OC Political

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

Will the Fullerton Recall Succeed?

Posted by OC Insider on April 5, 2012

In OC Republican circles, the group consensus seems to be that the success of the Fullerton recall is a foregone conclusion. But is it?

Tony Bushala, the Fullerton developer and owner of the Friends for Fullerton’s Future blog, has spent at least $173,000 ($20K of it from his brother George) to qualify the recall against Fullerton councilmembers Don Bankhead, Dick Jones and Pat McKinley. Due to the timing of when Bushala turned in the signatures, the recall and replacement special elections will be consolidated with the June 5 primary.

Bushala has formed a new committee, Fullerton Residents for Reform, which will be the funding vehicle through which he pays for mail supporting his chosen candidates.

It’s easy to understand why people think the recall is a foregone conclusion: Bushala is a multi-millionaire who is completely focused on the recall, is willing to spend huge sums on it, and the recall targets are old and tired. Plus, there seems to be grass roots support for the recall.

On the other hand, there may be some wishful thinking by recall supporters. Generally speaking, it’s unlikely voters will recall local elected officials like councilmembers, especially ones they’ve been returning to office for years, unless they a) believe there is something seriously wrong with their city and b) voting for a recall will solve the problem(s).

Fullerton is a great and desirable place to live, and I’d be surprised is a majority of voters there think the city is in bad shape, let alone the train wreck recall supporters make it out to be. Plus, leading indicators of a genuine grass-roots campaign are missing. Many of those who show up for recall events or to harangue the council are from outside Fullerton, and outside Orange County. Grass roots would show up in the form of Fullerton residents making donations, small or large, to the recall campaign, yet a review of the campaign finance disclosures show only two Fullerton donors whose last name isn’t Bushala.

Look at it another way. Their genuine outrage at the tragic and senseless killing of Kelly Thomas aside, Bushala and his group took advantage of that situation to basically get a do-over of the 2010 council elections. The primary issues cited by recall supporters are the Kelly Thomas killing and a decades-old 10% water surcharge that turns out to be illegal.

The District Attorney is prosecuting two Fullerton policemen for murdering Thomas and the city’s movement to end the 10% water surcharge let a lot of the air out of those issues. As far as most voters who pay attention to city government see it, those issues are more or less being resolved, weakening the case that the solution is recalling Bankhead, McKinley and Jones.

Recalls are hard to win. In 2001, three Orange Unified School District trustees (one of whom was under house arrest) were recalled, but only after years of controversy and district actions generated wide-spread parent dissatisfaction. Parents organized and teamed with the teachers union to qualify a recall. Even so, the three trustees were recalled by very narrow margins, even though they didn’t work very hard to save their seats.

There are some similarities between the Fullerton recall and the 2010 recall of Mission Viejo Councilman Lance MacLean. In Mission Viejo in 2009, a vocal group of council critics initiated a recall against MacLean in 2009, in hopes of replacing him with one of themselves. Their signature gathering met with slow going and ultimately one of the recall leaders spent thousands of dollars to hire professional circulators to get it on the ballot. The recall election was held in February 2010. MacLean, who only campaigned actively to against his recall in the last few weeks, was recalled by a paper-thin margin of 19 votes out of 14,721 cast. And even that was rendered moot when recall leader Dale Tyler was defeated in the replacement election by Dave Leckness.

The Fullerton recall campaign leaders may have made a major strategic error by submitting their signatures almost a month before the February 16 deadline. If they had waited until that date, the recall/replacement elections would have been a stand-alone special election, probably in July, in which the low-turnout would tilt the odds in favor of the recall. Instead, the recall has been consolidated with the June primary, in which voter turn-out is expected to be in the mid-40 percent. Turn-out in a stand-alone special election would be half that.

The OUSD and Mission Viejo recalls were stand-alone special elections, in which voter turn-out was 21% and 23.9%, respectively. In both cases, the recalls only narrowly succeeded against politically inept incumbents who only sluggishly contested their recalls.

Which is another similarity with the Fullerton recall, one that argues in favor of its success. Dick Jones, Don Bankhead or Pat McKinley don’t appear to be working very hard to save their seats. Jones’ council term ends this December, so he may not care one way or another. Fullerton voters recalled Bankhead in October 1994, and then voted him back on the council a few weeks later, so he’s probably adopting a que sera, sera attitude toward the whole business.

Even if all three councilmembers are recalled, there’s no guarantee they will be replaced by recall supporters. Their best shot is in the Dick Jones seat, where Friends for Fullerton Future blogger and close Bushala ally Travis Kiger is running. Kiger has some big advantages: he can use his planning commissioner title, and he is the only replacement candidate in that seat who paid for a candidate statement in the sample ballot. If Jones is recalled, Kiger is almost certain to replace him.

