OC Political

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

Author Archive

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Abortion: Yeah, Let’s go there.

Posted by Brenda Higgins 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: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Unaccompanied Children: Why are they here?

Posted by Brenda Higgins 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 | 3 Comments »

Meet me in the Middle

Posted by Brenda Higgins on April 22, 2014

This is a quote from one of my favorite politicians, Bill Clinton.  Not because I stand with him ideologically, but because he was effective in creating consensus and getting things done.  Bill Clinton’s biggest fan is Bill Clinton, and he certainly would never let any ideology stand in his way of making a deal.  Not saying we should adopt that approach, but certainly something we could learn from.

The OCGOP held its monthly meeting last night, and the agenda included a variety of important endorsements for state and local offices.  Clearly the big events of the evening were consideration of the application from Tim Donnelly to obtain the county party endorsement in his race for California Governor, and Carlos Vasquez, seeking an endorsement from the party in his effort to unseat Loretta Sanchez.

Neither candidate was successful.

Mr. Vasquez is sorely underfunded for a race against a behemoth of a politician like Loretta Sanchez.  While everyone appreciated his sincerity and courage, he seemed unprepared to deal with this crowd.  Both Mr. Vasquez and his opponent who was in attendance were give an opportunity to respond to questions. (Jim Collum is a candidate endorsed by the American Independent party and did not seek the endorsement of the OCGOP, he complained that some glitch in getting his paperwork in on time prevented him from seeking this endorsement)  When asked why we should give them our endorsement, the candidates both dodged the question and gave their stump speech about why they are running.  Two more committee members asked similar questions, and it was only after Chairman Baugh pointed out their non-responsiveness, and Kermit Marsh asked them directly about endorsements and funds, did they finally get to the point of how viable they are that they should have the important endorsement of this particular body.  It was practically comical at times, with the lack of direct and concise responses and the effort to sidestep and obfuscate the issues that were clearly important to this body.  Can you really take this on?  Are you a serious candidate or is this just a haphazard game?

Loretta Sanchez is a serious contender.  Agreeably, a serious problem that the GOP would love to eliminate.  Are you the guy to get this job done?  That was the topic of discussion. Did they really think we were interested in their high gloss, soft shoe, sales pitch?

Andrew Blount is the mayor of Laguna Hills.  He is a nice man, with seemingly good intentions.  He has even less money than Tim Donnelly and does not have the cheerleading section, the “boots on the ground” that Donnelly has.  I am not sure why he is running.  He has $7,000.00 in his campaign that he has self funded.   He is a nice man and should save himself the grief of this race and just stay home.

Tim Donnelly came flanked by what appeared to be about 50 enthusiastic supporters.  The same rhetorical question should be posed to those people.  Did you really think, the elected OCGOP Central Committee members in this room were interested in your signs, or T-shirts, or your Whooping and hollering?  Next time the Tea Party desires to bring a candidate for the support of this group, please feel free to exercise some, or any, restraint and someone please take a lesson on decorum.  This is a room of politicos of varying experience, but certainly all committed to pursuing what is best for the party, our county and the state and federal governments overall.  The cheering and the interruptions were not only not persuasive, they were uncalled for and lended strength to the arguments against their candidate, in that this may not be the right time or the right candidate.

One thing that would have made Donnelly’s presentation more effective, is for all of those supporters present, to make some immediate financial contributions. They could have gotten on phones earlier in the day and worked on raising him some immediate money, rather than spending all the time they must have spent coordinating their T-shirts and signs.  Donnelly would have been more persuasive if he had come by himself, professional and dignified, just like every one of the many candidates we did endorse that evening.  With nearly 50 people there,  it is impossible not to wonder why or if, they have done or given anything at all to give this campaign some financial credibility, and prepare or strategize for this meeting, rather than just have an obvious plan to be disruptive.  Donnelly told us he had $11,000.00 in the bank.  If every enthusiastic supporter there put in $50.00 RIGHT THEN, he could certainly have boasted that he raised $2,500.00 THIS EVENING. That would have been impressive and might have helped to convert some believers to their arguments about all the faith they have in their grassroots and ground swell.

I get it,  Meg Whitman, blah, blah, blah, money doesn’t win races, blah, blah.

A campaign is not a religious exercise requiring a vow of poverty either.  Money is necessary.  Money is required.  Donnelly also acknowledged that more than $100k is still needed.  I do not recall if that is debt from past expenditures or is needed for future printing projects, but clearly the campaign is not even realizing it’s own goals.  If there were more effort in this energetic group, put behind fund raising, coupled with their enthusiasm, certainly committee members like me, who came with a truly open mind, could be persuaded to get on the band wagon.  There is an enormous problem with credibility when there is such a disparity between reality and necessity.

Chairman Baugh confirmed that Jerry Brown has a war chest of $20million.  Twenty-million dollars.

The probation thing also doesn’t help, and Donnelly never even mentioned it.  It is out there, it will have to be addressed.  Ignoring the elephant in the room will not make it go away.

