OC Political

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

Archive for the ‘California’ Category

Promoting Educational Opportunities for Public Virtual School Students

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on October 27, 2023

An op-ed by Tab Berg, President of California Parents for Public Virtual Education, which represents over 4,500 online school families in Orange County.

Promoting Educational Opportunities for Public Virtual School Students

In an increasingly interconnected world, access to internet and healthy, nutritious foods has become vital for students’ academic success. As the landscape of education evolves, it is essential to ensure that all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background, have equal access to educational resources. The implementation of the Affordable Connectivity Program and the expansion of the National Free Lunch Program are crucial steps in narrowing the digital divide and promoting educational opportunities for public virtual school students.

The digital divide has long been a barrier to educational opportunities, leaving disadvantaged students at a significant disadvantage. The Affordable Connectivity Program aims to address this issue by providing low-income families with affordable internet access. By making internet connectivity more accessible, this program empowers students to engage in online learning, access educational resources, and expand their horizons beyond the confines of their physical environment.

Access to the internet is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity for academic success. Virtual schools provide a flexible and inclusive learning environment, allowing students to tailor their education to their needs. However, without adequate connectivity, many students are left behind, perpetuating educational disparities. The Affordable Connectivity Program is a vital investment in the future of our students, enabling them to compete in the digital age on an equal footing.

Education should not be determined by a student’s ability to pay. The expansion of the National Free Lunch Program ensures that students from low-income families have access to nutritious meals, regardless of whether they attend traditional or virtual schools. Proper nutrition is fundamental to a student’s overall well-being and academic performance. By providing free lunches, we remove a financial burden from families and guarantee that no child goes hungry.

Moreover, the National Free Lunch Program promotes inclusivity and levels the playing field for virtual school students. It recognizes that virtual education is not just a choice for some families but a necessity due to health concerns, geographic constraints, or other circumstances. Denying these students access to free lunches would further exacerbate inequality and hinder their educational opportunities.

Equal access to resources and opportunities fosters academic success. By providing public virtual school students with affordable internet connectivity and free lunches, we create an environment conducive to learning and growth. Students can engage in online discussions, collaborate with their peers, and explore a vast array of educational materials.

The Affordable Connectivity Program and the National Free Lunch Program empower students to focus on their studies rather than worrying about basic needs. When students’ physiological and safety needs are met, they can fully immerse themselves in their education, improving their academic performance and overall well-being.

Equal access to education is a fundamental right that should not be compromised by socioeconomic disparities. The Affordable Connectivity Program and the expansion of the National Free Lunch Program are critical initiatives that bridge the digital divide and promote educational equity for public virtual school students. That’s why California Parents for Public Virtual Education is calling on the California GOP delegation to do the right thing.

By providing affordable internet connectivity, Congress will ensure that all students, regardless of their economic circumstances, can participate in online learning and access educational resources. Additionally, the provision of free lunches removes a significant barrier to academic success for low-income students.

Investing in equal access to education is an investment in the future of our society. It empowers students to reach their full potential, regardless of their background, and creates a more equitable and inclusive society. Let us embrace these initiatives and work together, ensuring that no student is left behind in the pursuit of knowledge and opportunity.

Posted in California, National, Orange County | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

My Voter Recommendations For The November 3, 2020 Election

Posted by Craig P Alexander on September 23, 2020

Each election I create my “Craig’s Pics” voter recommendations for those who would like some suggestions on how to vote.  Of course I also encourage everyone to conduct their own research and come to your own determinations.  

For the November 3, 2020 election here are my Craig’s Pics November 3, 2020 General Election. I hope you find them helpful.  

There are two other sites I recommend for voter recommendations.  One is Robyn Nordell’s Conservative California Election Website   Robyn does A LOT of research and she has recommendations for races I do not comment on.  She is also a wonderful servant and a champion of the home school movement. Robyn kindly publishes my Craig’s Pics recommendations along with other conservative’s recommendations on her Orange County page. And we do not always agree! 

The other site is Nancy’s Picks which is run by Nancy Sandoval.  Like Robyn, Nancy spends A LOT of time researching candidates and issues.  Nancy’s Picks is one of the other conservatives Robyn Nordell publishes on her Orange County page.

Whatever you do please do vote this election.  Even if you feel your vote for President will not deliver the state to President Trump, there are so, so many other down ballot races that need your vote! Congressional candidates in your area need your vote.  State Senate and Assembly candidates need your vote.  Local races need your vote.  If you do not vote, your voice will not count in your local city council races, school board races, etc., etc.  Many men and women in the military have paid the ultimate price to secure our right to choose our leaders at election time.  I highly recommend you vote this election! To find out how to register to vote in Orange County go to the Registrar of Voters web site for voter registration.  

 

Posted in 1st Supervisorial District, 29th Senate District, 37th Senate District, 38th Congressional District, 39th Congressional District, 45th Congressional District, 46th Congressional District, 47th Congressional District, 48th Congressional District, 49th Congressional District, 55th Assembly District, 65th Assembly District, 68th Assembly District, 69th Assembly District, 72nd Assembly District, 73rd Assembly District, 74th Assembly District, Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, California, Capistrano Unified School District, Costa Mesa, Dana Point, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Mission Viejo, Moulton-Niguel Water District, Municipal Water District of Orange County, North Orange County Community College District, Orange County, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Orange Unified School District, Rossmoor Community Services District, Saddleback Valley Unified School District, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, South Orange County Community College District, State Assembly, State Senate, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Full Text of Governor’s Stay-at-Home Order

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on March 20, 2020

This is the full text of the Governor’s stay-at-home order during the COVID-19 (coronavirus) crisis:

EXECUTIVE ORDER N-33-20

WHEREAS on March 4, 2020, I proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in California as a result of the threat of COVID-19; and

WHEREAS in a short period of time, COVID-19 has rapidly spread throughout California, necessitating updated and more stringent guidance from federal, state, and local public health officials; and

WHEREAS for the preservation of public health and safety throughout the entire State of California, I find it necessary for all Californians to heed the State public health directives from the Department of Public Health.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of California, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the State Constitution andstatutes of the State of California, and in particular, Government Code sections 8567, 8627, and 8665 do hereby issue the following Order to become effective immediately:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1) To preserve the public health and safety, and to ensure the healthcare delivery system is capable of serving all, and prioritizing those at the highest risk and vulnerability, all residents are directed to immediately heed the current State public health directives, which I ordered the Department of Public Health to develop for the current statewide status of COVID-19. Those directives are consistent with the March 19, 2020, Memorandum on Identification of Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers During COVID-19 Response, found at: https://covid19.ca.gov/.