A number of candidates who ran and lost for Fullerton Council in 2010 are running in the other two replacement elections. Running in the Bankhead seat is Greg Sebourn, a Bushala ally who finished a fairly distant fourth in the 2010 council election. Also running is a Rick Alvarez, who is more or less the establishment candidate. We’ll see if Alvarez can run a strong campaign, and whether Sebourn will run a better campaign than in 2010.

In the McKinley seat, the replacement candidates include Doug Chaffee, Barry Levinson and Matthew Rowe. Chaffee is a Democrat and establishment-type who fell only 90 votes short of being elected to the council in 2010. Levinson is more of Tea Party-type who finished 5th in 2010 with 10.6% of the vote. Rowe is a young-ish, conservative Iraq War veteran.

Even if voters support all three recalls, recall supporters may win only one of the seats. With the exception of Chaffee and Levinson, none of the replacement candidates have shown much ability to raise or loan themselves meaningful campaign warchests. At the end of the day, the election prospects of Kiger, Sebourn and either Levinson or Rowe will largely depend on how money Tony Bushala spends on their behalf through his Fullerton Residents for Reform independent expenditure committee.

All in all, it’s premature to conclude the recalls of Bankhead, Jones and McKinley are sure things. Odds of a successful recall are probably, at this moment, about 50-50.

Posted in Fullerton | Tagged: , , , , | 15 Comments »

OCBC Issues Correction & Apology to Mansoor

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on April 5, 2012

In an embarrassing press release, OCBC had to admit that their score for Assemblyman Allan Mansoor was miscalculated.  There have been many grumblings about the misalignment of the OCBC scorecard with those of other business groups, and now just outright getting Mansoor’s score wrong lands another blow to the credibility of the OCBC scorecard.  Here’s their full press release that came over the wire yesterday:

OCBC Sets the Record Straight on Mansoor

IRVINE, CA — Orange County Business Council (OCBC) has issued a correction of its Legislative Scorecard, originally produced and distributed last October, 2011.  A transposition of one vote caused the score for Assembly member Alan Mansoor to be miscalculated at a lower rate than it should have been. His correct score is 72% pro-business legislative votes aligned with OCBC’s policy positions.

OCBC takes position and advocates on behalf of dozens of state bills throughout the legislative session. In 2011, OCBC identified 30 bills to track the votes of the OC legislative delegation. The list of these bills was provided to legislative members in May 2011.  The adjusted calculation of the legislator’s “score” is based on the number of times a legislator voted with OCBC, divided by the total number of times a legislator was present for a vote.

The mistaken score has been posted on the OCBC website since last October.  The information was recently used by Assembly candidate Leslie Daigle in campaign material, which is when the error was discovered.  The error in information lies entirely with OCBC  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 74th Assembly District | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

OC’s Best Ballot Designations

Posted by Chris Nguyen on April 5, 2012

Ballot

Ballot designations are the only piece of information that appear directly on the ballot other than a candidate's name (and party in some - but not all - races).

Last week, I wrote about OC’s worst ballot designations. In this post, I’ll be looking at OC’s best ballot designations.

As I said last week, “The most important thing a candidate does in a campaign may well be selecting a ballot designation.  That little phrase underneath a candidate’s name are the last piece of information that voters see before casting their ballots.  In low-profile races (like Central Committee, where you can’t even get a candidate’s statement in the sample ballot), that little phrase may well be the only piece of information that voters see before casting their ballots.”

Elected officials’ ballot designations are an inherent advantage, so I’m excluding the designations of elected officials.

OC’s Ten Best Ballot Designations (for Non-Incumbents/Non-Elected Officials)