Although Mr. Donnelly, was polished and articulate, he was condescending and played to his crowd.  He was there to seek the endorsement of the committee, and frankly, it appeared he planned on not getting it.  Donnelly and his followers left the room as soon as the votes pertaining to him were complete. They were indignant and noisy, and continued to make  noise and commotion as they exited a meeting that was still in progress. The meeting was in progress in fact, to honor the hard work of our great volunteers.  Well played Donnelly camp.  Disrespect is not usually the way to win anyone’s support.  Volunteers are the heart of what we do, and in general the volunteers who are honored at this meeting are not people who just discovered the conservative movement last week, but generally have long histories of service.  Shame on you for such glaring disrespect of these people and the process.

The chronic defensiveness of the Tea Party continues to hurt their message.  Their premise is that they are right about all of their platforms and disenfranchised from the “establishment” without any access or appreciation for their enormous “grassroots” efforts. They came to the “establishment” and acted like jerks.  That is not inviting or attractive in anyway. Rodney Dangerfield got no respect because he went around saying it all the time.  You get what you give usually.

I WANT to support Tim Donnelly.  I WANT to believe that there is a tremendous ground swell effort in play, that grassroots are taking hold, that voters are fed up and they want change, BUT, if the captains of the grassroots ship, keep coming to the party with a chip on their shoulder about how disenfranchised they are, this movement will sink itself AND the party.  I hope that doesn’t happen, but based upon the display last night, I can’t help but feel we are all doomed, to eventually live in a completely and hopelessly blue state, in a completely and hopelessly blue nation.  We all remember where that one party experiment was last tried and failed.

Meet me in the middle, was about compromise, it was about reaching out, and if Bill Clinton was anything, it was persuasive.  We need people from the base and the Tea Party to develop attitudes of meeting in the middle. The ideaologues and dogma are a problem, the obvious one, but what was evidenced last night is both greater and easier to fix.  It was about respect.  Donnelly fans showed up, moderately hostile, anticipating to be disrespected and not to gain the endorsement they alleged to seek.  They left, fulfilling their negative self prophecy, not more enlightened in how their own behavior contributed to this.  I came with an open mind. I want to believe that there is a David who can kill Jerry Brown’s Goliath.  In the course of the meeting, though, they lost me.  Misguided efforts and the prevailing attitude were too prevalent to overlook.

Republican party voter registration is now down to 28%.  The increase in No Party Preference voters continues, with no end in sight.  We are almost tied, the GOP and NPP for voter registration.  Sad.  Our platform is that limited government would provide increased economic freedom to all, and as such, increased liberty to all.  Is that really so hard? Is there any concept or ideal that is more important than that?  That is our middle.  It is our foundation.  It is right. It works. If we can not figure out how to meet THERE, we continue to jeopardize our future.  I sincerely hope that both Tim Donnelly and Carlos Vasquez continue to work hard, step up and clean up their game, so that we see viable candidates to carry our message in November after the June primary.

If the Donnelly supporters are serious about truly helping him get this endorsement prior to November, it would behoove them to put a proverbial shoulder to the plow in good faith. There are always openings for Volunteers in the GOTV efforts at OCGOP.  Join us.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Vote for me, because I am one of you

Posted by Brenda Higgins on February 18, 2014

Last night the OCGOP Central Committee held it’s monthly meeting and on the agenda were some requests for early endorsements in upcoming partisan races.  There has been some confusion over recent changes in the bylaws and how the timing, request and filing requirements of endorsements will be affected, but that is not the topic here.  (Frankly, I’m a pretty smart person, and I am still struggling to understand the amendments and why we made them)  Here, I want to discuss the future future of the party in California in a post Prop 14 world.

The only endorsement that garnered any discussion is the one sought by Diane Harkey for the California State Board of Equalization.  There were unanimous endorsements for Shari Freidenrich and Tony Rackaukas.  I don’t believe that Shari is challenged and given the circumstances surrounding prior challenges, it’s not likely that TRack will see any challengers until he is blind and walking with a cane and willing to step down, none of which seem to be in his future.

Diane Harkey has announced her candidacy for the State Board of Equalization. In that race also, are Republicans Van Tran and Mark Wyland.  As a matter of procedure (which was not at any time clear what exactly the procedure should have been) the candidates were allowed to speak.  It was fairly impromptu, and did become something of a debate, although the Chairman continued to remind us that this was not a debate.  The end of the story is that the Committee voted by a narrow, (3 votes) to endorse Diane Harkey at this early stage, per her request.  She was immensely grateful, and indicated it was going to make it so much easier for her to raise money and obtain support.

Although I am not well acquainted with any of these candidates,  I did receive a phone call quite some time ago from Diane requesting my support.  I have also had contact from her campaign requesting the same, so kudos to her for hitting the ground running.  I have seen her at every Central Committee meeting in recent months, pressing the flesh, making her presence and ambitions known. She certainly has gotten out early and often, doing the work.  However, I am not certain that an “A” for effort necessarily entitles a candidate to essentially eviscerate opportunities for the other Republicans before the campaign has even started.