Those directives follow:

ORDER OF THE STATE PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER
March 19, 2020

To protect public health, I as State Public Health Officer and Director of the California Department of Public Health order all individuals living in the State of California to stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors, as outlined at https://www.cisa.gov/identifying-critical-infrastructure-during-covid-19. In addition, and in consultation with the Director of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, I may designate additional sectors as critical in order to protect the health and well-being of all Californians.

Pursuant to the authority under the Health and Safety Code 120125, 120140, 131080, 120130(c), 120135, 120145, 120175 and 120150, this order is to go into effect immediately and shall stay in effect until further notice.

The federal government has identified 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, economic security, public health or safety, or any combination thereof. I order that Californians working in these 16 critical infrastructure sectors may continue their work because of the importance of these sectors to Californians’ health and well-being.

This Order is being issued to protect the public health of Californians. The California Department of Public Health looks to establish consistency across the state in order to ensure that we mitigate the impact of COVID-19. Our goal is simple, we want to bend the curve, and disrupt the spread of the virus.

The supply chain must continue, and Californians must have access to such necessities as food, prescriptions, and health care. When people need to leave their homes or places of residence, whether to obtain or perform the functions above, or to otherwise facilitate authorized necessary activities, they should at all times practice social distancing.

2) The healthcare delivery system shall prioritize services to serving those who are the sickest and shall prioritize resources, including personal protective equipment, for the providers providing direct care to them.

3) The Office of Emergency Services is directed to take necessary steps to ensure compliance with this Order.

4) This Order shall be enforceable pursuant to California law, including, but not limited to, Government Code section 8665.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as soon as hereafter possible, this Order be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given of this Order.

This Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 19th day of March 2020.

/s/ GAVIN NEWSOM
Governor of California

ATTEST:

/s/ ALEX PADILLA
Secretary of State

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

Voter Recommendations – A Reminder

Posted by Craig P Alexander on February 27, 2020

As March 3rd is only a few days away, I just wanted to remind voters (who have not cast a ballot yet) that there are voter recommendations by conservatives who do not get paid for their endorsements – people like Robyn Nordell and myself. And we do not always agree!

Here is the link to my prior post on this subject: Voter Recommendations.

Craig Alexander is an attorney and a Dana Point resident.

Posted in 38th Congressional District, 39th Congressional District, 45th Congressional District, 46th Congressional District, 47th Congressional District, 48th Congressional District, 49th Congressional District, Anaheim City School District, Anaheim Union High School District, Brea Olinda Unified School District, Buena Park School District, California, Capistrano Unified School District, Fountain Valley School District, Fullerton Joint Union High School District, Fullerton School District, Lowell Joint School District, Orange County Board of Education, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Saddleback Valley Unified School District, State Assembly, State Senate, Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Are LAUSD Teachers Underpaid, or Does it Cost Too Much to Live in California?

Posted by Craig P Alexander on January 17, 2019

This is a re-post of an article by Ed Ring (former President of California Policy Center) from CPC’s web site.  Here is a link to the original article.  Given the teachers’ strike at Los Angeles Unified School District – this article is very insightful and timely:

In California, public sector unions pretty much run the state government. Government unions collect and spend over $800 million per year in California. There is no special interest in California both willing and able to mount a sustained challenge to public sector union power. They simply have too much money, too many people on their payroll, too many politicians they can make or break, and too much support from a biased and naive media.

The teachers strike in Los Angeles Unified School District cannot be fully appreciated outside of this overall context: Public sector unions are the most powerful political actor in California, at the state level, in the counties and cities, and on most school boards, certainly including the Los Angeles Unified School District. With all this control and influence, have these unions created the conditions that feed their current grievances?

The grievances leading the United Teachers of Los Angeles to strike center around salary, class sizes, and charter schools. But when the cost of benefits are taken into account, it is hard to argue that LAUSD teachers are underpaid.

According to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, the median salary of a LAUSD teacher is $75,000, but that’s just base pay. A statement by LAUSD in response to a 2014 report on LAUSD salaries challenged the $75,000 figure, claiming it was only around $70,000. They then acknowledged, however, that the district paid $16,432 for each employee’s healthcare in 2013-14, and paid 13.92 percent of each teachers salary to cover pension contributions, workers comp, and Medicare. That came up to $96,176 per year.

The Cost of Benefits is Breaking Education Budgets

This average total pay of nearly $100K per year back in 2013-14 is certainly higher today – even if salaries were not raised, payments for retirement benefits have grown. For their 35,000 employees, LAUSD now carries an unfunded pension liability of $6.8 billion, and their OBEB unfunded liability (OPEB stands for “other post employment benefits,” primarily retirement health insurance) has now reached a staggering $14.9 billion. CalSTRS, the pension system that collects and funds pension benefits for most LAUSD employees, receives funds directly from the state that, in a complete accounting, need to also count towards their total compensation. And CalSTRS, as of June 30, 2017 (the next update, through 6/30/2018, will be available May 2019), was only 62 percent fundedSixty-two percent!

The reason to belabor these unfunded retirement benefits is to make it very clear: LAUSD paying an amount equivalent to 13.92 percent of each employees salary into the pension funds isn’t enough. What LAUSD teachers have been promised in terms of retirement pensions and health insurance benefits requires pre-funding far in excess of 13.92 percent. To accurately estimate how much they really make, you have to add the true amount necessary to pay for these pensions and OPEB. This real total compensation average is well over $100K per year.

To put LAUSD teacher compensation in even more accurate context, consider how many days per year they actually work. This isn’t to dispute or disparage the long hours many (but not all) teachers put in. A conscientious teacher’s work day doesn’t begin when the students arrive in the classroom, or end when they leave. They prepare lesson plans and grade homework, and many stay after regular school hours to assist individual students or coordinate extracurricular activities. But teachers working for LAUSD only work 182 days per year. The average private sector professional, who also tends to put in long hours, assuming four weeks of either vacation or holidays, works 240 days per year – 32 percent more. The value of all this time off is incalculable, but simply normalizing pay for a 182 day year to a 240 day year yields an average annual pay of not $100K, but $132K. Taking into account the true cost of pensions and retirement healthcare benefits, much more than $132K.

This is what the LAUSD teachers union considers inadequate. If that figure appears concocted, just become an independent contractor. Suddenly the value of employer paid benefits becomes real, because you have to pay for them yourself.

California’s Ridiculously High Cost-of-Living

If a base salary of over $70,000 per year, plus benefits (far more time off each year, pensions far better than Social Security, and excellent health insurance) worth nearly as much, isn’t enough for someone to financially survive in Los Angeles, maybe the union should examine the role it played, along with other public sector unions, in raising the cost-of-living in California.