  1. Retired Navy Captain (Emily Sanford in the 74th District Republican Central Committee)
    Retired Naval Officer (Norm Dickinson in the 73rd District Republican Central Committee)
    Who could possibly vote against the military?  People have a deep respect for career military officers, as these people have served their country, have substantial leadership experience, understand complex government bodies, and are educated.
  2. Deputy Attorney General (Peggy Huang in the 55th District Republican Central Committee)
    Voters love prosecutors.  Prosecutors put criminals in prison.  Deputy District Attorneys rarely lose elections.  Deputy Attorney General is higher on the food chain, so it should be even more impressive to voters.
  3. Deputy District Attorney (Cyril Yu in the 74th District Democratic Central Committee)
    See above.
  4. Retired Police Commander (Albert Ayala in AD-72)
    Voters love law enforcement because the police catch criminals.  A retired police commander has served his community, has leadership experience, and understands dealing with government.
  5. Law Enforcement Officer (Jorge Robles in CD-38)
    As above, voters love law enforcement because they catch criminals and have served the community.
  6. Businessman/Victims Advocate (Todd Spitzer in the 3rd Supervisorial District)
    How on earth do you vote against a victims advocate?  That’d be like voting against victims.
  7. Businesswoman/Childrens Advocate (Brenda McCune in the 55th District Republican Central Committee)
    How on earth do you vote against a childrens advocate?  That’d be like voting against the children.  (Of course, we’d expect all OC Political bloggers to have great ballot designations when running for office, and she’s done just that.)
  8. Retired Constitutional Litigator (Jonathan Adler in the 74th District Democratic Central Committee)
    Voters hate most lawyers as ambulance chasers and corporate raiders.  However, there are two types of lawyers people like: the prosecutors who put criminals away and the constitutional lawyers who battle for constitutional causes and rights (note that Spitzer and McCune went with “Advocate” instead of “Lawyer” – it’s the same job but “Advocate” sounds friendlier than “Lawyer”).
  9. Emergency Physician (Bill Honigman in the 73rd District Democratic Central Committee)
    Doctors improve health.  Emergency room doctors save lives.  People vote for lifesavers.
  10. Charitable Organization President (Usha Shah in CD-47)
    Too many people who work for non-profit organizations run with “Non-Profit Organization” or “Non-Profit Group” in their ballot designation.  “Charitable Organization” brings happy thoughts that make voters feel warm and fuzzy.  “Charitable” just sounds better than “Non-Profit” even though 90% of the time they’re the same thing.

Interestingly, half of the above are lawyers.  Note that none of these lawyers used “lawyer” in their designation.  None used “Attorney” except when it had key modifiers to become “Deputy Attorney General” or “Deputy District Attorney” instead.  These candidates realize voters don’t like lawyers, but they’re smart enough to realize people like prosecutors and advocates.

Lessons from the group above:

  • Non-prosecutor lawyers should generally run as advocates.
  • People like the military, law enforcement, and doctors.
  • When possible, “Charitable” should be used instead of “Non-Profit” to attract voters.

Best Pair of Ballot Designations in a Two-Person Race: 3rd Supervisorial District

  • Businessman/Victims Advocate (Todd Spitzer)
  • Councilwoman, City of Villa Park (Deborah Pauly)

Spitzer’s designation was #6 on my list of the ten best ballot designations in OC.  Pauly’s designation was ineligible to be on the list due to my “elected officials’ ballot designations are an inherent advantage” rule.  Therefore, this race inherently has the best pair of ballot designations in any two-person race.

Best Set of Ballot Designations in One Race Featuring 3+ Candidates: AD-72

  • Small Business Owner (Travis Allen – Republican)
  • Retired Police Commander (Albert Ayala – Democrat)
  • City Commissioner/Businessman (Joe Dovinh – Democrat)
  • Member, Orange County Board of Education (Long Pham – Republican)
  • Businessman/Mayor (Troy Edgar – Republican)

I noted last week that the five candidates in CD-46 has the worst set of ballot designations in any one race.  Well, another set of five candidates, this time in AD-72, has the best set of ballot designations in any one race with three or more candidates.

Every single one of these candidates maximized their occupations and political positions in their descriptions of themselves.