To clarify, since Prop 14 we have ‘open’ primaries in California.  Any number of candidates from any party may enter a race.  In this race, we will have at least 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat in what has been described to as a ‘safe’ Republican seat.  In the last election we saw the first glimpse of what is to come of this in the form of Republican on Republican fundraising and rhetorical violence.  How we will deal with it continues to be of concern and debate amongst our ranks.

The best idea of the evening was in the form of a motion made by Deborah Pauly to “table” this discussion until the filing had closed for this office, i.e. postpone this discussion and endorsement until after the ‘official’ filing deadline with the Registrar of Voters has passed, because in theory, someone could walk in there today and decide to be a candidate for this office.  In the morass of procedural clarifications throughout the meeting, that motion somehow got lost, which was disappointing.  The vote on the endorsement and the debate from the members proceeded nevertheless, the endorsement was granted, without any significant consideration of the implications and seriousness of the problems this new post Prop 14 lay of the land provides for the party.

The lack of strategy and agenda for addressing this problem having been noted, here is what has and is developing from this new early endorsement approach.  A veritable game of “gotcha” seems to be arising, in that if a candidate gets there early, and another worthy candidate is in the wings, unaware of the procedure for an endorsement, if and when the political insider, the one who knows the ropes, the one who has been in an office and aware of these procedures, gets there first, he or she will be the one who will get the endorsement.  Will this stop the blood bath of Republican on Republican campaigning in the early races?  That remains to be seen, but it seems it could really exacerbate it.

Now with the OC giving the nod to Harkey, it is likely that San Diego will give the nod to it’s hometown hero, Wyland.  A comment was made last night that VanTran has “no chance” and should bow out now, which of all the incredible and offensive things I heard last night, that was certainly one of them.  It was only a few years ago that Van Tran was the great party hope to unseat Loretta Sanchez. Now he is disregarded like road kill, ‘nothing to see here folks, move along’.  Wow.

The veritable stepping over Van Tran, is magnified though when viewed in light of the discussion that occurred.  Strangely, in the lengthy questioning of the candidates, not only were there no questions related to the actual duties of the position, there was no discussion of the agenda that either candidate would bring to the office.  What there was, were a number of questions that could be easily rephrased as “How Republican are you?”  We heard quite a lot from Harkey about how involved she has been in the party, how she is highly rated in her State Assembly performance by conservative groups, and all the conservative principles she has fought for in the State Assembly.  Nothing other than she really wants “this” (new) job, to explain to us what exactly she will do at the Board of Equalization.

It should be noted that Wyland, even though he was invited to engage in the discussion, did NOT seek the party endorsement.

In addition to being light on substance related to the actual office, (again, these candidates were not noticed that they would be speaking) Harkey was over all, shrill in her presentation. She was a tad histrionic, condescending and rude at times.  I did not care for the eye rolling at some of the comments from Wyland, and her body language, including but not limited to the manner in which she snatched the microphone from Mr. Wyland.

I have said before, this is a tough room.  Politicos of every ilk, well versed in the issues and public figures who in their own varied roles, must verbally address the public on a regular basis.  If you are coming here, you should be prepared to bring your A-game.  Ms. Harkey, as she pointed out, has a long career of public service and has run many a successful campaign. She as much as anyone, should not take any of this for granted.  The impression she gave last night is that she does.  She was indignant that Wyland was there, or in the race or really toward almost anything he had to say. He is also an elected official, coincidentally, higher ranking than Ms. Harkey. Regardless, her disrespect was uncalled for.  Her anticipation of the automatic nature of the endorsement of this important body, also uncalled for.  I would have been far more impressed had she been dignified, respectful and acquiescing to the right of her opponent to be heard.

I am disappointed that the Committee took this action when there were other options, to simply not endorse, or table it for a short, or even indefinite time.  I am disappointed at the narrow margin by which this important endorsement was gained.  I would have voted for the motion to table this to the next meeting or anytime AFTER the filing deadline had passed so that we could be certain exactly WHO will be in this race, but that’s not the way it went.  I fear now, that this will be a fundraising and propaganda blood bath, in what could have and should have been a quiet race for a “safe” seat.  Ms. Harkey indicated that this early endorsement will avoid exactly that which I and others fear, in that SHE will have an easier time raising money and obtaining important support.  I’m not the campaigning pro that she is, and I seriously hope she is right, it just doesn’t make any logical sense to me.

A letter I received from Mark Wyland dated February 13, 2014, stated, “My view has always been that the best role for the party is to stay out of Republican on Republican races, and to help unify everyone after the June vote.  ……With that in mind, I would ask the Orange County Republican Party not pick favorites between three Republicans.  Speaking for myself, I can’t think of anything I have done over the years to deserve having my party endorse against me.  …. I do not request my party’s endorsement and would deeply appreciate it if my party would not endorse against me.”

In this post Prop 14 world, I keep having this recurring thought, it is a good thing we Republicans are so pro-gun because we need to keep re-loading to shoot ourselves repeatedly in the foot.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Can’t We All Just Get Along: Politics as usual in Yorba Linda

Posted by Brenda Higgins on January 23, 2014

I hate to quote Rodney King, but it just fits. There are too many important races coming up this year and too much at stake to not take an early look at alignments, tactics and issues.

