Posted by David Mansdoerfer on July 6, 2016
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 6, 2016
Contact: David Mansdoerfer
FORMER ASSEMBLYMAN AND COSTA MESA MAYOR ALLAN MANSOOR ANNOUNCES CAMPAIGN FOR COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL
Costa Mesa, CA – Today, former State Assemblyman Allan Mansoor announced his candidacy for Costa Mesa City Council. Mansoor will by vying for one of three available seats on the Costa Mesa Council with Mayor Steve Mensinger and Councilwoman Sandy Genis up for reelection, and Councilman Gary Monahan termed out.
“Having lived here most of my life, I appreciate all of the different residential and business communities and the people who live and work here,” Mansoor stated. “As a husband and a father, I will fight not only for the current residents, but for future generations to be able to live, work, and play in Costa Mesa.”
“As a former Mayor of Costa Mesa, Allan has the experience and understanding to tackle some of the biggest issues facing Costa Mesa including; crime, homelessness and economic development,” stated Mayor Mensinger.
“I’m proud to have the support of Mayor Mensinger in this endeavor,” stated Mansoor, “He has volunteered so much of his time for youth sports and the kids in our community, that says a lot about him.”
In the upcoming days, the campaign will release a comprehensive list of endorsements and announce a formal kick-off event.
Mansoor has hired Clark Strategy Group Consultant David Mansdoerfer to lead his effort. Mansdoerfer has a successful track record in Orange County including helping Senator John Moorlach win the 2015 special election for Senate District 37.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Craig P. Alexander on June 25, 2016
Meanwhile off the Presidential campaign trail, the California legislature continues to prove it is controlled by people who will not stand for any dissenting opinions even from religious colleges. Recently the State Senate passed SB 1146 (Lara – D) the so called Equity in Higher Education Act (at the time of this post, SB 1146 is pending in the Assembly). This bill vastly trims down exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for private religious colleges from, among other things, the LGBT agenda. In other words, a religious college cannot require students and employees to adhere to a code of conduct that is in conformity with its faith based belief system unless that school is only a seminary preparing students to be ministers. While this law is currently tied to Cal. Grant funds, the real issue is the heavy hand of government attempting to stamp out any dissenting opinions or beliefs. Constitutional protections like Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, etc.? Nope those are all subservient to the demands of liberal elite’s to agree with their viewpoints – which in this instance is the LGBT agenda and practices.
Andrew T. Walker of the National Review has an excellent article on this: California’s Culture War against Religious Liberty
Here is an excerpt:
“Tacked onto existing law, the proposed amendment to the state’s Equity in Higher Education Act attempts to stigmatize and coercively punish any religious belief system that might dare to offer a difference of opinion about sexuality and gender. The bill strong-arms religious schools into an untenable position: Either compromise their religious identity or risk losing access to grants and government-backed financial assistance like Cal Grants. How so? According to the legislation, any religious school that made admission decisions or laid out student-conduct expectations based on religious criteria that were at odds with the bill’s protected classes would risk losing access to state funds unless they affirmed the highly contestable categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” – categories at odds with views about marriage and sexuality in many religious traditions.”
I commend the rest of Mr. Walker’s article to your reading. Another very good and short read on the implications of SB 1146 is by John Gerardi of California Family Council (See Update).
There is an argument that Christian schools should not take Cal. Grants and other government monies. There are two problems with this argument. First if our tax dollars can go to schools that the government says it approves of its message but not those that do not, that is viewpoint discrimination by a government entity. Plus that is forced public funding of one viewpoint over another. Another problem with this argument is it is a ruse. Today it is the application of this law to schools that accept Cal. Grant and similar college funding programs. Tomorrow it will be to remove their tax exempt status for not conforming to the demanded viewpoint of the legislative majority (in other words the right to exist as a religious institution). And that logic can be applied without pause to churches. No room for dissent allowed and the U.S. and California Constitutional protections for Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Association will be rendered historical footnotes.
Of course, the legislature also goes out of its way to state that the bill does not seek to impair any student’s right to file a lawsuit against the college for discrimination.
Will these Christian colleges and the churches whose pulpits they fill engage the culture and stand against this publically? The colleges are expressing their opposition to the legislature now with the help of organizations like the California Family Council and Pacific Justice Institute. But if Senator Lara (the bill’s author) and his fellow travelers in Sacramento pass SB 1146 and the Governor signs it, will they file lawsuits and organize a referendum campaign to stop it? Will they engage the voters in a healthy debate over the role of religious belief and practice in public life, in education and the proper limits under the U.S. and California Constitutions on a government that tries to dictate belief systems? Or will they just engage real estate agents in Texas to find new locations for their campuses?