Where was the California Teachers Association when restrictive laws such as CEQAAB 32SB 375 were passed, making housing unaffordable by restricting supply? What was the California Teachers Association stance on health coverage for undocumented immigrants, or sanctuary state laws? What did they expect, if laws were passed to make California a magnet for the world’s poor? Don’t they see the connection between 2.6 million undocumented immigrants living in California, and a housing shortage, or crowded classrooms? Don’t they see the connection between this migration of largely destitute immigrants who don’t speak English, and the burgeoning costs to LAUSD to provide special instruction and care to these students?

From a moral standpoint, how, exactly, does it make the world a better place, when for every high-needs immigrant student entering LAUSD schools, there are ten thousand high-needs children left behind in the countries they came from, as well as less resources for high-needs children whose parents have lived in California for generations?

When you make it nearly impossible to build anything in California, from housing to energy and water infrastructure, and at the same time invite the world to move in, you create an unaffordable state. When California’s state legislature passed laws creating this situation, what was the position of California Teachers Association? Need we ask?

The Union War Against Education Reform

Charter schools, another primary grievance of the UTLA, is one of the few areas where politicians in California’s state legislature – nearly all of them Democrats by now – occasionally stand up to the teachers unions. But why are charter schools so popular? Could it be that the union controlled traditional public schools are failing students, making charter schools a popular option for parents who want their children to have a better chance at a good education?

Maybe if traditional public schools weren’t held back by union work rules, they would deliver better educational results. The disappointing result in the 2014 Vergara vs. California case provides an example. The plaintiffs sued to modify three work rules, (1) a longer period before granting tenure, (2) changing layoff criteria from seniority to merit, and (3) streamlined dismissal policies for incompetent teachers. These plaintiffs argued the existing work rules had a disproportionate negative impact on minority communities, and proved it – view the closing arguments by the plaintiff’s attorney in this case to see for yourself. But California’s State Supreme Court did not agree, and California’s public schools continue to suffer as a result.

But instead of embracing reforms such as proposed in the Vergara case, which might reduce the demand by parents for charter schools, the teachers union is trying to unionize charter schools. And instead of agreeing to benefits reform – such as contributing more to the costs for their health insurance and retirement pensions – the teachers union has gone on strike.

Financial reality will eventually compel financial reform at LAUSD. But no amount of money will improve the quality of LAUSD’s K-12 education, if union work rules aren’t changed. The saddest thing in this whole imbroglio is the fate of the excellent teacher, who works hard and successfully instructs and inspires their students. Those teachers are not overpaid at all. But the system does not nurture such excellence. How on earth did it come to this, that unions would take over public education, along with virtually every other state and local government agency in California?

****

Craig Alexander is an attorney, a former elected member of the Orange County Republican Party Central Committee and a former officer in the California Republican Assembly.  His practice is located in Dana Point and his law practice areas include Office/Commercial Leasing, HOA law, Insurance law, Civil Litigation and the California Public Records Act.

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

Ballot Harvesting

Posted by Brenda Higgins on December 3, 2018

Since the blue wave that swept Orange County in November 2018, there has been much discussion and outrage at the multiple victories of the Democrats.  I have looked in vain for a thoughtful analysis of the relatively new law known as “Ballot Harvesting”.  The reactions of conservatives and Republicans to the election results have been shock and outrage.   Those sentiments are fueled by party leadership’s failure to provide meaningful explanation of the law, and the lack of party strategy in addressing it during the 2018 cycle.  A productive discussion is needed, with truth about what the statute says and doesn’t say, and what party leadership did and did not do.  There may very well have been fraudulent activity, but it is impossible to discern that, unless and until we appreciate what was permissible under the law, and the utter lack of response to the possibilities.

In September 2016, Governor Brown signed AB-1921 , it was codified as Elections Code Section 3017.  In past elections, (i.e. prior to 2016) a “Vote by mail” voter, which most Republicans are, could mail their ballot, drop it off at the polling place, or have a relative or member of their household drop it off at the polling place.  It had to be received at the polling place before the polls closed, or received by the Registrar of Voters (if by mail) prior to the closing of the polls on election day.

It is easy to see that even with the Vote by Mail ballots, there are impediments for some people.  If you live alone, if you have no relatives, if you are unable to get to the polling place and can’t or just forgot to mail it on time, maybe you don’t have the $1.00 in postage (It does require two stamps that are $.050 now), or you can’t get to the post office to get stamps.  For elderly or disabled persons in particular, it is easy to see how these things could prevent a person from exercising their constitutional right to vote.

The new law provides that you can turn your ballot over to anyone you want to, and have them drop it off at the polling place.  The law provides that the person transporting the ballot can not be paid for doing so, not by a campaign or party or political action committee.  The Ballot “Harvester”, if you will, just has to be a well intentioned person who wants to help a voter out.  On its face, seems like a great idea, ask your neighbor or the nice lady you know from church to take your ballot to the polls for you.  The opportunity arises though, for a grassroots army, of well organized volunteers, who could be working the Get Out the Vote process in a way that visits voters at their home to make sure they get registered, offer some helpful advice and information on what the issues are and about the candidates, offer to pick up the ballot on election day and take it to the polls for you.  It all sounds like a wonderful program, a win-win situation.

There is a window of opportunity created by this new law.  The law itself is impartial, and not a terrible idea in that it increases the ability and likelihood that someone can exercise their constitutional right to vote.  The problem with any window of opportunity, is that if you don’t move to make it work for you, it becomes a liability.  That seems to be what happened to Orange County Republicans in the 2018 election.

Before the primary in June, the California Republican Party engaged in a pilot program to call on consistent Republican voters and volunteers would offer to pick up their ballot and take it to the polling place.  The problem was, many Republican voters who were contacted refused.   This is the same thing we have seen in recent past elections with polling.  The polls have tended to favor Democrats, never forget the “sure thing” of a Hillary presidency, because Republican voters are disinclined to share their opinions or information with strangers.  They were similarly disinclined to turn over their ballots.  The OCGOP therefore abandoned any effort to organize and/or leverage the new law in their favor in the November election. They stuck to the old tried and true phone banking and canvassing calling on the RWF to round up the woman power to Get Out The Vote.

Democrats maximized their leverage of the new law  by registering new Democrat voters, getting out the vote from low propensity voters (who haven’t often voted), increasing the voter contact and then, ‘harvesting’, offering for volunteers to pick up and deliver voters ballots to the polls.

The Registrar in Orange County has been quoted as saying that the numbers of ballots dropped off on election day in the November 2018 election was unprecedented.