In my little town of Yorba Linda, we have the usual onslaught, yes, already, of Republican on Republican verbal violence. It makes no sense, and literally everyone loses in such a battle. There is a movement afoot, to recall two council members. There is no allegation of abuse of power, of violation of law, of conflict of interest, sexual or moral misconduct, the gist of this movement is that they did not keep their campaign promises.

Really. Shocking. Whether they did or didn’t, just shocking that such an allegation would arise.

One of the Council Members targeted in the recall is up for re-election in NOVEMBER. Mark my words, the candidates and their supporters who are behind this, will run in November beating the drum of how they are the “real” fiscal conservatives. Please consider the cost of this recall effort. Even if it goes nowhere, the city staff still must count and review the signatures obtained and the application paperwork.

Recalls should be reserved for serious and egregious conduct, not just because you don’t like who’s in office. That is precisely the situation with this one, as well as the last unsuccessful recall effort (that would be the ‘other’ side who tried that last cycle) The current recall literature is couched in terms of high versus low density zoning. This is a perennial issue in Yorba Linda which has existed as a very contentious one for more than two decades.

News Flash: Nobody wants HIGH Density zoning. The proverbial, NOT IN MY BACKYARD attitude prevails. The best spin doctors on this issue, many years ago, used the term, “low income” housing. Which is confusing and lead people to have images of a Harlem style development, also formally known as Section 8 housing. Higher density does not mean Section 8 housing.

The one true statement that appears in the literature from both sides is that it is gonna happen. The part that is not true, is each side attributing ‘fault’ to the other. The real villain in the scenario is Sacramento. The state mandates that the city have some land available for building homes that are “affordable”. Last time I checked that was the theory of housing for a family of four with an income of about $40,000 per year. We can’t be sure where the Sacramento brain trust came up with such an imaginary family, but I can assure you, regardless of what they build in Yorba Linda, it is not likely to be affordable for that family under any circumstances. The theory though, requires that the “density”, or the number of homes per acre, must be raised to more homes per acre than Yorba Linda has had historically, in order to satisfy this State mandate.

If Yorba Linda does not in some way comply, there will be litigation. State of California vs. Yorba Linda, is not a case that I want to see filed anywhere. It is likely to be very costly and the bottom line is, Yorba Linda loses. I suppose there is a tangential argument (Translation of tangential: Ridiculous and unsuccessful) that we Yorba Lindans have a proprietary and constitutional right to all have low density zoning, anywhere and everywhere in our town because that is what we bargained for when we moved in here and paid all this money for our lovely homes.

This has been tried before. The U.S. Supreme Court block busting cases, Kraemer, and it’s progeny, basically said what we all already know, our constitutional rights all have limits. All of them, even the ones related to ownership of property. Keeping people out on the basis on economic impediments is likely to go as well as keeping people out on the basis of race. Likely result of the litigation is the California law will be upheld and Yorba Linda will foot the bill for the whole fiasco. The city’s law firm, and the numerous law clerks who would work on the case would be imminently pleased to have learned so much about constitutional and municipal zoning laws, at our expense. So, if you think High Density will have a negative impact on your property taxes, just wait till City Hall gets our lawyers involved with litigation with the State and see what happens to our city’s otherwise bright financial future.

The city’s coffers are not the piggy bank of politicians to take up and take on ridiculous issues for the purposes of keeping their names in the paper. Look around residents, it has become the status quo. Everytime you see a Yorba Linda politician in the paper or on the news it is usually NOT about an issue that has a close nexus to something that is in the best interests of the city.

Everybody in the race this year is likely to be Republican. Everybody in the race this year is going to be waving the flag of being a “Fiscal Conservative”. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION to the spin, here because in general they are all SAYING THE SAME THING.

We don’t want HIGH Density, but we DON’T want litigation either. We must walk this fine line between getting what we want and placating big brother. Anyone who is telling you something different, anyone who is blaming the other guys and saying it is THEIR fault and THEY broke promises, and I can give you the proverbial “chicken in every pot” (or a half acre for everyone in the case of Yorba Linda), well they are just not being truthful with you.

The bloodsport of politics in the city of Yorba Linda is likely to be as ugly as any year prior. Be informed, tell the people standing in front of your grocery store that you are informed and that there presence is decreasing your property value as much as anything.

The only thing to be gained by any of this posturing is to ruin some candidates and get attention for other candidates. We as citizens encourage this by tolerating and ignoring it. These ugly and contentious races have kept away good candidates and very much work to minimize public participation of those who fear retribution. I don’t know about you, but my intent is to be aware and not support the negativity and histrionic shenanigans of these people. We should all make that known to the candidates as they announce their candidacy in the coming weeks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Thugs and the illusory promise of a free press

Posted by Brenda Higgins on November 6, 2012

Jim Drummond writes a column for the Yorba Linda Star. He is and has been the only political commentator on Yorba Linda Politics. Well, that is, until I started writing for this blog.