  • Allen runs a wealth management firm.  “Wealth Management Businessowner” could be offputting to some voters.  He wisely (and accurately) chose to describe himself as a “Small Business Owner” because his wealth management firm is a small business, and he does own it.  Plus people on both sides of the aisle respect people who own small businesses; indeed, the majority of Americans work for small businesses.
  • Ayala’s “Retired Police Commander” came in at #4 on my list of best ballot designations.  When the most hopeless candidate makes the best ballot designations list, you know you’ve got a fun race.
  • Dovinh’s “City Commissioner/Businessman” maximizes his appointed political role and takes advantage of his job as a general contractor.  The “City Commissioner” part wisely leaves off a specific city making it possible he could be a city commissioner in any of the cities in AD-72: Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Westminster, Garden Grove, Los Alamitos, or Santa Ana.  (He’s a Garden Grove Planning Commissioner for the record.)  Additionally, there are cities out there (though not in California) that call their city elected officials commissioners instead of councilmembers.  For voters looking for candidates with private sector experience, Dovinh’s “Businessman” designation appeals to them.
  • Pham’s “Member, Orange County Board of Education” takes advantage of my “elected officials’ ballot designations are an inherent advantage” rule.  Not only that, he takes advantage of the Elections Code regulation that allows sitting elected officials to exceed three words in a ballot designation if they use their elected title as their sole ballot designation (this counts as a five-word designation; remember, “Orange County” is legally one word for purposes of the Elections Code).  Further, Pham is one of a small group of elected officials whose elected position includes “Orange County” in the title.  Since the entirety of AD-72 is in Orange County, his title sounds like he could represent all the people of AD-72 (for the record, he represents Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Tustin).
  • Edgar’s “Businessman/Mayor” takes advantage of his status owning two businesses and the fact that he is currently Mayor of Los Alamitos.  Edgar is the only candidate in AD-72 who didn’t maximize the word limit, and he also failed to use the stronger “Businessowner” over “Businessman” in his designation: I would have tweaked this to be “Orange County Businessowner/Mayor” or “Small Businessowner/Mayor” though this is still a strong ballot designation.  Everything I said about Dovinh’s ballot designation applies to Edgar, with the added advantage that the mayor is leader of a city while a commissioner is just one of several officials.  Edgar’s not a directly-elected mayor; he’s mayor in one of those cities (specifically, Los Alamitos) where mayor is rotated on an annual basis among the councilmembers.  However, for ballot designation purposes, it doesn’t matter if you’re directly-elected or rotated into the position, as long as you’re the mayor when you’re running.

So last week, I wrote about OC’s worst ballot designations. In this post, these are Orange County’s best ballot designations.

Posted in 38th Congressional District, 3rd Supervisorial District, 47th Congressional District, 72nd Assembly District, Republican Central Committee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Planned Parenthood’s Hypocrisy in Rejecting $500,000 Donation

Posted by Chris Nguyen on April 4, 2012

Tucker Max on the cover of his book, I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell. I assume this picture makes it clear what genre of books Tucker Max writes.

Two months ago, on February 1, Susan G. Komen for the Cure (the famous breast cancer research and awareness foundation) announced it would no longer fund $600,000 in breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood clinics. Planned Parenthood’s national president, Cecile Richards, said at the time, “We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure. Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count.”

Just two days later, on February 3, Komen reversed its decision after enduring a great deal of backlash for its decision to stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood.

Fast forward two months later to yesterday, April 3: public relations strategist Ryan Holiday wrote at Forbes.com about his efforts to help his client, infamous fratire writer Tucker Max, donate half a million dollars to Planned Parenthood.

Max told Holiday: “Ryan, I have a huge tax burden this year. I can reduce it with a large donation to charity, but I want to promote my new book at the same time. Can you come up with something cool that does both?”  Holiday then suggested the donation to Planned Parenthood to get a clinic named after Max as a way to reduce his tax burden and improve his public image.

For those of you who have never heard of him, here is a list of Tucker Max’s books:

  • The Definitive Book of Pick-Up Lines (2001)
  • Belligerence and Debauchery: The Tucker Max Stories (2003)
  • I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell (2006)
  • A******* Finish First (2010)
  • Hilarity Ensues (2012)
  • Sloppy Seconds: The Tucker Max Leftovers (2012)

(I’ve opted to censor the curse word in the title of his 2010 book for those of you reading this at work or near your kids.  Visit the NSFW TuckerMax.com at your own risk; you’ve been warned.)

Needless to say, Max has been repeatedly called a misogynist and was even deemed a “poster child for the vulgarity [sic]” in a federal court ruling.

Planned Parenthood turned down the $500,000 donation from Tucker Max, expressing their concern about the way people perceive Max’s writing. They eventually told Max, “We don’t feel it would be appropriate, given Planned Parenthood’s mission and your body of work, to accept your donation.”  An exasperated Max responded, “What? I thought Planned Parenthood’s mission was about helping women, not passing judgment on humor.”

(The argument that Planned Parenthood didn’t want to participate in a Tucker Max publicity stunt doesn’t hold water because Max offered to make the donation anonymously after the initial rejection, but Planned Parenthood turned his anonymous donation down too.)

Considering Planned Parenthood was “alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure” when Komen (initially) decided to end its $600,000 in funding for Planned Parenthood, it’s rather hypocritical for them to turn down $500,000 in funding from Tucker Max on the basis of the perception of his writing.

