This came across the wire from the Dana Rohrabacher for Congress campaign:
|
Posted by Newsletter Reprint on March 23, 2012
This came across the wire from the Dana Rohrabacher for Congress campaign:
|
Posted in 48th Congressional District | Tagged: Dana Rohrabacher | Leave a Comment »
Posted by OC Insider on March 22, 2012
Everybody will be glad to know that the City of Los Angeles has solved all problems in their City and is moving on to other important issues like stopping the evil KFI 640 AM.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles has historically supported policies that
prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual
orientation, and disability; andWHEREAS, KFI 640 AM merged with Clear Channel Communications in 2000, making KFI 640 AM Clear Channel’s flagship AM radio station in Los Angeles;
WHEREAS, KFI 640 AM, averages approximately 1.5 million listeners during any given weekday; and
WHEREAS as noted in a recent L.A. Times article, a growing percentage of Southern California cities, including the Great City of Los Angeles, contain significant populations of at least two racial or ethnic groups; and
WHEREAS, February is National Black History Month; and
WHEREAS, on February 15,2012, KFI640 AM’s talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou of the “John and Ken Show” referred to pop music icon Whitney Houston as a “crack ho”, three days after her death;
WHEREAS, March is National Women’s History Month; and
WHEREAS, on February 29,2012, on the eve of Women’s History Month, KFI 640 AM’s syndicated talk show host Rush Limbaugh referred to Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student, as a “slut” and a “prostitute” for testifying on Capitol Hill about women’s access to contraception;
WHEREAS, given Clear Channel Media Holdings stated view on the value they-place on diversity, it is our belief that corporate action must start at the top with KFI 640 AM; and
WHEREAS, Clear Channel Media Holding’s commitment to diversity is not being realized at its flagship station KFI 640 AM, where out of 15 on-air personalities, only one is a female and none of them are African American; and
WHEREAS there are not any African Americans currently working in KFI 640 AM’s newsroom as full-time producers or engineers, or as outside paid contributors, fillin hosts, or other on air personalities; and
WHEREAS, when you have an absence of African Americans and other minorities in the workplace, it is easy to become desensitized to what other groups find intolerable which ultimately fosters an environment where negative comments can go unchecked and corporate guidelines and policies are no longer being enforced; and
WHEREAS, a truly diverse work includes the hiring of Women, Blacks, and other minorities;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that by adoption of this resolution, the City Council urges KFI 640 AM’s station management and Clear Channel Media Holdings do everything in their power to ensure that their on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs over public airwaves in the City of Los Angeles; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the derogatory language used by some radio personnel has no place on public airwaves in the Great City of Los Angeles or anywhere in America; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a truly diverse work environment must include the hiring of a work force that reflects the diversity of Los Angeles which includes women, African Americans, Latinos, and Asians.
You can also view a copy here:
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 22, 2012
I was taking a look at some of the press releases sitting in my inbox this morning and one of which was a press release from Dan Hughes a candidate for U.S. Senate. As you can probably guess since this article is not being posted under the “Newsletter Reprint” account, more to this story exists than a simple press release. Here is the exact press release issued by the Hughes for U.S. Senate Campaign this morning:
|
|
|
I was tipped off that the majority of this press release was copied and pasted from the “United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” website. Take a look at the statement from their website:
March 14 Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate
A Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
March 14, 2012The Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gathered for its March 2012 meeting, is strongly unified and intensely focused in its opposition to the various threats to religious freedom in our day. In our role as Bishops, we approach this question prayerfully and as pastors—concerned not only with the protection of the Church’s own institutions, but with the care of the souls of the individual faithful, and with the common good.
To address the broader range of religious liberty issues, we look forward to the upcoming publication of “A Statement on Religious Liberty,” a document of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. This document reflects on the history of religious liberty in our great Nation; surveys the current range of threats to this foundational principle; and states clearly the resolve of the Bishops to act strongly, in concert with our fellow citizens, in its defense.
One particular religious freedom issue demands our immediate attention: the now-finalized rule of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would force virtually all private health plans nationwide to provide coverage of sterilization and contraception—including abortifacient drugs—subject to an exemption for “religious employers” that is arbitrarily narrow, and to an unspecified and dubious future “accommodation” for other religious organizations that are denied the exemption.
We begin, first, with thanks to all who have stood firmly with us in our vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate: to our brother bishops; to our clergy and religious; to our Catholic faithful; to the wonderful array of Catholic groups and institutions that enliven our civil society; to our ecumenical and interfaith allies; to women and men of all religions (or none at all); to legal scholars; and to civic leaders. It is your enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate. With your continued help, we will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.
Second, we wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church’s hand and with the Church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops’ somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.
So what is it about?