In 2010, when I was a candidate for Yorba Linda City Council, Mr. Drummond approached me at one of the candidate forums and made clear that he did not like me, that he did not like my consultant and that I would receive no favorable treatment in his column. He made good on that promise and on several occasions printed information about me that was completely inaccurate, without contacting me at anytime to verify anything.

A list of his recent columns appears here. http://jimdrummond.blogspot.com/

Notably absent from this list is any mention of the mammoth expenditures made in this recent election by the AOCDS. The union of our newly contracted police service, the Orange County Sheriff.

In spite of the overwhelming support of the Yorba Linda voters for Measure Y the “Ethics”ordinance, in spite of the overwhelming support of many citizens for keeping the Brea PD, and in spite of his alleged “objectivity” in the process as a ‘journalist’, an expenditure that dwarfs the spending of many individual campaigns, in not worthy of mention during this election cycle.

Voters in Yorba Linda should look very carefully at who is running their city, because it is clearly not the voters.

Posted in Yorba Linda | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Thugs and Public Servants: What’s the score now that the campaigning is done?

Posted by Brenda Higgins on November 5, 2012

While I am thoroughly appalled at the more than $60,000.00 that the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriff’s (AOCDS) spent in support of incumbent council members in Yorba Linda, it is one of those important distinctions between their message set forth on behalf of the ‘members’ they purport to represent and the members themselves.

In April, A five year, $9 million per year contract was awarded to the Orange County Sheriff. The vote, which took place at 3 am, was literally determined by Nancy Rikel, Mark Schwing, and John Anderson. Even though we have FIVE council members, the other two (Who voted to keep the 40 year contract with Brea Police) don’t matter. The Majority 3 vote together on very issue, every time. They decided this issue, they approved this contract. Little to no public input was elicited or allowed.

These alleged fiscal conservatives, Rikel and Schwing are up for re-election, and have garnered the coveted endorsements of the local GOP and the higher up state and federal representatives.

Regardless of party philosophies and the surreptitious manner in which these endorsements were obtained, the timing of these events should raise more than red flags.

This is also well beyond whether you think the Sheriff will be better that Brea PD or Brea PD will be better that the Sheriff. Seven months later. More than $60k in support, from the Union that benefitted, to the politicians who fully controlled and ultimately decided their contract.

Did I mention there is an Ethics Ordinance in Yorba Linda that prohibits any council member from accepting contributions in excess of $250 from any person or entity that may contract with the city? These mailers were sent directly from the address of, and paid for by the Union. These politicians will stand behind their “My campaign did not pay for that”. Later we will have a debate about what “sex with that woman” means also. Sometimes things are exactly what they seem to be. Do we really need that “blue dress”of physical evidence to show us what this relationship is about?

I work with Sheriff deputies every day. I thank God each day that they are there at the courthouse, keeping me and my clients safe, and maintaining order in a tense and sometimes chaotic environment. These fine men and women serve and carry guns and badges on a daily basis to protect their community, and not necessarily because they desire to be the deciding factors in the election process.

In 2009, shortly after the Triangle Complex Fire, I had the privilege of attending the Annual Chamber of Commerce Police and Fire breakfast. I sat with 9 officers, all who for various reasons were being honored for their extraordinary service. I heard of incredible acts of courage and sacrifice during the extraordinary day that over 100 homes in Yorba Linda burned to the ground. The effective work and brave actions of the police an fire crews that protected Yorba Linda on that day were clearly responsible for the fact that there was no loss of life.

These public servants face incredible danger so that we don’t have to. They are also citizens, are entitled to associate, to vote, to form opinions and voice them. However, the magnitude of this Sheriff contract, the sweeping change of terminating a 42 year relationship with Brea PD in a 3 am vote, coupled with unprecedented dollars in campaign support, only seven months later, is all something that goes well beyond entitlement of the union to participation in the election process. If this is not pay to play, I can not imagine what is.

Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments »

Proposition 37, or Why legislation belongs in the legislature

Posted by Brenda Higgins on November 4, 2012

Like many of the propositions, this one seems to be a very emotional one for its supporters.  I have not seen viceral personal appeals in opposition, but in Yorba Linda in 2012, I don’t know a lot of farmers personally.

Other than my recent field trip to Coachella Valley to visit some large farming operations and talk about their water service, I don’t have a lot of reason to get excited about this one.  I’m no health fanatic, and much prefer that ‘head in the sand’ approach to knowing a lot of details about what I eat. I am pretty dispassionate about this issue, and have been content for the debate to rage on, while I ignore the pleas of my facebook friends to worry about whether eels are real, or in my cereal, or something.

Until yesterday, when I was near Mother’s Market on Newport Blvd.  They had proudly and prominently displayed a banner on the front of the building imploring drivers by to vote in support of Prop. 37.  There were also, on the other side of the street, many supporters, hollering at cars, waiving their hands and signs that matched the banner on Mother’s market.  I was heading to lunch at Mimi’s, and I was certain that Ihad no intention of asking them to see the nutritional information of whatever I ordered.

All the energy emanating from Mother’s Market though, struck me as strangely ironic.  If you are shopping at Mother’s Market, you are probably there out of a great concern for having high quality food, from the best sources and great availability of options like, organic, cage-free and grass fed.  That is what the free market system provides you.  Choices, in the open market where there is demand, supply will naturally follow.