On November 19, at the OCGOP monthly meeting, a very contrite Chairman Fred Whitaker, discussed Ballot Harvesting and indicated that he had significantly underestimated the impact it would have in the 2018 races.  By that date, it had become clear that the county had lost every congressional seat, as well as State Assembly and State Senate seats.   On election night, the early returns had Republicans in slim leads in the congressional and state legislature seats.  As the hundreds of thousands of “Harvested” ballots were tallied, those leads disappeared.  On that evening of November 19, it was clear that no congressional seats were saved and the words of Chairman Whitaker dismissing Democrat challengers earlier in the year “Let them die on the hill in Orange County”, had come back to haunt him in the worst way.  Similarly, Mimi Walters, when asked in March if she had any concerns about being re-elected, she exerted a confident “No”.   This arrogance did not serve the party well, and translated to losses even for those who took the threat of harvested ballots seriously.

Young Kim was talking about harvested ballots. Travis Allen was talking about the threat of harvested ballots.  It is of little benefit for single candidates to recognize an existential threat to their candidacy when the party has affirmatively decided to ignore it.

The ballots turned in through the harvesting of volunteers, are not per se, ‘fraudulent’ votes.  That is the distinction that so many who are outraged over this result are missing. The elucidation of the new law herein, is not to say there was no election fraud, but to point out, it is a different issue.  In the November 19 meeting, Chairman Whitaker and others told stories of many long hours spent at the County office of the Registrar, observing the ballots being counted to look for any anomalies.  Mark Meuser and others did the same in many other counties.  Fraud may very well have been at work in this election and affected the result.  Deborah Pauly, OCGOP Central Committee representative noted that this new procedure  “May further have denigrated election integrity”, as there have been myriad other concerns  raised about election integrity in this election where not just Ballot Harvesting, but Motor Voter law, and an incompetent and recalcitrant DMV, have created a brave new world of election fraud possibilities.

The new law permitting Ballot Harvesting in California, should also not be confused with the ban on such harvesting in Arizona.  The Arizona law prohibiting ballot harvesting was challenged in the 9th Circuit.  On an emergency basis, in a remarkably brief, two line ruling,  the court refused to stay the Arizona law.  So, as of the 2018 election, ballot harvesting was banned, by law in Arizona.  That legal matter is still pending with the 9th Circuit and scheduled for a full  hearing  in January.  That case may shed some light on the California law, but it is important to know that the law is opposite in the two states.

Many factors likely contributed to the blue sweep of this famously red county.   It is disappointing and the sheer magnitude of the defeat is breathtaking.  The party has emphasized this ballot harvesting as being the problem.  It is onerous sounding, “Ballot Harvesting” without an understanding of the law.  This fueling of outrage though, does work in keeping constituents upset, and in their outrage, they fail to analyze and appreciate all of the other malfeasance by party leadership.  Given the classic behavior of liberals and conservatives, everyone should have known that the harvesting would dramatically favor democrats.  Given the make up and rhetoric surrounding the House of Representatives on a national level, they knew the efforts of the Democratic National Convention would be focused, aggressively  here.  In the constant refrain of polling and strategy, party leaders knew that demographics were changing and the market share of the Grand Old Party was shrinking in this region.

What the party missed was a set of cohesive messaging and ideas, conservative philosophy, simply communicated to voters.  Conservative ideals, of smaller government and greater civil liberties, law and order and government that stays out of your way…this is the ideal that sells that has always been the heart of the Republican party.  But, in their effort to distance themselves from Trump, because a pollster told them to, they forget what they were about.   The party, again in this election, let the liberals set the tone and the agenda and stuck to statistical models and polls, instead of revisiting our foundation, of greater freedom through smaller government.

In the current environment, if a candidate can not make the case for conservatism, then that candidate is finished. That is the battle field.  It will no longer work to just make voting easier and pander to a demographic, with slick mailers and repetitive phone calls. Voters are more sophisticated than that and they want to have a sense of the party’s core beliefs and the candidate’s willingness to adhere to that.  The party also put up “recognizable” names, without any appreciation for the baggage and displeasure that may be associated with the names.  Polls can’t tell you that.  Only involvement with the non-political constituents can give a reading on that.

Ranting about fraud or ballot harvesting, and encouraging others to rant about it,  is just a failure to accept full responsibility for an abject failure to see and plan for what was to come.  There is so much more the party needs to be doing to come into being a force to be reckoned with in the new political environment.  One thing is for sure, what we have always done, and ignoring and discounting what has occurred nationally, is not the right plan forward.  Other than attempting to gloss over the massacre of 2018, by congratulating the local officials who were endorsed and won races, the party has not communicated what the plan forward is.  There’s been no indication of leadership change, little acknowledgment of fault or malfeasance, no indication of what if anything will be done to address real irregularities that came up and were reported during the election season.  It will behoove and be incumbent upon leadership to forge and communicate a new path forward, and it would seem to be prudent to do that sooner rather than later.

There is an election in 23 months. Orange County, has no Republican incumbents in Congress.  Rebuilding, if it is going to be attempted, needs to be happening now.

 

Posted in 34th Senate District, 39th Congressional District, 45th Congressional District, 48th Congressional District, 49th Congressional District, 4th Supervisorial District, 74th Assembly District, California, Orange County, Republican Central Committee, U.S. Politics | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

LA Times Endorses 3 White Candidates in English, But Endorses Their Latino Opponents in Spanish

Posted by Chris Nguyen on November 1, 2018

Los Angeles TimesCross posted to OC Daily:

In one of the more bizarre stories of the 2018 election, the Los Angeles Times endorsed 3 white candidates (and 2 ballot measures) in its English language edition, but the paper then endorsed their 3 Latino opponents (and the opposite position on 2 ballot measures) in its Spanish language edition.  Specifically, the Times endorsed:

  • United States Senator: Dianne Feinstein in English, Kevin de León in Spanish
  • Insurance Commissioner: Steve Poizner in English, Ricardo Lara in Spanish
  • Los Angeles County Sheriff: Jim McDonnell in English, Alex Villanueva in Spanish
  • Proposition 3 (Water Bond): No in English, Yes in Spanish
  • Proposition 7 (Daylight Saving Time): Yes in English, No in Spanish

This wasn’t a mere listing error: there’s 1-3 paragraphs of text for each endorsement, and the Spanish language edition even includes a photo of each endorsed candidate.  This appears to be a case of blatant pandering where the LA Times simply got caught.

First reported by Latino Rebels yesterday, followed by a story on KCAL 9, the LA Times claimed this was simply an error, in which the endorsements of Hoy were run as the endorsements of the LA Times en Español.  However, Latino Rebels points out that these endorsements were not only posted online and in the weekly print edition of LA Times en Español but also issued again in a print supplement.