I pray it is the former and not a retreat to Texas.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Andrew T. Walker, Azusa Pacific University, Biola University, Cal. Grants, California Family Council, Equity in Higher Educaton Act, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Religion, Fresno Pacific University, John Gerardi, LGBT, Loma Linda University, National Review, Pacific Justice Institute, SB 1146, Simpson University, Westmont College, William Jessup University, www.Texaswideopenforbusiness.com/ | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 14, 2016
CD-46 Candidate Bao Nguyen (D), AD-68 Candidate Steven Choi (R), Sup-1 Candidate Michele Martinez (D), Central Committee Candidate Mike Munzing (R)
CD-46 Candidate Bob Peterson (R), AD-68 Candidate Harry Sidhu (R), Supervisor Andrew Do (R), Central Committee Candidate Roberta Turbow (R)
This is cross-posted to OC Daily.
Yesterday was a crazy day in vote counting saw that saw lead changes in four different races. It was definitely a good day for mayors, with Bao Nguyen (Garden Grove), Steven Choi (Irvine), and Mike Munzing (Aliso Viejo) each climbing into the last available spot in their races. Additionally, Santa Ana Councilwoman Michele Martinez took first place in her race. These races largely remain too close to call with an 87,000 ballots still uncounted countywide.
After Friday’s counts, Sheriff’s Commander Bob Peterson (R) was leading Garden Grove Mayor Bao Nguyen (D) by 236 votes for the second spot to advance to the run-off in the 46th Congressional District against former State Senator Lou Correa (D). After yesterday’s counts, Nguyen surged forward by 814 votes and now leads Peterson by 578 votes for the right to challenge Correa’s march to Congress.
On Friday, former Anaheim Councilman Harry Sidhu (R) was leading Irvine Mayor Steven Choi (R) by 608 votes for the second spot to advance to the run-off (and victory in the general election) in the 68th Assembly District against Attorney Sean Jay Panahi (D). After yesterday’s results, Choi swung 640 votes and now leads Sidhu by 32 votes for the run-off slot. With results this close, both campaigns are gearing up with attorneys and ballot watch teams.
Friday’s results showed Supervisor Andrew Do (R) with an 836-vote lead over Santa Ana Councilwoman Michele Martinez (D) in his bid for a full four-year term after winning last year’s special election for a two-year term. With a massive 1,689-vote swing, Martinez now leads Do by 853 votes. Who finishes first is mostly about perception by donors, parties, volunteers, etc., as Do and Martinez will face each other in the November run-off regardless of which is first or second, as Garden Grove Councilman Phat Bui (R) is a distant third.
Finally, in the forgotten close race for Republican Central Committee in the 73rd District, Friday’s numbers had Small Business Owner Roberta Turbow ahead of Aliso Viejo Mayor Mike Munzing by 234 votes for the sixth and final spot on the Central Committee from AD-73. A 343-vote swing now has Munzing leading Turbow by 109 votes.
With 87,000 uncounted ballots left in Orange County, there’s still a whole lot of counting left and a whole lot of nail-biting.
(Cue my usual Nguyen disclaimer: I am not related to Garden Grove Mayor Bao Nguyen. The last name Nguyen is held by 36% of Vietnamese people.)
Posted in 1st Supervisorial District, 46th Congressional District, 68th Assembly District, Republican Central Committee | Tagged: Andrew Do, Bao Nguyen, Bob Peterson, Harry Sidhu, Lou Correa, Michele Martinez, Mike Munzing, Phat Bui, Roberta Turbow, Sean Jay Panahi, Steven Choi | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 8, 2016
Republican Presidential Nominee
This is cross-posted to OC Daily.
In numbers that should scare Republicans across Orange County (and probably California, and maybe the United States), for the first time ever, more Orange County Democrats cast primary election ballots than Orange County Republicans did. Even in 2012, when Mitt Romney had sewn up the presidential nomination, more Republicans cast primary election votes than did in 2016. Even in the 2008 battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Democrats could not surpass Republicans in primary election ballots cast.
The 2012 general election was a bloodbath for Republicans:
- Democrats captured 2 Assembly seats from Republicans.
- Democrats captured 3 Senate seats from Republicans.
- Romney beat Obama by just 6.3% in Orange County.
Gerrymandered districts likely saved Republicans in 2008. The 2016 elections will be conducted under the same district lines that were first contested in 2012.