I don’t know about the rest of my Republican brethren, but it seems to me, if we are to stand against big brother and his socialist agenda, we must do so at all turns.  Do we really need to expand the food police? Can we not, all of us, accept some responsibility for effective consumerism?  If you don’t want genetically engineered foods, then get together with all the other *dirty hippies and boycott those companies, and all their products.  I have seen the list of Monsanto products that has been circulated, and with only a cursory look over it, I can not imagine how I could avoid all of those products, but kudos to those of you who are trying.  People who are disciplined enough to getup before the sun and run several miles, can certainly squeeze in some extra time to research the products and manufacturers of what you are ingesting.

It’s really a hierarchy of need kind of thing.  We are still hovering barely below double digit unemployment nationally.  Businesses in California are taxed and regulated nearly out of existence, and we continue to place additional burdens upon them.  If you have searched for a grove of anything in Orange County, of tried a drive up the Interstate 5 to show your children what cotton, potato or tomato fields look like, you have been sadly disappointed. For a variety of reasons, they are not there to see. These are all complex issues, with a variety of explanations and causes, BUT do we really have to make everything HARDER and more complex and more taxed and more regulated, and create additional government agencies and jobs.  With this trend we will all eventually work for the state of California.  Forget about the paranoia of socialism on a national level, we are dangerously close to being the real time experiment here in the tarnished Golden State.

It is a complex issue, and like every other pet issue in this state, if you don’t get what you want in Sacramento, just put it on the ballot.  A popular end run for those of us in the chronic minority in the legislature, but GEEZ, enough already.  We are approaching the place where the voters have to be professional legislators, and voters have enough of a problem keeping up with the simple issues and facts without the addition of the plethora of wordy and confusing propositions. 

My mother asked me at dinner last night who she should vote for in the local election, and then proceeded to tell me that she already mailed in her ballot.  I asked her if she checked this blog for recommendations from myself and my colleagues, of course, she did not. (Insert heavy sigh here) If those of us who keep up on the issues, and people close to us, don’t fully understand the complexities of the issues on our ballots, then our ballots are too complex.  That is why we HIRE people to legislate for us, we make it their job and send them to Sacramento.

Of course none of us want to feed our children meat from mutant inbred fish that have no tailfins or eyes. The creation of new government regulations and food nazis is not the answer though, nor is legislating from the ballot box.   Everyone concerned about these things is free to get involved in lobbying their representatives for reasonable and specific legislation tailored to the narrow and specific issues of concern, free to consume or not consume any offending product, boycott manfacturers, and contribute generously to competent consumer watchdog groups.  If these are your concerns, do all of those things, but don’t increase my tax burden and grocery bills with ill drafted, haphazard propostions.  There is a method, we need to stop this madness.

***(“dirty hippies” is a term of endearment I use for my Democrat friends.  I’m sorry if I offended any actual hippies, it’s just a sematical joke. Lighten up.)

 

 

 

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

Irvine Unified School District: Meet the Candidates – Agran’s Hostile Takeover vs. the School Board’s Picks

Posted by Brenda Higgins on October 29, 2012

Everything in Irvine seems to be about slates of candidates battling for control of the City. The Democrats’ slate consists of Councilman Larry Agran for Mayor with Beth Krom and PK Wong for Council. The Republicans’ slate consists of Councilman Steven Choi for Mayor with Christina Shea and Lynn Schott for Council. Agran’s slate has governed Irvine for years, and it seems Agran wishes to gain control of Irvine’s schools.

Agran is attempting to gain control of the Irvine Unified School District Board. Many big-city mayors have tried this such as when Richard Riordan and Antonio Villaraigosa each attempted to gain control of the Los Angeles Unified School District Board. But the one major difference is these mayors have only attempted to gain control of failing school districts. Irvine Unified schools are some of the best in the country. It makes no sense for a councilman to try to gain control of a successful school district.

Regardless of whether you support or oppose Agran’s governance of the City of Irvine, it doesn’t make any sense to try to give him control of the Irvine Unified School District, which by all accounts is running quite well under the current school board. After all, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

There’s two major slates of three candidates each, plus three more minor candidates. One slate is part of Agran’s hostile takeover while the other slate is the one backed by all five IUSD school board members and seeks to continue doing what Irvine schools have done for years.

So here’s a run-down of the IUSD candidates:

Agran’s Hostile Takeover Candidates

  • Omar Ezzeldine – He is Agran’s biggest puppet. Ezzeldine is Agran’s appointee to the City of Irvine Finance Commission, and recently began serving as its Chair – when he’s actually there. The man misses a significant percentage of the Commission’s meetings. He is repeatedly quoted on Agran’s campaign literature. He claims eight years of involvement in the Irvine Public Schools Foundation, yet several active board members had never even met him before the school board race began, and they’ve never seen him at a foundation event. I guess that could be the saving grace for those opposed to Agran’s attempt to seize control of Irvine public schools: Ezzeldine will probably miss half the meetings thereby making it harder to implement the seizure. Interestingly, his children don’t even attend the Irvine public schools, but attend a private school.
  • Carolyn Inmon – She seems to be searching for an office she can win. When she ran for Republican Central Committee in June 2008, she came in ninth. In November 2008, she unsuccessfully challenged incumbent Republican College Board Member Dave Lang.
  • Cyril Yu – He’s a prosecutor with one daughter in an IUSD school, but has only lived in the Irvine School District for 3 years.