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

“Cigarette Smugglers for Cancer Research”

Posted by The Master Cylinder on April 3, 2012

That might as well be the name of a pro-Proposition 29 campaign committee (OK, this isn’t an OC-only issue, but the November election is coming faster than we think). Prop. 29, which will be on the November 2012 ballot, would impose a 5-cent tax on each cigarette sold, or about a $1.00 a pack. The revenue, as it always does, goes toward one of those causes that no one can be against: cancer research. If approved by voters, it will amount to about a $1 billion tax hit on all those poor saps that are hooked on cigarettes. Prop. 29 creates a special commission that will dole out this these millions to whomever and wherever it sees fit – even out of the state or the country. In the best progressive tradition, the unshakable assumption is latest tobacco tax would be doled out by a special un-elected “commission” created by the initiative, on the naïve assumption that bunch of appoint “experts” can efficiently allocate these funds for the elimination of cancer and the betterment of mankind.

Who can argue with that?

Certainly not those social elements that make their money selling cigarettes on the black market. Any new law or tax that increases the price of cigarettes is like free marketing for them, creating customers who want to get more cigarettes for their money.

As Michael D. LaFaive,  Director of Fiscal Policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy wrote in a recent op-ed, “While cigarette tax hikes usually generate additional revenue for different units of government, they bring with them illicit activities, including smuggling by individuals and organized crime groups, violence against people and police and brazen thefts, too.”

Ultimately, LaFaive writes, “politicians don’t consider all of the costs of reaching ever deeper into consumer pockets…By hiking cigarette taxes so dramatically politicians are effectively expanding — if not creating — a highly profitable illegal market in which thieves and other people of violence can thrive at the great expense to consumers and job providers alike.”

Even with a cigarette tax below the national average, California has already started seeing the effects of increased smuggling. According to former Board of Equalization member Michelle Steel , “Cigarette-related crime is rising across the U.S. In California, 1.4 billion packs were estimated to have been consumed in fiscal year 2005-06. And 209 million packs were estimated to have been sold tax-free, resulting in a $182 million revenue loss for the state.”

This is a story as old as history. When government taxation of a service or product reaches a certain level, the incentive to evade, and to profit from evasion, becomes irresistible. This kind of taxation is always imposed in the name of a noble cause, and just as invariably turns citizens into criminals, diminishing respect for the law and ordinary government authority and habituating citizens to tax evasion. Prop. 29 will exacerbate that problem, in addition to the usual sins of raising taxes, empowering special interests and spending money on duplicative programs.

I don’t know about you, but I have about had it with funding every do-gooder program by piling yet another tax onto the backs of smokers. There is no more blood left to be squeezed out of that turnip.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

The dumbest dialogue on Obamacare yet

Posted by Brenda Higgins on April 3, 2012

In the wake of the recent oral arguments to the Supreme Court, politicians with stakes on both sides of the issue have exercised their liberty to open their mouths about it. With matters that are complex enough to necessitate Supreme Court intervention, politicians would have been well served to exercise restraint. As the saying goes, better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

POTUS seemed to lob the first grenade in this nonsensical war of words with the following disposition of his genius.
“I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress” Gee, I don’t know Barry, but maybe a clue exists in the cases of Marbury v. Madison, McCullough v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden. In all of these cases the high court determined that Congressional or State Legislature actions were either appropriate or inappropriate under the powers granted to them by the Constitution. Judicial review? Ever heard of it? Just because the majority of a democratically elected Congress voted that we should all covert to Buddahism, does not mean that the court is going to allow such a law to stand.

I believe that Barry attended and graduated from Harvard Law School, even though I have not seen any official transcripts, BUT, my question would be whether or not he passed Constitutional Law after a comment like that. The popularity of the law, or the strength of the majority on the vote have no bearing on the grant, or lack thereof, of power to Congress, in the Constitution. I get that he is confused when he is losing on an issue, and is not very good on his feet, but these recent comments sound much like, “Oh yeah, I know I am but what are you?!” Genius. Articulate. Our POTUS.

Then, we have Mitt Romney being questioned about the comments of the President and we get this gem.

“So judicial activism is not following the Constitution. Judicial activism is departing from the Constitution”

Giving Mitt one tiny break, you can not impart a meaningful explanation of the concept of “judicial activism” in a one liner. When we have Obama jumping up and down crying “judicial activism” you can’t merely say, “judicial activism is not following the Constitution”. He could have said, the court will do what it has always done, and strike down laws that are not constitutional. That is their job, it is what we want them to do. He seems stunned by the question and ill prepared to address it. His retort sounds as childish as the comments from Barry and is tantamount to “Yeah, well come over here and say that!”.

Mitt, I understand, also received a Juris Doctor from Harvard, and I’m pretty sure it’s not one of those online law schools.