OC Political noticed the LA Times en Español’s endorsements consisted of Gavin Newsom for Governor and seven Latino candidates.  The LA Times en Español completely left out the races for State Controller, State Treasurer, and Superintendent of Public Instruction, where there are no Latinos running, yet it included the 24th State Senate District in its endorsements.

The LA Times in English endorsed the full slate of Statewide offices, including Betty Yee for State Controller, Fiona Ma for State Treasurer, and Tony Thurmond for Superintendent of Public Instruction.  The LA Times in English did not have any state legislative endorsements.  While the LA Times en Español endorsed 7 Latinos and 1 white man, the LA Times English endorsements for Statewide offices were much more ethnically balanced, with 3 white people, 3 Latinos, 2 Asian Americans, and 1 African American for State office.

The full LA Times English language endorsements are here (permanently archived here).  The full LA Times Spanish language endorsements are here (permanently archived here).

Below, however, are all five conflicting endorsements.

US Senate

In the English language edition:

U.S. Senate: Dianne Feinstein

Feinstein is a senator from a more civil and productive era of governance and has accomplished a great deal with that approach. California should reelect her and more candidates like her who know when to stand firm on matters of principle and when to negotiate to get things done. It is doubtful that challenger Kevin de Leon, unwilling by his own admission to compromise, would be nearly as effective in the Senate as it exists today.

In the Spanish language edition:

Kevin de Leon para senador federal

El senador estatal demostró tener la experiencia y el pragmatismo necesario para producir leyes. Él conoce de cerca la realidad de la gente y el valor de los inmigrantes. Dianne Feinstein ha estado en el Senado desde 1992 y de ganar esta elección, sería su sexto término en el Senado. Sin duda, es mucho tiempo y ha llegado el momento de un cambio generacional.

En estos momentos de claro enfrentamiento de Donald Trump contra el estado de California, se necesita una voz más fuerte y directa que vele por los intereses de los californianos en Washington.

Translation:

Kevin de Leon for federal senator

The state senator has demonstrated that he has the experience and pragmatism necessary for lawmaking. He knows closely the people’s reality and the value of the immigrants. Dianne Feinstein has been in the Senate since 1992 and if she wins this election, this would be her sixth term in the Senate. Without a doubt, that is a long time, and the time has come for a generational change.

In these moments of clear confrontation by Donald Trump against the state of California, a stronger and more direct voice is needed who looks after the interests of Californians in Washington.

Insurance Commissioner

In the English language edition:

Insurance commissioner: Steve Poizner

Poizner was an able and innovative insurance commissioner for a four-year term that ended in 2011. The Republican-turned-independent earned a reputation as an advocate for consumers, not insurance companies. This isn’t the right job for rival Ricardo Lara, who lacks experience with insurance regulation.

In the Spanish language edition:

Ricardo Lara para comisionado de seguros

El senador estatal tiene un fuerte compromiso con la defensa del consumidor, una responsabilidad vital para este cargo. Su cruzada en la legislatura por una cobertura médica universal refleja la pasión por defender al más vulnerable.

Translation:

Ricardo Lara for insurance commissioner

The state senator has a strong commitment to consumer protection, a vital responsibility for this position. His crusade in the legislature for universal medical coverage reflects his passion to defend the most vulnerable.

LA County Sheriff

In the English language edition:

Sheriff: Jim McDonnell

It turns out that reforming the Sheriff’s Department is a long and complicated process. But McDonnell remains the better of two candidates to do the job, given his long experience leading large law enforcement agencies. Challenger Alex Villanueva has no such experience.

In the Spanish language edition:

Alex Villanueva para Sheriff

Alex Villanueva ha demostrado su deseo de conseguir un cambio dentro del Departamento del Sheriff de Los Ángeles, el segundo más grande del país. En su opinión, la corrupción es un mal endémico dentro del Departamento y el actual Sheriff, Jim McDonell, no ha hecho nada para combatirlo.

Villanueva ha dicho que no apoya la presencia de agentes del Servicio de Inmigracion en el interior de las cárceles, y considera que las leyes santuario ayudan a fortalecer la confianza de la comunidad con las autoridades. Villanueva garantiza un cambio desde el interior del Departamento.

Translation:

Alex Villanueva for Sheriff

Alex Villanueva has shown his desire to bring change from within the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, the second largest in the country. In his opinion, corruption is an endemic evil within the Department and the current Sheriff, Jim McDonell, has done nothing to combat it.

Villanueva has said that he does not support the presence of ICE agents inside the jails, and he thinks that sanctuary laws help to strengthen the trust of the community with law enforcement. Villanueva guarantees a change from inside the Department.

Proposition 3

In the English language edition:

Proposition 3: ($8.877-billion water bond): No

Not all water bonds are created equal. This one would have all Californians pay for projects that would benefit only a few interests or regions, chiefly Central Valley agriculture.

In the Spanish language edition:

PROPOSICIÓN 3: Sí

Autoriza 8,900 millones de dólares para proyectos relacionados con agua. Los proyectos son extensos, cubren desde mejorar la calidad, almacenamiento y distribución.

Translation

PROPOSITION 3: Yes

Authorizes $8.9 billion for projects related to water. The projects are extensive, covering quality improvement, storage and distribution.

Proposition 7

In the English language edition:

Proposition 7 (Permanent daylight saving time): Yes

Passage of Proposition 7 would empower the Legislature, by a 2/3 vote, to express its desire to shift to year-round daylight saving time. But an actual shift requires an act of Congress.

In the Spanish language edition:

PROPOSICIÓN 7: No

Autoriza votar por el cambio de hora. La legislatura debe atender temas más importantes que este.

Aunque la Proposición 7 fuera aprobada por los votantes, California no podría hacer el cambio de horario sin el permiso del Congreso. La ley federal permite a los estados dejar de observar el horario de verano, pero no hacerlo de manera permanente.

En otras palabras, la Proposición 7 no detendrá el cambio de reloj, pero abre el camino para un debate que vale la pena tener. Pero creemos que en este momento la legislatura estatal tiene cosas más importantes y urgentes que abordar.

Translation

PROPOSITION 7: No

Authorizes voting for the time change. The legislature should address more important issues than this.

Even if Proposition 7 is approved by voters, California could not make the schedule change without Congressional permission. Federal law allows states to stop observing Daylight Saving Time, but not permanently.

In other words, Proposition 7 will not stop changing clocks, but it opens the way for a debate worth having.  But we believe that at this moment the state legislature has more important and urgent things to address.