School Board’s Irvine Education First Candidates

  • Paul Bokota – Bokota’s qualifications for IUSD are impressive and directly applicable to the Irvine School Board position. He’s a Harvard-educated business attorney who spends countless hours volunteering in IUSD. His Irvine public school service includes: IUSD Finance Committee (for 6 years), IUSD Revenue Enhancement Committee Chairman, PTA President, School Site Council, Irvine Public Schools Foundation Legacy Partner, three-school PTA Member, and Harvard Alumni Admissions Interviewer for Irvine high school students.
  • Lauren Brooks – Brooks is similarly committed. She’s been an international business executive and a teacher in Hong Kong. An Irvine resident for over a quarter of a century, she’s was named IUSD’s Volunteer of the Year and awarded the California PTA’s Golden Oak Award, the PTA’s Highest Honor. She’s served on School Site Council, Irvine Unified PTA Council Executive Board for a decade, PTA President at two schools, PTA Parliamentarian, PTA Legislative Action Chair, PTA Grad Night Chair, Irvine Public Schools Foundation Executive Board Member, Irvine Public Schools Foundation Community Relation Co- Chair, Irvine Public Schools Foundation Legacy Partner, IUSD Accreditation Committee, IUSD Principal Selection Committee, IUSD Curriculum/Homework Committee, IUSD Health & Wellness Committee, and Irvine Children’s Fund Board. On top of that, she’s gone to Sacramento for the last decade as an IUSD volunteer advocate, and she co-founded and co-led the IUSD PTA’s annual high school student advocacy trip to Sacramento.
  • Michael Parham – An Ivy League-educated business executive, former PTA President, and the only incumbent running, Parham is currently the President of the Irvine Unified School District Board and has served two terms on the School Board. Considering how happy Irvine voters are about their schools, surely Parham comes in first. Parham serves as the IUSD Board Representative to the Emergency Response committee, the City/District Liaison Committee, and the California Association of Suburban School Districts.

Minor Candidates

  • Michelle Ollada Alipio – A school nurse, she’s seemed very nervous and ill-prepared at candidate forums. She was the only candidate to seek the OC GOP endorsement. Several OC GOP Central Committee Members admitted that they only voted to support her out of deep respect for her sister, Yvette. They indicated they weren’t particularly impressed by Michelle and wish it had been Yvette running instead.
  • Bob Vu – His ballot designation is Educator/Scientist/Entrepreneuer. He’s clearly a brilliant man, but he doesn’t seem to have any IUSD experience. In most districts and cities, it would be no big deal if he had no district experience, but in IUSD, voters love the status quo and want people with direct district experience.
  • Margaret Brown – Um, yikes:

Brown’s exit marks the second time in three years she has left a school district while helping to process a large bond-funded construction schedule. In 2010, she resigned from a similar position at the San Ramon Valley Unified School District amid complaints of sexual harassment lodged by four male colleagues.

Brown received a $200,000 payout from the Northern California school district when she left after five years on the job, according to a lawsuit filed by one of the plaintiffs in July 2010.

http://articles.glendalenewspress.com/2012-01-24/news/tn-gnp-0125-lead-planner-out-at-gusd_1_bond-funds-citizens-bond-oversight-committee-margaret-brown

Here’s a relatively dry story: http://www.sanramonexpress.com/news/show_story.php?id=2296

This story, wow, don’t read this one near your children: http://sanramon.patch.com/articles/alleged-rogue-randy-employee-prompts-sex-harassment-lawsuit-against-school-district

One complainant could be a frivolous lawsuit by one disgruntled employee. Four complainants is a lot.

So that’s the choice IUSD voters face: Agran’s Hostile Takeover vs. the School Board’s picks, plus a trio of minor candidates.

Posted in Irvine Unified School District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Thug Politics in Yorba Linda: Part II

Posted by Brenda Higgins on October 22, 2012

The ongoing brow beating in the 2012 campaign, has given rise to a few themes.  The issues facing the city are not that dramatic or sexy, so the personal attacks are certainy present. Noteably, in the mailers, and as raised by Nancy Rikel in a few of the candidate “forums” is the fact that Gene Hernandez is retired from a career in local law enforcement, and as such, is drawing the pension that accompanied that career.

I’ve tried to find out all I can about the candidates, and I can find no evidence that Nancy Rikel ever strapped on a gun, and wore a badge for the purpose of public safety, so her comment that “I guess he earned it” are immensely offensive and uncalled for. You can see the Eastlake Homeowners Association Forum, as well as segments of the Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum on YouTube. Search YORBA LINDA CANDIDATE FORUM. Bill Laing, a member of the Chamber, has edited the Chamber Forum, into segments by question, which is immensely helpful.