2016 threatens to be worse than 2012. Nowhere in Orange County is that more evident than in AD-65. Here is how Assemblyman Chris Norby did against challenger Mayor Sharon Quirk-Silva in the 2012 primary:
|CHRIS NORBY (REP)
|SHARON QUIRK-SILVA (DEM)
Here is how Assemblywoman Young Kim did against challenger ex-Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva last night:
|SHARON QUIRK-SILVA (DEM)
|YOUNG KIM (REP)
Norby led Quirk-Silva by 17.6% in the 2012 primary before losing to her in the general election by a 52%-48% margin. Kim is behind in the 2016 primary by an even larger margin than Norby lost in the 2012 general. Republicans will need to marshal massive financial and human resources in order to save the AD-65 seat.
Things look even bleaker in a swing seat that neighbors Orange County, where 66th District Assemblyman David Hadley is at 45.6% and trails ex-Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi:
|AL MURATSUCHI (DEM)
|DAVID HADLEY (REP)
|MIKE MADRIGAL (DEM)
The tri-county SD-29 is a good news, bad news situation for Republicans:
|LING LING CHANG (REP)
|JOSH NEWMAN (DEM)
|SUKHEE KANG (DEM)
As of the last reporting period ending May 21, Chang had $369,770 cash on hand, Newman had $21,835 cash on hand, and Kang had $173,086 cash on hand. The good news is that Chang now faces a weaker, underfunded opponent for a key Senate target seat. The bad news is Chang only got 44.8% of the vote in the primary.
Other scary numbers for Republican incumbents in Orange County last night:
- Assemblyman Travis Allen has just 50.9% of the vote.
|TRAVIS ALLEN (REP)
|LENORE ALBERT-SHERIDAN (DEM)
|NAM PHAM (DEM)
- Supervisor Andrew Do (R) is headed to a run-off with Michele Martinez (D), who he beat by 0.3% or 200 votes.
- Assemblyman Matthew Harper joins Assemblywoman Young Kim (who we discussed above) as the only two incumbents in Orange County who were not in first place.
|KARINA ONOFRE (DEM)
|MATTHEW HARPER (REP)
|KATHERINE DAIGLE (REP)
- Orange County Board of Education President Robert Hammond (R) is breathing a sigh of relief that County Board of Education races are winner-take-all in June with no runoff, for he beat Beckie Gomez (D) by 1.9% or 961 votes:
|ROBERT M. HAMMOND
|REBECCA “BECKIE” GOMEZ
There’s also the implications of California’s U.S. Senate race:
|KAMALA D. HARRIS (DEM)
|LORETTA L. SANCHEZ (DEM)
|DUF SUNDHEIM (REP)
With the top Republican vote-getter for U.S. Senate, Duf Sundheim, finishing a distant third, that means for the first time in California history, the November ballot for U.S. Senate will not include a Republican. Instead due to the top-two primary, only two Democrats will be on the U.S. Senate ballot in California.
Republicans face a tall order this fall to overcome the Democratic surge. Republicans will have to unify behind Republican candidates. The Republican Party must organize volunteers and raise significant funds. The OC GOP must strengthen its financial and human infrastructure in order to defeat Democrats. Otherwise, 2016 will be a bleak year indeed.
Posted in 1st Supervisorial District, 29th Senate District, 65th Assembly District, 72nd Assembly District, 74th Assembly District, California, Orange County Board of Education | Tagged: Al Muratsuchi, Andrew Do, Barack Obama, Chris Norby, David Hadley, Donald Trump, Duf Sundheim, Hillary Clinton, Josh Newman, Kamala Harris, Karina Onofre, Katherine Daigle, Lenore Albert-Sheridan, Ling-Ling Chang, Loretta Sanchez, Matthew Harper, Michele Martinez, Mike Madrigal, Mitt Romney, Nam Pham, Paul Zive, Phat Bui, Rebecca Gomez, Robert Hammond, Robert M. Hammond, Robert Morris Hammond, Sharon Quirk-Silva, Steve Rocco, Sukhee Kang, Travis Allen, Young Kim | 6 Comments »
Posted by Greg Woodard on June 2, 2016
There will be no recall election in Lake Forest for Council members Scott Voigts, Dwight Robinson, and Andrew Hamilton. The Orange County Registrar of Voters today rejected the recall petitions for failure to meet the required number of valid signatures. The Registrar found that the number of required signatures to qualify for the ballot for each candidate fell over 1,000 signatures shy.
It was earlier reported here that the recall group’s second effort also failed. Although the group served Voigts, Robinson, and Hamilton with recall papers after a City Council meeting, the group did not submit the proper paperwork to the Lake Forest City Clerk.