Judicial activism, is not like super-twins-powers-activate!, that you get all power and unsuspected, otherwise humanly impossible victory for your team whenever it is invoked or granted to your side. It is a criticism of the judiciary that they are allegedly utilizing and relying upon their own personal biases and politics when they are interpreting an issue of First Impression, which is that it has never been addressed before. Judicial activism then, is the battle cry of the whiners on losing side. Not unlike complaining about how blind the Umpire was at your kids Little League game.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, somebody is always unhappy, somebody leaves the building a loser, and somebody cries “injustice”, and yes, someone raves”judicial activism”. It just ain’t fair. It is the way the system works, and works pretty effectively. This utter lack of reverence and political demonizing of this branch is something that should be offensive to us all.

I have seen several comments questioning that if the court can be “activist” on Roe v. Wade, then why not be “activist” on overturning the PPACA (Aka Obamacare). THIS is the most illiterate and incomprehensible of all the dumb comments so far.

Roe, whether you like it or not, is a case protecting fundamental rights of individuals, primarily under the 14th Amendment. The focus is the individual and the protection afforded to all of us within the 14th Amendment. The PPACA case involves the POWER of Congress to do what it has done. This legislation is so breathtakingly broad, it is difficult to even start to describe the plethora of overstepping the powers of Congress that has gone on here. Just on its face, it compels businesses to provide health insurance coverage for employees, compels individuals to purchase health care coverage, and compels the same insurance companies to provide insurance to those whom they might otherwise not wish to have as clients. I don’t care at all about how “human” Obama wants to characterize this, Congress can not go around dictating who will do business and contract with whom, and dictating what we will purchase. While we get mired in whether Congress had the POWER to do ANY of this, we don’t even get to the question of the First Amendment Rights to Association that my be impacted by the various “mandates”. Breathtakingly broad. There is no other way to describe this abomination. In both cases, the court is the last vestige of defense and the one thing that protects the individual by curtailing the government.

Congress has overstepped and abused its powers. It is really that simple, and that complicated. It likely goes down, but Barry is obviously nervous, and he is the consummate campaigner. Sorry, the Supremes don’t work that way and their lifetime tenure make them generally immune (hopefully) from such public relations games by the Great Campaigner. As officers of the court, as elected officials, do these politicians not have the job to instill CONFIDENCE in the court? Please, all of you verbose campaigners, stop scapegoating the most distinguished branch or our government with your sore loser rhetoric. An ounce of respect and dignity for the branch that is literally our last defense against this kind of government infringement, socialism and tyranny, and all sorts of invasions of our rights and privacies.

Obamacare will likely be overturned because it is bad law, and it is the JOB of the Supreme Court, to overturn bad laws that violate the constitution.

Mitt, you can use that next time someone asks you.

 

Posted in National, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 14 Comments »

Fix it: Episode III

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on April 2, 2012

This just came across the wire from the office of Congressman John Campbell:

Monday, April 2, 2012

Fix it: Episode III – The episodic thing makes me feel like I am writing the next Harry Potter or something. OK, enough fantasizing. On to the real stuff.

Energy
: The “fix” for our energy problems is actually one of the simpler ones. And, the reason it is simple is not because of any action of Congress or the President. It is not even because of our founding fathers. It comes from God. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 45th Congressional District | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Communists Stole My Sister for Propaganda

Posted by Chris Nguyen on April 2, 2012

Communist Vietnamese Government

Somehow, I don't think any Communist papers will be stealing this graphic.

So normally when I write an article on OC Political involving people named Nguyen, I have to put on a disclaimer that I’m not related to them (e.g. Supervisor Janet Nguyen, Councilwoman Dina Nguyen, Judge John Nho Trong Nguyen).  Well, for once, I am related to the Nguyen in this blog post.  I don’t make it a habit of sharing family stories, but this one’s got a weird political angle.My sister, Krystina Nguyen, is currently in the US Peace Corps in Cameroon; she’s been in Africa since 2010.  About six weeks ago on February 23, my sister did an interview with the Orange County-based Viễn Đông Daily News.  (The original article’s here. Google’s English translation is available here though it’s a rough translation since it’s a computer translation, but you can get the gist of the interview.)

Then, on February 28, the Communist Vietnamese “news” source Không gian dành cho bạn trẻ took and inappropriately modified a couple quotes from the Viễn Đông article, then completely fabricated a third quote from my sister, and then stole a picture from my sister’s personal blog.  (Here is the link to their story.  For the English translation, see the Voice of Vietnam link or Communist Party of Vietnam Online Newspaper link, both of which are below.)

In the story, the fabricated quote reads, “I want to send a message to young Vietnamese in the homeland, especially, those living in difficult circumstances, that where there is a will, there is a way. If you set a goal, follow it and you will cultivate success sooner or later.”