An unwarranted government definition of religion. The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a “religious employer” deserving exemption—employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith. We are deeply concerned about this new definition of who we are as people of faith and what constitutes our ministry. The introduction of this unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom. Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry. HHS thus creates and enforces a new distinction—alien both to our Catholic tradition and to federal law—between our houses of worship and our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need, of any faith community or none. Cf. Deus Caritas Est, Nos. 20-33. We are commanded both to love and to serve the Lord; laws that protect our freedom to comply with one of these commands but not the other are nothing to celebrate. Indeed, they must be rejected, for they create a “second class” of citizenship within our religious community. And if this definition is allowed to stand, it will spread throughout federal law, weakening its healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity. All—not just some—of our religious institutions share equally in the very same God-given, legally recognized right not “to be forced to act in a manner contrary to [their] own beliefs.” Dignitatis Humanae, No. 2.
A mandate to act against our teachings. The exemption is not merely a government foray into internal Church governance, where government has no legal competence or authority—disturbing though that may be. This error in theory has grave consequences in principle and practice. Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers” will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world. For decades, the Bishops have led the fight against such government incursions on conscience, particularly in the area of health care. Far from making us waver in this longstanding commitment, the unprecedented magnitude of this latest threat has only strengthened our resolve to maintain that consistent view.
A violation of personal civil rights.The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing “services” contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption. This, too, is unprecedented in federal law, which has long been generous in protecting the rights of individuals not to act against their religious beliefs or moral convictions. We have consistently supported these rights, particularly in the area of protecting the dignity of all human life, and we continue to do so.
Third, we want to indicate our next steps. We will continue our vigorous efforts at education and public advocacy on the principles of religious liberty and their application in this case (and others). We will continue to accept any invitation to dialogue with the Executive Branch to protect the religious freedom that is rightly ours. We will continue to pursue legislation to restore the same level of religious freedom we have enjoyed until just recently. And we will continue to explore our options for relief from the courts, under the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws that protect religious freedom. All of these efforts will proceed concurrently, and in a manner that is mutually reinforcing.
Most importantly of all, we call upon the Catholic faithful, and all people of faith, throughout our country to join us in prayer and penance for our leaders and for the complete protection of our First Freedom—religious liberty—which is not only protected in the laws and customs of our great nation, but rooted in the teachings of our great Tradition. Prayer is the ultimate source of our strength—for without God, we can do nothing; but with God, all things are possible.
This is not a smart move from the Hughes campaign and I think that one of his opponents will likely call him on it. If you are going to copy and paste your content for a press release, at least cite the source that you are taking your content from.
Posted in California | Tagged: Dan Hughes | 3 Comments »
Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 22, 2012

Councilman Gary DeLong (R-Long Beach), former Congressman Steve Kuykendall (R-Long Beach), State Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach)
CD-47 is one of the LA-OC Congressional districts. When created by the Redistricting Commission, Congresswoman Linda Richardson (D-Long Beach) resided within its borders; however, the Democrats’ voter registration advantage proved too small for Richardson’s comfort, so she’s running for CD-44 against fellow Congresswoman Janice Hahn (D-Los Angeles). In CD-47, Democrats comprise 42.4% of registered voters, Republicans 31.7%, and No Party Preference 21.1%. In CD-44, Democrats comprise 63.9% of registered voters, Republicans 13.2%, and No Party Preference 18.6%.
The Los Angeles County portions of CD-47 (Signal Hill, 82% of Long Beach, and 22% of Lakewood) comprise 58% of the district. The Orange County portions of CD-47 (Cypress, Los Alamitos, Stanton, Rossmoor, 61% of Westminster, 60% of Garden Grove, and 24% of Buena Park) comprise 42% of the district.
The Republicans running for this open seat are:
The Democrats running are:
Oddly, Jay Shah and Usha Shah are married to each other. For the sake of family peace, I really hope the Shahs’ two adult sons live outside CD-47. I would love to have a seat at the Shahs’ next family dinner.
The three front-runners for June are definitely DeLong, Kuykendall, and Lowenthal. They’re the ones with the name ID and the money. Once Republicans DeLong and Kuykendall settle their battle, one of them will face off against Lowenthal, the Democrat.
At the close of 2011, DeLong led the money race with $367,486 cash on hand and $4,912 in debt. Lowenthal was next with $169,221 and $10,172 in debt. Kuykendall had $37,659 and $9,040 in debt. Oddly, Mathews had $64 cash on hand and $349,511 in debt! Usha Shah had no cash on hand and $31,920 in debt. All other candidates had no cash on hand and no debts.
Posted in 47th Congressional District | Tagged: Alan Lowenthal, Gary DeLong, Janice Hahn, Jay Shah, Laura Richardson, Peter Mathews, Sanford Kahn, Steve Foley, Steve Kuykendall, Usha Shah | 1 Comment »
Posted by Thomas Gordon on March 21, 2012
Just what were three 17 year old kids from Santa Ana doing out last night at 2:15 in the morning in the city that bills itself the 4th safest in America no less….
They were robbing a medical marijuana clinic along with an 18 year old named Gustavo Alexander Penaloza, when they were captured by SAPD.
With the assistance of a police helicopter they were arrested and booked into juvenile hall.