The recall group attempted a third time to recall just Voigts and Hamilton, but the group failed to properly submit recall papers to both the Council members, and the City Clerk.
The recall group’s efforts cost Lake Forest at least $85,000 to verify the signatures, but the additional $100,000 – $125,000 cost of a recall election was avoided by the failed recall petitions.
Posted in Lake Forest | Tagged: Andrew Hamilton, Dwight Robinson, Scott Voigts | 1 Comment »
Posted by Walter Myers III on May 29, 2016
A few weeks ago when Brian Calle informed readers of the direction of the Orange County Register editorial board, it concerned me that while they would continue to be fiscally conservative, they would take more progressively liberal positions on social issues. Still, I thought their historically libertarian views would be the more powerful driver, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I was wrong. The heading in the Sunday, May 29, Opinion section proved this to me with a shocking editorial titled “Gomez for county Board of Education.” Brian Calle and his cohorts turned their backs on OC Board of Education Area 1 incumbent Robert Hammond, endorsing Rebecca “Beckie” Gomez based on Hammond’s use of the word “sodomite” well over two years ago, without any understanding (or caring) of the context in which it was used.
The meaning of the word sodomite is simple. It is a word that refers to someone who engages in sodomy, which is defined by Dictionary.com as 1. “anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex, or 2. “copulation with a member of the same sex.” I spoke with Hammond about his use of the word sodomite, which was in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage as a fundamental constitutional right. Hammond sent out an email to his colleagues, whose subject was not even about sodomy, matter of factly noting that sodomites could now marry in response to the decision. It is the word that he was taught to use in his childhood as a politer alternative to the word gay or queer, which is an accurate description of those who participate in same-sex intercourse, and hardly “inflammatory” as grossly charged by the Register editorial. But the Register editorial board’s stated rationale is that times have changed and Hammond should have known better. I can’t think of a more arbitrary and baseless assertion.
The Register editorial board has now fallen into the liberal progressive trap that people (specifically they and no one else) can simply redefine language as they wish, and what once was a word that carried no derogatory meaning can now simply be declared as such on a whim. Bigots are now being created overnight with breathtaking speed, and the Register has become a willing participant in this madness. So Hammond has now used a word that has been recently determined to denigrate others, and even though the board agrees with him on most issues, and is highly skeptical of Gomez herself, they endorse her out of “hope” instead of solid reason due to the perceived meaning of a single word. For the use of but one word, the editorial board would put our children at risk by endorsing someone they have little reason to trust (particularly regarding charter schools) over someone who has proven himself over and over to be a responsible guardian over the wellbeing of all Orange County students. And that’s not to mention the broader, chilling effect on free speech and freedom of conscience that will flow from this action by the Register editorial board.
My first action after breakfast on Tuesday morning will be to cancel my subscription to the Orange County Register. Good riddance.
Posted in Orange County Board of Education, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »
Posted by Chris Nguyen on May 16, 2016
Your intrepid blogger did not make it out to Central Committee tonight, but multiple people present are reporting that Deputy District Attorney Karen Lee Schatzle has won the Republican Party of Orange County’s endorsement in her bid to unseat Superior Court Judge Scott Steiner.
The vote was 24-7 to endorse Schatzle after the Endorsements Committee had recommended no endorsement.
With absentee ballots already out, Schatzle will need to move quickly if she is going to make voters aware of this endorsement.
Also endorsed were Representative Ed Royce for the 39th Congressional District and Ofelia Velarde-Garcia for 69th Assembly District.
Our prior coverage of OC GOP endorsements is available here and here.
Posted in 39th Congressional District, 69th Assembly District, Republican Central Committee, Uncategorized | Tagged: Ed Royce, Karen Lee Schatzle, Ofelia Velarde-Garcia, Scott Steiner | 1 Comment »
Posted by Craig P. Alexander on May 9, 2016
Today (Monday, May 9, 2016) vote by mail ballots will be sent to voters in California. I will be voting for Senator Ted Cruz for President of the United States for the Republican primary of June 7th. I am also encouraging other Republicans to do the same. Why am I doing this when Sen. Cruz suspended his campaign? The reasons are several fold:
Senator Cruz (who will be listed first on our ballots) is still in my opinion the best candidate for President of the United States due to his long history of fighting for the U.S. Constitution and his willingness to take on the Washington, D.C. establishment on both sides of the isle. Ted Cruz is a proven and tested Constitutional leader. I recommend you go to: Senator Cruz’ web site to find out more.