That quote is utterly preposterous.  First off, if my sister were going to send a message to young people in her homeland, she’d be sending the message to young Americans.  Secondly, she would would not use the word “homeland” outside the context of homeland security.  Thirdly, she is a native English speaker and would not use an awkward sentence like, “If you set a goal, follow it and you will cultivate success sooner or later.”  While my sister is fond of using famous quotes, she certainly wouldn’t use something as trite as “…where there is a will, there is a way.”  (Now, if it were my father using the trite quote, I’d believe it.)

In an attempt to prevent any good press for the democratically-elected American government, they said she is a “volunteer of the National Peace Corps Association – a Washington-based non-profit organisation specialising in community work.”  They didn’t want to say that she works for the United States Peace Corps, a federal government agency.  The National Peace Corps Association is basically a Peace Corps alumni association.  It’s pathetic they’d go that far to attempt to avoid giving good press to a democratic government.  That’s as preposterous as someone writing a puff piece about me that claimed I graduated from the Stanford Alumni Association to avoid giving Stanford University positive press.

They also trolled through my sister’s personal blog to find a picture to use in their article.  They had to scroll through 241 pictures before they reached the picture they wanted to use.  It’s not like she has a photo gallery; they had to go through a year’s worth of blog posts to find the picture.  That’s just creepy that they went that far.

They also declare her to be “the only American of Vietnamese origin taking part in humanitarian activities in Cameroon, West Africa.”  That’s a rather awkward sentence construction and factually inaccurate.  The normal construction would be “the only American of Vietnamese descent” or “the only Vietnamese-American” instead, but both are also factually inaccurate, as she isn’t the only one; there are two currently serving with her, plus half-a-century’s worth before the three of them.

In the interview that my sister actually did with Viễn Đông, the interviewer asked my sister to compare American, Vietnamese, and Cameroonian culture, yet the Communist press rewrote my sister’s quote to leave out her complimentary statements about American culture and also made it seem like “many people ask” my sister about Cameroon vs. Vietnam; considering she’s an American, most people ask her to compare Cameroon and the United States.

The day after the Communist Không gian dành cho bạn trẻ ran their story, February 29, the Communist Voice of Vietnam ran the same fraudulent story.  Then the day after, March 1, the official journal of the Vietnamese Communist Party, Báo điện tử Đảng Cộng sản Việt Nam (which translates to Communist Party of Vietnam Online Newspaper), ran the same fraudulent story.  The next day, March 2, the Communist Dan Tri International ran the same fraudulent story, crediting Voice of Vietnam as the source.

Oh, and just in case those Communist propagandists wander by, here’s my message to the Vietnamese people: “I want to send a message to the Vietnamese, especially, those living in difficult circumstances, look to the Middle East and their Arab Spring.  Where the people’s will is for democracy and the rule of law, there is a way to put an end to a dictatorship.”

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

April Fools’ Day Posts

Posted by Chris Nguyen on April 2, 2012

Since it is now April 2, I can now clarify that Emami only wrote three April Fools’ Day posts:

Again, those three are the sole April Fools’ Day posts.

All other posts outside of those three posts are legitimate OC Political posts.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

In Defense of the Unlovely or Selective Prosecution

Posted by Brenda Higgins on April 1, 2012

On Thursday evening March 22, the Orange County Jewish American Bar Association hosted a discussion of the case of the Irvine 11. The discussion involved District Attorney Tony Rackaukas and Defense counsel Jacqueline Goodman. The discussion was moderated by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

In 2010, Isreali Ambassador Micheal Oren came to Orange County to speak at UCI. In the course of the Ambassadors speech, 11 Muslim students, in an orchestrated fashion, stood up at intervals throughout Mr. Oren’s speech. The students were ultimately prosecuted for the conspiracy to disrupt the speech. Ten defendants were convicted, one defendant was dismissed prior to trial. They have been widely referred to as the “Irvine 11” in media accounts of the incident.

The discussion at the OCJBA was for the most part, civil and polite. Ms. Goodman drew an audible response of displeasure from the predominantly Jewish audience when she referred to the students as something tantamount to heroes. Mr. Rackaukas would have been far more effective and persuasive had he not sidestepped some of the pertinent facts of the investigation and by omitting his periodic eye rolling during Ms. Goodman’s comments. Of course, this attorney in the audience would have preferred much more input and not just moderating from the distinguished Dean. Dean Chemerinsky did remind the audience that the students and the club that they belonged to were disciplined by UCI administration but that the terms of such were confidential and could not be disclosed.