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

Nifla v. Becerra, It’s not an abortion case

Posted by Brenda Higgins on July 9, 2018

The Reproductive FACT act was a boldly unconstitutional law that was signed by Governor Brown in October 2015. 

The Bill, AB 775 (Later codified as H&S 123470) was entitled the Reproductive FACT Act (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Accountability)  The bill provided that Pro-Life Pregnancy centers, who exist because of their objection to abortion, would be required to provide information about abortion to their clients, in their office, on their internal forms and in all advertising.  The onerous law also mandated exact language, required large font type and required in some counties that the notices would have to be provided in 13 languages.  

The case (NIFLA v. Becerra) decided by the Supreme Court was an appeal brought by NIFLA (National Institute for Life and Family Advocates) after the Ninth Circuit ruled the law to be constitutional and not in violation of the First Amendment.  There was another case brought in Riverside County Superior court, Sharpen v. Harris, challenging the constitutionality of the law.   Judge Gloria Trask  ruled in favor of the pregnancy center, finding that the FACT Act violated Article 1, section 2 of the California Constitution.
The  Riverside Superior court, relied upon U.S. Supreme Court precedent related to the U.S. constitution’s First Amendment. The court stated, “Compelled speech is that which forces a speaker to say that which he or she may or may not believe.  Compelled speech is undoubtedly necessary in many circumstances.  But compelled speech of a political or cultural nature, is not the tool of a free government.”  

The Riverside court applied Strict Scrutiny, the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, and said  that the political speech related to abortion, can not be neutral in nature.  The court found that the state of California failed to show any compelling state interest advanced by the regulation.

The FACT Act mandated two different notices.  One notice was for ‘licensed’ facilities, and another notice for ‘unlicensed’ facilities.  A ‘licensed’ facility was defined by the statute as a clinic whose ‘primary purpose is providing family planning or pregnancy related services’.  The ‘unlicensed’ facility was defined as one ‘whose primary purpose is pregnancy related services’ but who did not have a medical director on staff.

The Ninth Circuit, said that the pregnancy centers “were unable to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims.”  The Ninth Circuit court went on to state that  Strict Scrutiny was not warranted and that the “Act is a neutral law of general applicability, which survived rational basis (The lowest level of constitutional scrutiny) review.” As to the notice for licensed facilities, the Ninth Circuit found that it was entitled to only Intermediate scrutiny (Heightened, but not strict) and that the FACT Act survived Intermediate Scrutiny.  The Ninth Circuit  found that the unlicensed notice survived ANY level of scrutiny.  

The Ninth Circuit opinion spent much effort discussing “professional speech”.   One of the first things noted by The Supreme Court in its ruling overturning the Ninth Circuit, is that the Supreme Court has never recognized “professional speech” as a special category of speech giving it some lower “Intermediate” threshold of consideration.  Justice Thomas writing for the majority said, “This Court has been reluctant to mark off new categories of speech for diminished constitutional protection.”

Justice Thomas, also noted,  “The licensed notice at issue here is not an informed consent requirement or any other regulation of professional conduct. The notice does not facilitate informed consent to a medical procedure. In fact, it is not tied to a procedure at all. It applies to all interactions between a covered facility and its clients, regardless of whether a medical procedure is ever sought, offered, or performed.”  Justice Thomas pointed out the gaping exceptions in the FACT Act, exempting state and federal managed and funded providers.  This regulation, was targeted toward those clinics and resource centers that are largely non-profit, pro-life and Christian.

 

The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit both called the FACT Act, “Content Based”.  Content based regulation generally triggers the high level strict scrutiny review for constitutionality.  The Ninth Circuit veered around this standard with its created category of “professional speech”  The Supreme Court rejected that effort to find justification for the FACT Act.

Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion was clear and direct. 

“The history of the Act’s passage and its underinclusive application suggest a real 

possibility that these individuals were targeted because of their beliefs. ……”

  “It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come.”

“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”

Breyer’s dissent laments that the court should only look to the “reasonableness of the Legislature’s belief in the existence of evils and in the effectiveness of the remedy provided.” With one fell swoop, ignoring the whole body of First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion and dismissing the viewpoint encroachment of the state of California. 

No part of  Breyer’s dissent or the now discredited Ninth Circuit opinion, addressed the obvious and underlying philosophy of California that there is a ‘state interest’, in making sure women know about state funded abortion services. 

Breyer relies heavily upon Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Casey).  Interesting, in that the Ninth Circuit cites Casey as well, but in support of an opposite argument.   Breyer, criticizing Thomas and Kennedy’s majority opinion states, “one might take the majority’s decision to mean that speech about abortion is special”.  The Ninth Circuit, also relying on Casey, said that the high court had not announced a “rule regarding the level of scrutiny to apply in abortion-related disclosure cases”, implying throughout their ruling that abortion-related disclosure is in fact entitled to some yet undefined special scrutiny.  

The problem with the reliance upon Casey by both Breyer and the Ninth Circuit, is that Casey,  reaffirms Roe, which held that the Woman, not the state, has a right of Privacy and thus, a right to an abortion of an unviable fetus.  The state, as held in both of those seminal cases, has a interest in the life of the child, at the point of viability.  

The backwards application of Casey, by both the Ninth Circuit and Breyer, is not insignificant.  In the mental gymnastics they engage in to attempt to find support for this constitutionally offensive law, they attempt to create a new and unrecognized exception, and imagine a state interest in providing abortion.  

The majority and concurring opinions written by Thomas and Kennedy, do not even get to the lack of congruency in those positions of support for the law, because the FACT Act was so blatantly offensive to the First Amendment under proper scrutiny.  Judge Trask in Riverside similarly recognized the inherent flaw in the Act in that in infringed speech in a way it compelled clinics to “speak words with which it profoundly disagrees”.

The case should be an example, and a wake up call.  The fact that such a overtly biased and constitutionally offensive law made its way through the legislature and governors office, only to be defended by not one, but two Attorneys general, should tell us something about either the energy or the arrogance with which the left will go in the current environment, to silence those that it disagrees with.  

Justice Thomas put it like this:

Throughout history, governments have “manipulat[ed] the content of doctor-patient discourse” to increase state power and suppress minorities: 

“For example, during the Cultural Revolution, Chinese physicians were dispatched to the countryside to convince peasants to use contraception. In the 1930s, the Soviet government expedited completion of a construction project on the Siberian railroad by ordering doctors to both reject requests for medical leave from work and conceal this government order from their patients. In Nazi Germany, the Third Reich systematically violated the separation between state ideology and medical discourse. German physicians were taught that they owed a higher duty to the ‘health of the Volk’ than to the health of individual patients. Recently, Nicolae Ceausescu’s strategy to increase the Romanian birth rate included prohibitions against giving advice to patients about the use of birth control devices and disseminating information about the use of condoms as a means of preventing the transmission of AIDS.” Berg, Toward a First Amendment Theory of Doctor-Patient Discourse and the Right To Receive Unbiased Medical Advice, 74 B. U. L. Rev. 201, 201– 202 (1994) (footnotes omitted). 

