or adoption agencies, but to politicians.  There are watch groups who track the voting of politicians once they are elected with their Pro-Life platform and Pro-Life Money, to make sure they are holding the line on Pro-Life Issues.  Not to diminish the importance of knowing what politicians are doing after they are elected, and knowing their views before they are elected, but the magnitude of the money invested in this process has become largely disproportional to the actual effect.

It is utterly ineffective and I can assure you, that politicians, the funds and the litmus test have saved exactly zero babies.  The same could be said of the bloody poster boards.

Let’s refresh our memories.  Jesus said of the commandments, the “greatest of these is love” and that they will “know us by our love”.

While we on the right, rant and rave about smaller government and protect our rights to own guns and worship and travel and vote, we jump up and down and ask the government, manipulate and control and attempt to influence the government, to tell women what they can or can’t do with their bodies.  While at the same time we ignore the obvious answer.  If it really is our mandate from God, why are we not going to God with this?  Why do we continue to seek and pursue with great vim and vigor a legislative solution to an issue of morality?  Who is it that has lost it’s moral compass in this debate?  I beg for you to consider that we all have. 

As we strive, from whatever side you find yourself on, passionate that women much be protected and advocated for, or that the immorality of abortion must be stopped, it is essentially a value based judgment, and a value based decision when an individual is faced with it.

Outlawing abortion is not the answer.  Nor will it EVER, yes I said, EVER occur in this country.  Please feel free to learn something about Supreme Court Jurisprudence and let’s start fighting a good fight.

What if we start respecting the law as it exists.  What if we started (both sides) respecting the views of the other, and PRAYING for them, that they would know God’s love, have the respect that we have for Human life, and personal bodily integrity (WHATever side you find yourself on).

The answer, as we keep saying with health care and immigration and so many other issues these days, is NEVER MORE GOVERNMENT.  Yet we take this issue and do an about face and cry out for MORE government intervention, regulation and restriction.

Let go and let God.  What if we tried that.  What if we took seriously the Great Commission and carried the message of God’s Love instead of being messengers of condemnation, because I’ve never found “carry forth my condemnation” spoken by Jesus or any of his Apostles, and in case you haven’t noticed, the Pro-Life movement has not made much headway in “outlawing” abortion.

Children and their mothers need the love and support that the religious right purports to stand on.  There is a better way to deliver and convey that than what we have been doing.  We need to seek and find that better way.  

Or we could debate and fight about it for another few years, while more babies die and more women are traumatized and another Kermit Gosnell rises up.  The time has come to re-think everything.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Why We’ve Been So Quiet Lately at OC Political…

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 30, 2014

So, I’ve had lots of people ask me why OC Political has been so quiet since the primary.  Questions have run the gamut. “Is there just nothing going on?”  “Is candidate filing just boring this year?”  “Have you been sued?”  “Did you all quit simultaneously?”  “Did you unionize and declare a writer’s strike?”  “Are you on summer vacation?”  “Did everyone lose their passwords?”

It’s none of those things, and I think this screenshot from the “Recent Documents” menu of Microsoft Word on my computer will explain why we’ve been so quiet:

Ballot Statements Galore

Every one of those files is in a separate folder for a different candidate or ballot measure.  There’s others beyond those on that list, but there’s a limit to how many recent documents that Microsoft Word will display.

If we were objective journalists, we’d be covering all the news in filing and not involved in any of it.  However, we’re not objective journalists. It’s well-known that every blogger on OC Political is an activist, consultant, vendor, staffer, and/or elected official.  Not only are we trying to get people elected, but we have multiple bloggers considering (or already launching) their own bids for office on the November ballot.  Over the past 2.5 years this blog has been around, our bloggers have been told from time to time to “put up or shut up.”  Well, we put up.

Candidate filing opened just over two weeks ago and closes a week from Friday (extended filing closes two weeks from today), plus campaign finance reports from the end of the primary are due tomorrow.  We’ve got a lot of documents with legal deadlines right now.