Notable commentary from the District Attorney included emphasis on the importance of drawing a “line in the sand” and sending a clear message that this behavior will not be tolerated in the OC. He stated more than once that we had to “start somewhere” as he defended questions of selective prosecution of this misdemeanor matter. When questioned about the dismissal of One student, while the remaining Ten defendants went to trial, the DA vigorously asserted that ALL defendants were offered the “same deal”. It was quite surprising that the DA failed to mention the additional costly litigation occasioned by the inappropriate conduct of his staff, which ultimately lead to the one defendant being dismissed. Ms. Goodman quickly reminded him of the attorney-client privileged emails that were obtained by the DA’s office which lead to three Deputy prosecutors and one investigator being removed from the case. Only after the court ruling that these high ranking deputy prosecutors and an investigator must be removed and screened from the trial prosecution team, was the deal reached to dismiss the one defendant.

A pretty significant legal event, and dramatic move by the trial judge, yet not even mentioned by the District Attorney.

Both attorneys spoke wistfully about how they each were the champion of free speech on their side of the case. Ms. Goodman, in spite of the tangible hostility in the room, gently pointed out the difficulties of trying a case with Muslim defendants, on trial within weeks of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and argued that it was the defendants whose free speech was violated. She confirmed that they were organized, argued that they did not in anyway terminate the speech of Michael Oren, that they harmed no one and were for the entirety of the demonstration, peaceful and non-violent. Mr Rackaukus argued that the students intended to and did in fact “shut-down” the speaker and deprived the other students in the room, the right to hear all of what the Isreali Ambassador had to say, and deprived the Ambassador of saying what he came to say.

Neither attorney mentioned the fact that Micheal Oren did in fact end his speech early. There is no indication whether it was due to the disruption of the Muslim students, or the fact that he had Lakers tickets and went directly from UCI to the game.

There was also no discussion of state action. In order for there to be a violation of anyone’s right to Free Speech, the government must have taken some action to interfere with or violate someone’s Free Speech. In this situation, the only “state-action” is the action of the DA in prosecuting the 11(actually 10) students. The students are not government officials. While their behavior was not necessarily “approved” of by UCI (a state school), i.e. they had given proper prior notice to the administration of their demonstration, and their behavior made them ultimately subject to discipline. Was that “state-action” for the University administration to take action against the students who were speaking out, expressing their views? There was no state action on behalf of the students, their conduct not sanctioned or directed by UCI, and there was no effort by UCI to terminate Oren’s speech at the behest of these students.

Interestingly, there were about 100 professors from UCI, including Dean Chemerinsky as well as several Pulitzer and Nobel prize wining professors, who petitioned the DA to NOT proceed with the prosecution of the students. Their argument being that the action of the DA in the prosecution of such activities that occurred on campus would have a chilling effect on other students exercising their right to protest in the future. The staff in that letter emphasized the open forum and environment encouraging expression on college campuses. No one at the OCJBA discussion mentioned that the staff at UCI opposed en masse the prosecution of these students.

There was also an organization called Jewish Voice for Peace that implored the DA not to prosecute these students and opposed pushing this matter to trial. No one at the OCJBA discussion mentioned that either.

Mr. Rackauckus was adamant in his “start somewhere” comments that a message must be sent that this behavior is not appropriate in this county. He did not mention any prosecution of any other defendants under this theory of a misdemeanor conspiracy to deprive someone of their free speech rights. A diligent search for a similar case, prior to, or since this prosecution has yielded no results of any other such prosecution. This was the lone case.

I was disappointed at the lack of information that the District Attorney imparted. This was certainly a “home-field” advantage for him. An audience of lawyers, intellectual and presumably sophisticated legal minds, deserved a more fact intensive and analytical presentation from the lead prosecutor. Ms. Goodman mostly held her own. She overlooked the obvious bias against her association with the Muslim students and politely corrected the District Attorney when facts were omitted.

I have a visceral opposition to the anti-Israel views of these students, but I wonder what purpose is served by prosecuting them. I have learned as a trial lawyer, that trial rarely fixes anything, and generally drives warring sides further apart. The most sensible thing I heard that evening came from the closing remarks made by the OCJBA president, Jordan Steinberg related to the importance of dialogue. He pointed out that there is a facebook page entitled Isreal <3 Iran, with the profile photo of an Isreali father holding his daughter, the message being, “we don’t want to bomb you”. A simplistic approach to a complicated problem? Perhaps, but one that takes into account humanity. Apparent in the situation of the Irvine 11, it is always easier to villify anyone when they are nothing but an impersonal label.

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