Ultimately, the majority of the Supreme Court saw this power grab for the constitutional overreach that it was, and ruled accordingly.  

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

The perpetual race for second place

Posted by Brenda Higgins on June 2, 2018

Polls are not hard to understand.  The science of polling, even with the basic college level understanding of how the math behind it works, is also easily understood to be not just subjective, but fully within the manipulation of the pollster.

It doesn’t take a scientific poll to see and comprehend what has happened in elections in the U.S. and around the world in the past three U.S election cycles.  People with a real power to vote, have done so. And, they have done so in outright rebellion to those in power who have told them what to do and how to vote.  In spite of the effort of this ruling class of politicians and pollsters and pundits, people have rejected their group-think advisements to vote as they are being told to vote, and they are voting, with a level of enthusiasm and fervor, that we have not seen in our lifetime.

People have, in massive numbers, rejected what they have been told, and voted for candidates that experts said could not win.  My opinion is based upon my own very unscientific polling. I knocked on people’s doors and talked to them about things like health insurance and abortion. I called them on the phone and talked to them about Unions and school bonds.  I knocked on their doors to remind them to vote or show up to their caucus. I have done this many thousands of times in the past few election cycles.

They want to talk about things that aren’t in the polls.  In 2014 in Arkansas, people expressed angry reflexive passion to  vote for any candidate with a “R” by their name. In 2015 there was fury over more special elections and efforts to create more special taxes to fix things they thought were already paying taxes for.  In Nevada in 2016 they only wanted to talk about Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders and had no interest in hearing anything else.  In 2018, as I talk to people on phones and at their front door, about the down-ticket, they want to talk about Travis Allen.

The politicians and pollsters and pundits, have told people in the past three election cycles that whatever they are feeling or thinking as an individual, sitting in their living room in front of their TV or behind their computer screen, the way that they should think because a lot of people think that way, and this is who you should vote for because all the other people are going to vote that way.  The American public has rejected that instruction out of hand, and have become inherently distrustful of the media and of ‘establishment’ politicians.  Funny thing it, the media is now telling them that this has happened because of Donald Trump.  The media misses it again.  The rebellion is not ‘because’ of Donald Trump,  Donald Trump is because of the rebellion.

So it is in 2018, California.

Here’s a poll.  How many Democrat governors have we had in California since 1959?  That is more than a half century.  Think about that, because in the past three election cycles, Democrats, Republicans, pollsters and media pundits, continue to tell Californians that they can only have a Democrat governor.

In the past 59 years, we have had three Democrat Governors.  Brown, Brown, Davis, and Brown again.  Three. And one, Grey Davis, was kicked out of office by the rulers of California, the California people.  In the same time period, we have had four Republicans, Schwarzenegger, Wilson, Deukmejian, and Reagan.

Reagan’s two terms were after the two terms of Edmund G. Brown. and before two terms of his son, Jerry Brown.  Jerry Brown had ANOTHER two terms, after Schwartzenegger ousted Grey Davis. The last time we had a one term Governor was Culbert Olson in 1938. He was a Democrat. Before Culbert Olson, sequential Republicans held the office for nearly 50 years. You have to look back to 1894 to find another Democrat Governor.  My point is, there is not a long or strong history of support for Democrat Governors in this state, and in the last three election cycles, voters in every other state have rejected Democrat governors by wide margins.  Republicans are Governors in 33 states.  In 32 states, Republicans control BOTH houses of the legislature.  In 2010, Republicans controlled ONLY FOURTEEN STATES.  14, in 2010.

The tide has changed and California citizens are missing the benefit of conservative ideals.

In the past three election cycles, the pollsters and pundits and party leaders (in both parties actually)  are telling the voting public to sit down and be quiet, that there may never be a republican Governor in California again.  In keeping with their pearl clutching and hand wringing, over their polls, and research and infinite wisdom, they have given us, Meg Whitman and Neel Kashkari in the past two races for Governor.  There was a bizarre victory lap when Neal Kashkari lost by less than expected in 2014.  These two were barely Republicans, they were wealthy people who spent their own money and the party rejoiced in that.  Kashkari, who had never held public office and supported Obama in 2008,  was outspent by something like 10 to 1, so he got more votes per dollar than Meg Whitman.  The party leaders bizarrely counted in a victory and called on Tim Donnelly to step down because (by default)  Kashkari was the party ‘standard bearer’.

Now we have another non-Californian, rich guy, and they are asking the voters to do the same.  Take one for the team, vote this way because we are telling you that everyone else is going to vote this way, and we need to have a candidate at the “top of the ticket”.

Gone is any language about reclaiming the Governors mansion at any time in the future, the strategy is simply to get someone bland enough, lack luster enough in policies, and rich enough to pay for some TV commercials, but not to win.

There is no strategy to re-take the governors mansion or find and promote a conservative candidate for governor in California.

Donald Trump did not have a path to 270.  There is a scientific poll.  The historic fact however, is that he far exceeded that necessary 270.

In 59 years, a member of the Brown family has held the Governors office for 24 years, 6 terms.  There are no more members of the Brown dynasty, but the professionals are telling us that it is time for the Newsom/Pelosi dynasty to be coronated.  There is nothing you can do about it, we have given you this proper second place finisher, please just sit down and let us tell you how to vote.  Ruling, establishment, elitism, but in their tone deafness, they miss, that THIS is precisely what the rebellion has been aimed at.

Remember, this is what they told us about Hillary.  It was her turn.  She had the money, the experience, she was the most “qualified” and that Donald Trump was a joke. The coronation of the next ruling member of the Clinton dynasty had arrived.  Sit down Peasants.   The pollsters always leave out one thing.

The ruling class are not rulers, and the people are still in charge, and their not buying this.

Cox is a big government advocate still. No matter what he tries to do to distance himself from his own ideas. His only voting record, is his vote for Pro-Choice, Open Borders, Libertarian, Gary Johnson.  Cox has never won a race.  That makes him a perfect choice for the second place strategy.

Travis Allen has never lost a race, and was never expected to be in office.  The pollsters, pundits and ruling class have counted him out, and told him to sit down and wait his turn for the entirety of his political career.