I’m not complaining, just explaining, and I certainly welcome the business.  In the June 2014 primary, the voters were very good to Custom Campaigns (the firm that owns this blog) and to the activists who blog on OC Political.  That success translates to a very busy general election.  However, it also means the blog has been neglected.  We’re figuring out how to rebalance things, and soon, blogging should return to normal levels.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

U.S. Congressional Candidate Mia Love Visits the Lincoln Club in Orange County

Posted by Walter Myers III on July 19, 2014

MiaLove_16-240x300It was truly a privilege, inspirational, and wholly refreshing experience to meet U.S. Congress hopeful Ludmya Bourdeau “Mia” Love this week when she visited the Lincoln Club in Orange County. As you may recall, Mia was a relative unknown who lost to Democrat Jim Matheson in Utah’s 4th congressional district in 2012 by just 768 votes. Mia is back again in 2014, and I couldn’t be more pleased as it is people such as Mia that give me hope for the Republican Party and even more, hope for our country that if we put the right leaders in place we can change government for the better. Mia is the child of Haitian immigrants who came legally to the United States with virtually nothing, but took full advantage of the American dream. Their attitude was not to come looking to the government for anything, but simply looking to prosper and give back to a country that provided them with the opportunities they were denied in their own home country. Mia’s parents instilled in her an attitude of hard work, personal responsibility, and love of country, which she has demonstrated in her own career, in her time as City Council member and Mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, and has passed on to her own children.

Mia has an impressive record of achievement as a council member and Mayor, known for cutting taxes, expenses, and putting her city on a sound financial footing while serving as Mayor. Mia told a compelling story of the building of a library that highlights her refreshing view on how government is supposed to work. Some residents of Saratoga Springs wanted a library with the usual story about how great it would be and how many people it would serve. Before committing any public funds, however, Mia asked the library supporters to demonstrate just how much the community wanted a new library. The community came together, putting on bake sales and various kinds of rallies, raising all of the money needed to build the library with no public funds. You see this rarely, as most politicians (including some Republicans here in Orange County) seize on every opportunity to use public funds to “do something for the people” instead of being prudent with taxpayer money and challenging all efforts to take hard earned money out of people’s pockets. Granted, Saratoga Springs had only a population of 21,000 as of 2012, but the principles of fiscal constraint and limited government stand no matter what the population. If a politician doesn’t believe in limited government at the City Council level, they certainly won’t believe in it as they move to the state and federal levels where there is even greater impetus to spend other people’s money. This quality is imperative and Mia certainly possesses it.

Mia is a black woman who fully embraces and values what she is, but she will not allow others to place her in any predefined categories about what a black woman should be or do. Mia forcefully argued how the “hope and change” that Barack Obama promised was nothing more than a false campaign promise. While Obama believes that more and bigger government can make people’s lives better, Mia argues that the best government is the most local government. First, the federal government has limits as imposed by the Constitution, yet involves itself in things it was not designed to do and simply cannot do effectively. That’s why we have so much debt that we are passing on to the next generation. Second, when government does things for people that they can and should do for themselves, people lose the incentive to make their own lives better through self-reliance and thus become more dependent on government. Third, when you look at situations where people’s lives are actually made better, you see this at the local level where people are using their own resources and meeting each other at the point of need. To the degree that government is limited, those resources can stay local and be used locally to make people’s lives better, instead of being funneled up to a fat, bloated bureaucracy that cares little about how people’s hard earned money is spent since they are so far away from everyday problems.

So Mia gets it right, while Obama gets it totally wrong. But it’s not just Obama. It’s the other socialist/Marxist Democrats and unfortunately, many establishment Republicans. That’s why we desperately need a new generation of leadership that respects the Constitution and truly believes in limited federal government (i.e., giving the power the federal government has already unconstitutionally amassed back to the people). Mia would have a few like-minded colleagues in Congress such as Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, but what I think is unique about her is her method of communication. Mia recognizes, as I have been arguing for some time, that the biggest problem with Republican politicians is communication. Regretfully, most Republicans today in Washington, D.C. can’t communicate well enough to defend almost any policy position. What we hear are lots of numbers and statistics about debt and deficits, but most American people can’t translate that into something that is meaningful to their lives. That’s why Democrats have effectively brought the “War on Women” back this campaign cycle and Republicans have no idea how to respond. What Mia brings is a personal touch to her communication looking to speak to people’s hearts, and she only then goes after the mind once she has their attention to explain why a particular conservative policy will make their lives better. In so doing, that policy will not be what the government can do for a given person, but how the government can facilitate them doing for themselves at the most local level. Though Mia didn’t mention the term, it’s the powerful Catholic principle of subsidiarity. This principle holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. It particularly applies to government as a bulwark against centralized bureaucracy and tyranny.

I am supporting Mia and I hope you will take a look at her candidacy and support her as well. The incumbent Jim Matheson is not running again so she is the favorite to win. Nonetheless, while her fundraising has been outstanding, she needs much more support to ensure victory in November. Aside from the fact that she would be the first black Republican woman ever elected to the U.S. Congress, which is historical, what should get you really excited are her conservative principles, her energy, and her excellent ability to communicate which will be critical to growing the reach of the Republican Party. Mia breaks all of the stereotypes, and my hope is that she will break the mold of what the Republican Party looks like when she steps into Congress in January 2015 representing Utah’s 4th Congressional District. But not only is she representing Utah, she’s also representing the hopes and dreams of all of the grassroots conservatives who are clamoring for change in Washington. Ludmya Bourdeau “Mia” Love, I believe, will do just that and pave the way for a new, revitalized, Republican Party. Godspeed to you Mia!

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

Unaccompanied Children: Why are they here?

Posted by Brenda McCune on July 18, 2014

“The breakdown of social structures and services accompaying a major crises means that communities and states themselves may not be in a position to provide the necessary protection and care for children without families. it is therefore imperative that humanitarian organizations ensure that the most vulnerable children are protected.”  

(Interagency Guiding Principles on Unaccompanied Children, 2004 report of Displaced Children.

 

So.  How are we doing with that?

 

In 1993 the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption was concluded.  It was ratified by Guatemala in 2002.   Countries whom are signatories to this convention were required to have a dedicated government agency to handle all international adoptions.  One of the principles underlying this Hague Convention was the theory that it is in the best interests of children to be raised within the culture of their birth.  the problem arises in the blind manner in which that goal is pursued.  UNICEF has been actively involved in and monitoring the progress and implementation of this Hague Convention in countries like Guatemala.

 

In 2007, after pressure from UNICEF, the Guatemalan National Adoptions Board (CNA is the abbreviation of the spanish title)stopped all international adoptions in order to cease the outflow of Guatemalan children to the U.S..  Private adoptions were outlawed, and a moratorium was imposed on international adoptions that remains to this date.  The private intermediaries, lawyers, who arranged and negotiated private international adoptions, were characterized as a large part of the “problem” and were prevented from doing any further adoptions.  All adoptions had to be approved and handled through the governmental agency.  

 

As of an April 2013 report, there are at least 5,800 Guatemalan children whom have been abandoned by their parents and left in institutions, orphanages.  Because of the moratorium, that is where they stay, indefinitely.

 

In Guatemala, re-unificaiton is compulsory.  That means, they search for and find the mother, force her to submit to DNA testing to prove maternity, and compel her to take the child back.  The wishes, or the financial means, of the mother are largely disregarded.  The mothers in the program report being coerced and threatened to take their unwanted children.  The government agency continues the illogical process of compulsory reunification because it crunches their adoption numbers down to satisfy the constant UNICEF monitoring.  The goal of UNICEF is the preserve the children in their home country and culture.   It seem little thought is given the whether that is a culture of abject poverty, starvation, disease, violence and in general marginallization of the health and safety of the children. 

 

Up to the imposition of the  moratorium on international adoptions, it is estimated that 5,000 Guatemalan children were adopted outside the country each year.  With that estimate, and several years now since the imposition of the moratorium, it is hard to believe that the estimate of 5,800 in orphanages now. Still a staggering and heart breaking number. 

 

To serve a goal of cultural preservation, children are being permanently institutionalized, or replaced with parents who did not want them.  Although another stated goal was to eliminate the possibility of sex and slave trade and other abuse of internationally adopted children, it hardly seems this wholesale warehousing of them is the most efficient means to have accomplished the childrens best interests.

 

All of this illuminates the current circumstance and plight of the thousands of unaccompanied children whom have recently flooded across the gossamer southern border of the U.S..

Children who were not available to be adopted by loving families in the U.S., were either warehoused in Central America or returned to parents who did not want or could not care for them, and are now being warehoused here.  Arguably in nicer warehouses, but still herded like cattle, having faced a long uncertain and treacherous journey, all because they or their parents heard and beleived something about a “Dream Act” or a better life north of the border, and because UNICEF and the Hague didn’t want them to miss out on their own culture.

 

The moratorium on International Adoptions has to be stopped.  It is another twist of the chicken or the egg debate, the “secure the border first” or start with “immigration reform”.  The flood will likely continue or surge again.  Why, in the face of the utter failure of the cultural maintenance policy, can UNICEF and the governments not see the obvious answer.  Do something at the source. Lift the moratorium is such a simple and immediate remedy.   Still we must address the situation we are sitting on north of our border now, but we can no longer allow the overwhelming presence of these unaccomplained children to cloud the significant policy flaw, and adopton moratorium that has contributed significantly to the problem.  

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

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 »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 980 other followers