Santa Ana not only has an epidemic of teenagers roaming the streets at all hours of the night in violation of our curfew laws, but a multi-million dollar graffiti problem and an excessive drop out rate from Santa Ana Unified School District.
Where were their parents? Were these children no longer attending school?
Just what do you think should be done about this and who is ultimately to blame?
Posted in Santa Ana, Santa Ana Unified School District | Tagged: crime, Medical Marijuana, Santa Ana | 17 Comments »
Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 21, 2012
In Orange County, the Registrar of Voters has long published both candidates’ statements and ballot designations for review by the public in the ten days after candidate filing. They cite Elections Code Section 13313, which states, “(a) The elections official shall make a copy of the material referred to in Section 13307 available for public examination in the elections official’s office for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents…” (Section 13307 refers to the candidate’s statement, name, age, and occupation; the occupation is of course what the ballot designation describes.)
In a stunning disregard for public input, the Riverside County Registrar of Voters has completely abrogated the public review period for ballot designations. No fewer than 61 candidates had “Ballot Designation Pending” during the entire public review period (and actually still do as of this morning). Keep in mind, I’m using the most generous standard possible in counting just 61: I’m excluding the US Senate race, along with any multi-county Congressional races or multi-county state legislative races (in multi-county races, you could go to the Registrars of the other counties to find the ballot designation). Candidates for everything from Congress to State Legislature to County Supervisor to County Board of Education to Central Committee had “Ballot Designation Pending” as their ballot designation.
In the system as run by the Orange County Registrar of Voters, the ballot designations are published literally the same night that candidate filing closes, and the public is allowed ten days to file suit to obtain a writ of mandate from the Orange County Superior Court to force a ballot designation change if the plaintiff is able to prove (to the satisfaction of the judge) that the ballot designation is false, misleading, or somehow otherwise does not meet the requirements of the Elections Code (like using certain words on the forbidden word list). Every election, there’s at least one, usually more, lawsuits in Orange County seeking writs of mandate over ballot designations. Indeed, there are often suits at the state level over ballot designations (Attorney General and Board of Equalization District 2 come to mind from 2010).
Candidate filing for most offices closed on Friday, March 9, meaning the 10-day public review period ended two days ago on Monday, March 19.
However, the Riverside County Registrar of Voters has completely abrogated this public review for ballot designations. The 10-day public review period has come and gone, and 61 candidates still have “Ballot Designation Pendling” under their names. If a Riverside County resident had wanted to file suit to obtain a writ of mandate from the Riverside County Superior Court to force a ballot designation change, they would not have been able to do so because they would not have been able to view the ballot designations in order to file suit. A plaintiff cannot prove a ballot designation is false, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the Elections Code if the ballot designation is simply pending.
While the Orange County Registrar of Voters allows voters to appeal ballot designations by giving them time to file suit with the Orange County Superior Court during the public review period to challenge ballot designations, it seems the Riverside Registrar of Voters wants to act as the all-powerful final arbiter of ballot designations, allowing no public recourse.
Posted in California | Tagged: Orange County Registrar of Voters, Riverside County Registrar of Voters | 4 Comments »
Posted by Newsletter Reprint on March 21, 2012
This just came across the wire from the Williams for Orange County Board of Education campaign:
Republican Party of Orange County Endorses Dr. Ken Williams for Re-Election to OC Board of Education
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orange County, CA (March 20, 2012) – Last night, the Republican Party of Orange County voted to endorse Dr. Ken Williams for re-election to the Orange County Board of Education Trustee Area 3 seat in the June primary.
“I am grateful to the Republican Party of Orange County for recognizing that I am the candidate of limited government, personal responsibility, and traditional family values,” Williams said. “I thank the party for its endorsement of my record fighting tax hikes, cutting waste, and battling unfunded mandates.”
Posted in Orange County Board of Education | Tagged: Ken Williams | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Newsletter Reprint on March 20, 2012
This just recently came across the wire from the office of Congressman John Campbell:
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Fix It, Episode II: In the second “episode” of our saga on fixing our problems and bringing America a new period of growth and optimism, I will address an issue that none of you will be surprised to see me tackle – the debt and deficit. Since I was first elected to the California State Assembly in 2000, trying to get government to tax, spend and waste less has been a major priority for me. As such, you have heard a lot from me on this issue. So, I will not repeat much of what I have said incessantly for years so that I don’t become electronic Ambien for you.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in 45th Congressional District | Tagged: John Campbell | 1 Comment »
Posted by Thomas Gordon on March 20, 2012
Last night the next Mayor of Orange, Jon Dumitru, invited me and you to his next fundraiser at one of the hippest joints in Downtown Orange, The District Lounge. If you’ve yet to visit now is the time.
Jon and his fellow Conservatives in Orange have done an amazing job in ensuring that business thrives in Orange and I’m looking forward to seeing the road ahead under Mayor Dumitru.
Posted in Fundraising, Orange | Tagged: Jon Dumitru, Orange | 1 Comment »