In addition, Donald Trump has not earned my vote or support. His positions on issues (as much as can be understood of any position he may take) such as supporting transgender bathrooms and locker rooms, eminent domain abuse by having government take other people’s property then selling it to developers for them to build private property projects for their own profit and many other causes over the years are on the opposite side of what I believe in. Another example is he still loves Planned Parenthood. In addition, his tactics during the campaign including, but not limited to, going after people’s wives and children, alleging Ted Cruz’ father was in league with Lee Harvey Oswald in the assignation of JFK and other similar personal attacks have not convinced me The Donald has the temperament to be President. It is Mr. Trump’s job to sell me on supporting him and he has not do so.
Some have said a vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Hillary Clinton. I disagree. June 7th is a closed Republican Primary not the general election. No matter who any Republicans vote for in the primary that will have zero effect upon the Democrats nominating Hillary Clinton or any other person as their candidate for President. Also, in the general election in California we Republicans will be outnumbered by Democrats and others who will vote for the Democratic nominee so our votes for anyone in the general election will likely not matter in liberal California (and there is no way I will vote for the Democratic nominee).
Some might argue that if enough people vote in the primary for Ted Cruz rather than Donald Trump, Mr. Trump might not get the necessary 1237 delegates to achieve the Republican nomination on the first ballot resulting in a contested convention. Then someone like Ted Cruz could still obtain the nomination on the second, third or a later ballot. If this were to occur and Ted Cruz became the nominee my response would be that old Christian hymn / doxology:
Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heav’nly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen!
That would be a result I would be very happy with. Now if Mr. Trump does obtain the 1237 delegates to lock up the nomination, then he should be the nominee even if I do not like the result. That does not mean I will vote for or support him in the general election for all of the reasons above. But he will have won the nomination by doing obtaining 1237 delegates and maybe he can convince me he is a better candidate than I have seen to date before the November 8th election.
If you wish to see my “Craig’s Pics” voter recommendations go to: Craig’s Pics. I also recommend going to Robyn Nordell’s site and review Robyn and other conservatives’ excellent voter guides.
The sign in my front yard for Ted Cruz in the picture above I just put up last night (Sunday, May 8, 2016).
For those that may disagree with my recommendation I ask one thing: Please state facts for your arguments, not emotion, guilt or insults.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, November 8 General Election, Planned Parenthood, President of the United States, Republican Primary Election, Ted Cruz | 2 Comments »
Posted by Craig P. Alexander on May 9, 2016
Recently the Dana Point Times published my Letter to the Editor. In it I stated my opposition to Measure H which I call the Empty Lots Initiative.
Below is a part of that Letter:
By Craig Alexander, Dana Point
I have lived in Dana Point since 1999. One of the first things I realized is property development is a hot button issue. Another thing I noted in 1999, which continues to today, are the numerous empty lots and sometimes rundown buildings in downtown Dana Point. Over the years, there have been several studies and many public meetings about how to create a better downtown Dana Point to attract visitors and make it a nice place for residents to enjoy a wonderful shopping and dining experience.
A few years ago, a prior city council led by now Assemblyman Bill Brough, spearheaded the city finalizing what is now called the Lantern District plans after dozens of public hearings at which all citizens of Dana Point were allowed to participate. The plan passed via city council votes, and the city has already spent over $18 million, plus millions of ratepayer dollars from the South Coast Water District, to implement the Lantern District improvements. Part of the Lantern District plan is to recoup part of those funds via development fees and increased property taxes.
Now, unhappy with a few development decisions by the City Council, some members of our community want to implement a ballot box zoning law called Measure H that would have the effect of halting development in the Lantern District. I call this the “Empty Lots Initiative,” because it would make development there so restrictive that no project could financially work, thus the empty lots would stay empty. An obvious result would be the city not receiving back many of the millions of dollars it spent under the Lantern District Plan from development fees and increased property tax revenue. This ballot box zoning measure is like taking a sledge hammer to a problem that needle nose pliers can fix. You might get the result you want but you will also destroy the object you are trying to fix.
If you do not like the City Council and their property development decisions, change the City Council. That is why we have elections every two years in November and term limits as well.
At the very least, before making such a drastic decision, I encourage my fellow Dana Point residents to go to the city’s website (http://www.danapoint.org/) and click on the link to the Town Center Initiative Impact Report. You will find valuable information in that report, which I recommend you seriously consider prior to casting your vote for or against Measure H.
Here is the link to the full Letter to the Editor (Vote No On H, the Empty Lots Initiative)
Posted in Dana Point, Uncategorized | Tagged: Assemblyman Bill Brough, Ballot box zoning, Dana Point Lantern District, Dana Point Times, Dana Point Town Center, Lantern District, Measure H, Town Center Initiative Impact Report | Leave a Comment »