Historically, it is time for the Governor’s Mansion to be turned back to the Republicans.  Someone needs to tell the leadership of the Republican party, they dont know it yet.   There is no justification for rolling over and paying dead with a second place candidate.   Californians, just like Americans across the country in the past three elections, have risen up to remind you, who is in charge, and they seem to be pretty tired of Second Place.

 

Posted in California, Campaign Finance | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

I’m a Pro Life Activist and I’m voting for Travis Allen

Posted by Brenda Higgins on May 22, 2018

 As I have researched the alleged issues, I realize that there has been not only disinformation, but combined with short sightedness and lack of thorough analysis, the reactionary ‘endorsements’ of Cox have been sorely misplaced.  John Cox has simply stated that he is Pro-Life, which is inconsistent with his vote for Pro-choice Libertarian  Gary Johnson for president.  Yet, the ‘movement’ seems disinclined to exact any consequences upon him for that.  The primarily cited reason for rejection Travis Allen’s representation that he is Pro-Life is the number of time he abstained on legislation that was of interest to the Pro-Life lobby.  The most oft cited of those is dealt with here, but the analysis of the other pieces of legislation that Travis Allen is faulted for, are similarly innocuous when looked at in the detail of impact his vote may have had.

Labels are funny things.  They have become a knee jerk reactive prompt, that we respond to like Pavlov’s dog.  We have to, above all, bring humanity back into policy and politics, or we truly have accomplished nothing, in particular, when we call ourselves advocates for “life”.  We should be more careful with words like “choice” and “family planning” and realize that they are just words.  We should also be up to speed on what is happening in Pro-Life non-profits, charities and life affirming medical clinics.  Organizations that not only affirm life, but provide….choices, AND, Family Planning.  Just because we use words that are used by bad guys, does not mean, we are bad guys.

 SB 743, was entitled, The Protection of Choice for Family Planning Providers. It was presented to the Assembly on 9/13/17.  The problem that many “Pro Life” leaders are having on this particular bill is that Travis Allen did NOT vote on it, he abstained.  In discussion this with those conservatives who oppose Travis Allen as a governor candidate, no one could tell me exactly what difference his vote would have made.  The answer lies in the 55-21 split, in favor of passage.  Travis Allen’s vote, yes, no, or abstain, was in fact, irrelevant.  It would have passed no matter what Travis Allen did.  

Travis Allen is further faulted by these “Pro Life” advocates, for abstaining on other “Pro Life” bills.  Anyone who has ever been in Sacramento and conversed with conservative legislators there in the past three decades, knows, that you must pick your battles.  In the interests of what you can get done, you might have to ignore and let go of what you can not get done.  A few years ago, a California Senator told me that Jerry Brown was the best ally we conservatives had in Sacramento. It puzzled me at first, but I realized it was because the Governor, with his veto power, was holding a fiscally conservative line periodically, which provided the conservatives some maneuvering ability, not much, but some.  During the 6 years that Travis Allen has been in the State Assembly in Sacramento, the Democrats have had a majority, (more than half) and for all but two years it was a Super-majority (More than two thirds).  The minority in such a hostile environment, must have some shrewd strategy and survival skills. 

The passage of SB 743, is not in any way the apolcalyptic defeat of the Pro Life Movement that they are making it out to be.  In reviewing the listed advocates and opponents of this legislation, I am (again) puzzled as to whether anyone taking a side,  actually read it.  Of course, a variety of Planned Parenthood organizations supported it.  Particularly puzzling though, is the Catholic opposition to it.   Catholic charities strongly support many pro-life pregnancy centers that will benefit greatly from this legislation.
The legislation, SB 743, does not specifically, or exclusively, fund abortion.

It provides that if a woman is receiving funding for her medical care through a government subsidized health plan, she should be able to CHOOSE her provider.  What is unreasonable about that?  She may choose abortion with that blank check of benefits given her, but she can ALSO choose life affirming medical care for herself and her unborn child.  These medi-cal and medicaid benefits are a tremendous help to those life affirming medical centers, and those centers offer so much more to mothers than Planned Parenthood does. 

“Medi-Cal managed care plan shall not restrict the choice of the qualified provider from whom a beneficiary enrolled in the managed care plan may receive family planning services covered by the Medi-Cal program”  SB743 (

Maybe their issue is that women might choose Planned Parenthood.  She may, however, choose a life affirming medical clinic for her ‘family planning services’.   Choice, it is not a bad thing, and it is not a bad word. The question the Pro Life Lobby should be asking itself, is are WE doing ENOUGH to support these kinds of centers and divert these women to them?  Are we making these known?  Are they as easily recognized, branded and exposed and familiar to the public as Planned Parenthood.  Women, and men, go to Planned Parenthood because they are shocked, surprised, overwhelmed, unsure and immensely afraid.  They go to what they know.  Why cant we change what they know?  There are other OPTIONS.  They have real CHOICES.

With the woman having a real choice, she can choose a life affirming center.  It is up to the Pro Life movement to step up the game to reach these women.  With President Trump signaling that he will be enforcing Title X limitations on funding to abortion providers, this opportunity is truly wide open for life affirming medical centers to expand their reach and their market share.  While we myopically focus on old battle fields, opposing anything and everything that might benefit Planned Parenthood, an entirely new opportunity is springing up to simply put them out of business.  We will miss it if we keep splitting hairs over whom is Pro-Life enough for us.

Planned Parenthood performs over 300,000 abortions each year. They offer no prenatal care, no parenting support and refer only 2,500 adoptions.  That is not any range of CHOICE.  Pro Life Pregnancy clinics offer real support, and, real choice.  Choice is not a bad word, we just surrendered it and let them have it.  We should take it back.  Choices, when they are real and meaningful, are good things.  

It does not seem that any of Travis Allen’s opponents thought of this.  Again, though, Travis Allen did not vote on this, did not sponsor this, and was not a deciding factor in its passage.  It remains however a deciding factor in Pro Life organizations and activists rejecting him as a candidate.

The failure to fully consider the scope of this and other legislation, the full impact of life affirming ministries and organizations is incredibly short sighted of “Pro-Life” activists, but to compound their error of improperly analyzing the impact of this law, by saddling an illusive negative impact, upon a legislator and now governor candidate who had NOTHING to do with its passage, is just simple incompetence, and utter unfairness.

Travis Allen, is by far the best candidate we have seen for Governor of California in many years.  I just hope it is not too late to undo the misinformation damage that has occurred from these improper analyses.

I am a Pro Life Activist, I work in Life Affirming ministry, and I will be voting for Travis Allen.  

Posted in California, Orange County, U.S. Politics | Tagged: | 3 Comments »