Gene Hernandez has a website that provides quite a lot of information about him, including his complete resume. An incredibly impressive resume, that sets forth his three decades in law enforcement, his education and multiple advanced degrees, as well as a lifetime of service, in addition to his regular job,  to children and others. Gene modestly included in his resume that he has undertaken “humanitarian travel”, without including the details of his trips to Mexico to build houses, and to India to deliver vaccines.

Interestingly, Ms. Rikel’s website includes precious little information about her professional life. From what I can tell, all of her greatest accomplishments in life occurred in the past four years. In her insistence of making an issue of Mr. Hernandez’ pension, she fails to note that she supplements her City Council stipend of $500 per month, with additional stipends from the other boards that she sits on, incidental to her City Council position, such as the water board and the Fire Authority. She emphasizes at the Forums and on her site that she is committed to public safety, and enforcing municipal codes that prohibit owners from having delapidated buildings. She fails to mention that the only owner that has delapidate building is the City of Yorba Linda. These buildings have been owned by the city since her buddies rode into office in 2006, and they have succeeded in doing exactly nothing with them. As to her professional life, it is very mysterious. It is my understanding that she works in her family’s business, but whether than makes her an “executive” is questionable. She makes much ado over her support of Measure Y, which was the Ethics measure for the city, prohibiting any candidate from taking any support of over $250 from anyone who may have a contract with the City.

Well, the $10 million contract she just awarded to the Orange County Sheriff was not a contract with the UNION, right? It is my further understanding that Ms. Rikel is claiming not to have “authorized” the Sheriff Union mailers, two I mentioned on the other “Thug” blog, and I now understand there was apprently one more. What an extraordinary stroke of luck for Ms. Rikel, Mr. Schwing and Mr. Peterson. How nice of the Union to step up and help them in that way. I will be interested to see the disclosures from the Union on those mailers, my guess is that about a $30k gift. That is quite a lot of appreciation and affection. I am also very fond of the way in which all references that Ms. Rikel makes on her website to the Sheriff contract are PAST tense. As if the anticipated savings and increased patrols have already occurred. I can’t wait to see.

Mr. Schwing has a website in which he vaguely tip toes around his experience on the Yorba Linda City Council. The elephant in the room is the term limit that he avoids due to the fact that his first twelve years on the council were prior to the enactment of the term limits. Transparency in government has been the mantra of Mr. Schwing and his cohorts, the other YLRRR councilpersons. Mr. Schwing also makes much of his current position as “Mayor”.   NOTE:  Mark Schwing is not running for MAYOR.  There is no elected Mayor in Yorba Linda, and John Anderson played this same game in 2010.  Mr. Schwing  fails to mention in his assertion of his Mayor-hood, that there has always been a rotation that was followed, in that each council person has an opportunity to be mayor once during his/her term. However, Mr. Schwing has served as Mayor twice during his recent term. That is because he and his cohorts dispensed with tradition and protocall and stepped over, first Jan Horton, and most recently Jim Winder, so that Mark Schwing could proclaim himself Mayor at pertinent times, such as after the 2008 fire, and during this election. Noteably, when they stepped over Jan Horton’s turn to be Mayor, they also stripped her of her board duties and positions.  Yes, those are the same ones mentioned above, that Nancy Rikel now has and gets the extra money for.  Schwing takes precious little in the way of positions on issues on his website, or makes any clear statements of opinions. Certainly that gives him less to have to back out of later.

Craig Young has a website, and a SmartVoter page. His background in corporate boards and management experience, makes him extremely well qualified for the rudimentary city council duties associated with the city council seat. His financial background, as well as his Lincoln Club experience, make him clearly more attractive as a candidate than any other YLRRR puppet.

Kennith Peterson, the new guy running with the incumbents, has tied his campaign to his law office website. Supported by the YLRRR and the Sheriff Union. Why do we want more people to play this game? Why not comply with the spirit of Measure Y, and run your own race, be independent and cut ties to the thugs? Apparently, Mr. Peterson is a Thug-in-waiting, riding the coat tails of the others.

Lou Knappleberger does not have a website or a SmartVoter page. I have only met him once and know very little about him.

Todd Cooper also, does not have a website or a SmartVoter page. I have not met him. What little I saw of his performance, he seemed competent and informed.

With Knappleberger and Cooper making such a lack luster effort, we seem destined to end up with at least one of the Thugs back on the council, which is unfortunate, but not disastrous.

With the sheep’s clothing of fiscal conservativism, the YLRRR candidates may sweep this election once again. However, if any of the voters in Yorba Linda is really interested in seeing what is up in Yorba Linda and if these folks are telling us the truth about all they are doing for us and how much they have “improved” life in Yorba Linda and are saving us money, just take a walk down Main Street. Walk a couple blocks over. Walk down Lakeview between Yorba Linda Blvd. and Lemon. Look around. This is the platform and issue upon which the YLRRR, (Used the be the “R” was for Redevelopment) got their start with.  They’ve now had control of the city for 6 years. Do you see any Redevelopment?

Posted in Uncategorized, Yorba Linda | Tagged: , , , | 6 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »