OC Political

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

Live from the OC CRA Convention…

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 24, 2012

We’ll be live-blogging (for updates, refresh this post) from the OC CRA endorsing convention at the Turtle Rock Community Center in Irvine…

Format will be 3 minutes from the candidate and 3 minutes of Q&A for each race.

Mike Munzing (South OC) and Baron Night (Buena Park) appointed sergeants-at-arms. Host Jeff Lalloway (Greater Irvine) appointed parliamentarian.

Races will be voted in the order of Federal, State, and County, with slight adjustments allowed to accommodate candidate schedules.

Republican incumbents with no Republican opponent will be done by voice vote. All other races will be done by secret ballot.

Endorsements require a 2/3 vote.

In a three-candidate race, the candidate with the least votes is dropped in the first round. The remaining two candidates will contest the second and third rounds. In a two-candidate race, both candidates remain for all three rounds.

No race will go beyond three rounds, unless there are five or more Republican candidates (there are no races that have five or more candidates being considered today).

79 of an eligible 114 delegates are present representing 19 units.

First race up: AD-74
Assemblyman Allan Mansoor is here; Leslie Daigle is not. Both were invited.

Mansoor ENDORSED by voice vote.

Next up: CD-47
Steve Kuykendall is here; Gary DeLong is not. Both were invited. No one discussed the two minor Republican candidates.

In response to a Baron Night question, Kuykendall said he would have opposed TARP.

In response to a shouted question from a member of a CRA unit that is not eligible to vote in CD-47, Kuykendall said he is pro-choice.

Secret ballot will be used in CD-47. Westminster, Garden Grove, Stanton, and Buena Park RAs are voting.

No one reached 2/3 in round one: 5 Kuykendall, 3 DeLong, 7 no endorsement, and 1 other.

No one reached 2/3 in round two: exact totals not announced.

No one reached 2/3 in round three: exact totals not announced.

NO ENDORSEMENT in CD-47.

Next up: OCBE 3
Incumbent Ken Williams is here.

Williams is ENDORSED by voice vote.

Next up will be the first real fireworks: 3rd Supervisorial District

Todd Spitzer will speak first; Deborah Pauly elected to speak second.

Spitzer points to his legislative record, his ability to not insult or divide people, his longtime status as a member of his CRA unit in Orange-Villa Park, his vast Republican endorsement list; his HJTA record; he says of his 3% at 50 vote: “That vote was a mistake.”

In response to a question from Ray Grangoff, Spitzer opposes pension spiking and says local employees should be forced to pay the employee contribution to the pension. (State public employees pay the employee contribution while taxpayers pay the employer contribution. Taxpayers pay both the employer and employee contribution for local public employees.)

In response to a question by Chris Emami, Spitzer opposes the Moorlach term limit extension.

Pauly speaks of her role in creating the Orange-Villa Park CRA unit. She speaks of her role in Prop 8. She speaks of good and evil. She has visited many CRA units. She says she is the true conservative.

In response to a question by Chris Emami, Pauly opposes the Moorlach term limit extension and notes her opposition to the Villa Park term limit extension.

In response to a question by Ken Williams, who expressed concerns about statesmanship, personal attacks, and offensiveness, Pauly argues only those who oppose her principles should be offended. She notes Spitzer’s 3% at 50 vote (though she doesn’t say his name).

In response to a question from Jeff Lalloway, who expressed concerns that Pauly’s Council colleagues all endorsed Spitzer, Pauly says she has “been very difficult to work with” because she opposed a 5% pay raise for city employees; she opposed spending taxes on a mural; she takes issues to the people when the council fails because “they don’t like it that they are called upon the carpet by a woman.”

Secret ballot on this one.

Irvine, Tustin, Orange-Villa Park (including yours truly), and Anaheim RAs are voting.

No endorsement in first round, as 15 votes were needed: 14 Spitzer, 6 Pauly, 2 no endorsement.

Pauly says there is no hope for conservatives if CRA doesn’t vote for her.

Spitzer says he is a pro-life Christian who is offended at being accused of not being a social conservative. He says Pauly threatened the CRA. He went over time by noting Pauly’s non-endorsement by Villa Park City Council.

Second round voting.

Spitzer ENDORSED by ballot.
18 Spitzer, 3 Pauly, and 1 no endorsement.

Next up: CD-48

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher is not present due to scheduling conflict.

Fountain Valley CRA unit member objects to Rohrabacher supporting allowing physician-assisted suicide.

Dana Rohrabacher ENDORSED by voice vote.

Next up: AD-55

Assemblyman Curt Hagman ENDORSED by voice vote with no discussion.

Next up: CD-46
Jorge Rocha speaks first. He talks about Loretta Sanchez’s long-term incumbency, education issues, and jobs.

Jerry Hayden speaks second. He talks about his birth in CD-46 and living in every city in CD-46. He speaks of his job as a financial advisor and his family. He speaks of jobs, energy, education, and religious freedoms. He wants to repeal the Obama healthcare plan, build the Keystone pipeline, and expand domestic oil production. He notes his endorsement by the CA Republican Party and the Family Action PAC.

Pat Garcia is the third and final speaker in CD-46. He speaks of the Huntington Beach escrow company that he and his wife own. He reads his notes about limited government and personal freedom. He loses his place at one point.

In a question from an Anaheim RA member, Garcia supports decriminalization of drug use.

In a question from a Corona Del Mar RA member, Garcia supports abolishing the Fed.

In a question from Lucille Kring of Anaheim RA, Garcia is pro-life.

Secret ballot on this one.

Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Anaheim, and Orange-Villa Park are voting.

Hayden ENDORSED with 11 of 12 ballots cast.

Next up: OCBE 1

Robert Hammond speaks of Prop 13. He’s been in education for years. He taught to Navajos and Apaches. He’s taught in public schools, private schools, and home schools. He served as a Marine. He opposes tax increases.

Hammond ENDORSED by voice vote.

Next up: CD-45

Challenger John Webb is here. Congressman John Campbell declined the invitation.

Webb speaks of his military and business background. He speaks of Campbell’s votes on TARP, Cash for Clunkers, Sarbanes-Oxley expansion, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and the STOCK Act. Webb pledges to serve only three terms.

In response to a Corona Del Mar RA delegate’s question, Webb states he is pro-life.

Secret ballot on this one.

In the first round, there’s a tie: 14 votes each for John Campbell and John Webb. There were 2 abstentions.

Webb speaks of OC being the “conservative capital” and of jobs.

In the second round (20 votes required for endorsement):
15 for John Campbell, 14 for John Webb, and 1 abstention.

Webb speaks of Campbell’s statements that he knew what the people didn’t. Webb claims there’s 4 Ed Royces becuase Royce is all over Orange County. Webb says Campbell rarely shows up.

In the final round (19 votes required for endorsement):
14 for John Webb, 13 for John Campbell, and 1 abstention.

NO ENDORSEMENT in CD-45.

Next up: CD-49
Congressman Darrell Issa is the only Republican running but is not present.

North San Diego, Saddleback, and South OC RA are eligible to vote but North San Diego is not present.

Issa is ENDORSED by voice vote.

Next up: CD-39
Congressman Ed Royce sent two representatives (Zonya Townsend and Steve Sarkis) due to a scheduling conflict involving constituent town halls. Royce is the sole Republican in the race.

Royce is ENDORSED by voice vote.

Royce arrives during the AD-72 voting but was already endorsed.

Royce is asked to speak anyway. He speaks of his efforts for Ronald Reagan over Gerald Ford in 1976. He speaks of Reagan’s battle against Communism. Royce credits CRA for giving Reagan his political start. He speaks of Reagan’s success in the (according to the Wall Street Journal) “Orange Countization of the United States.” He wants to keep Nancy Pelosi out of the Speakership, wants to oust Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leadership, and wants to see Marco Rubio as Vice President.

Next up (expect fireworks): AD-72

Orange County Board of Education Member Long Pham is first to speak. He attacks Ed Royce for trying to whip the vote in AD-72 for Troy Edgar. Pham notes he’s a long-time member of the CRA and is the only AD-72 candidate who has never been a Democrat nor given money to Democrats. Pham also says he’s not beholden to Mike Schroeder, Scott Baugh, and Ed Royce. Pham also notes the influence of the Vietnamese vote.

Matt Harper asks about Prop 13, the no new taxes pledge, and his voting record on taxes. Pham says he has not received the pledge but will sign it. He supports keeping the 2/3 vote. He says he will vote against taxes.

In response to a question from a delegate, there was a lot of confusion over Stop Special Interest Money Now. it sounds like he supports the measure.

Troy Edgar speaks next. He notes he’s a US Navy veteran, business owner, and Mayor of Los Alamitos. He speaks of his business career. He speaks of his first political involvement in 2006 when he ran (successfully) for City Council.

Matt Harper asks about Edgar’s endorsements. Ed Royce, Dana Rohrabacher, Jim Silva, Tom Harman, 14 Assembly Members, most mayors and councilmembers (including Harper) endorsed Edgar.

In response to a Fountain Valley RA delegate question, Edgar admits he was a Democrat until 2006. He blames his Inland Empire union-member father. Edgar says he voted for Reagan and has never given money to a Democrat.

In response to a question, he states he is in favor of Stop Special Interest Money and the death penalty. He states he is pro-life.

Travis Allen did not send a representative.

Secret ballot on this one.

The vote was invalidated because 17 people voted despite there being only 16 eligible delegates.

Good catch by ballot counters John W. Briscoe and Jay Petersen.

First round vote (requires 12 votes for endorsement):
9 Pham, 7 Edgar, and 1 for Allen.

A 5-minute caucus was approved for AD-72 after the first-round vote was announced.

Edgar states he’s never given money to a Democrat and states he is a dedicated Republican.

Pham blames the “special interest” of Ed Royce for getting Edgar out of the CD-47 race and into the AD-72 race. He says, “CRA should not be a rubber stamp for a Congressman.”

Second-round vote (Allen is dropped for having the fewest votes):
12 for Edgar, 3 for Pham, and 2 abstentions.

Edgar ENDORSED after two rounds.

Next up: AD-65

I represented Chris Norby, noting his record on abolishing redevelopment agencies (applause line) and the fact that his sole opponent is a Democrat.

Norby ENDORSED by voice vote.

Next up: SD-29

Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff sent no representative but is the sole Republican running.

Huff ENDORSED by voice vote.

Next up: 1st Supervisorial District

Supervisor Janet Nguyen sent Steve Sarkis as his representative due to an all-day district event.

Nguyen ENDORSED by voice vote.

Next up: Judicial Race and Central Committee

Baron Night moves and Dennis Catron seconds to authorize the council of CRA unit presidents to endorse in the judicial race and the Central Committee races.

Dale Tyler made a motion to require Central Committee endorsements be made by the CRA units in regional caucuses themselves rather than the presidents’ council. Karl Heft notes Tyler’s motion violates the CRA statewide by-laws.

The Night motion passes by VOICE VOTE.

Next up: SD-37

Senator Mimi Walters thanks CRA for its support in all her previous legislative races. She notes she is one of the most conservative State Senators in the state. She says she was “drawn out of my district,” and “I live, or rather, lived, in Laguna Niguel, and I now live in Irvine.” She fought to successfully qualify the referendum to overturn the Senate districts.

Walters ENDORSED by voice vote.

Next up: AD-68

Assemblyman Don Wagner notes that the pundits thought he’d lose in the 2010 primary and how they were wrong. Wagner notes he’s the sole Republican in the race and regarding his Democratic opponent: “I have pictures of her. (Pause for audience reaction.) Pictures of her with the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Maxine Waters.”

Wagner ENDORSED by voice vote.

Next up: Speech by Steven Choi

While waiting for Diane Harkey to arrive, CRA asks Irvine Councilman Steven Choi to give a speech.

Steven Choi speaks about his efforts to make Irvine a better place. He speaks of his family and his conservative record. He notes he’s the sole Republican in the race for Mayor of Irvine.

Since the election is in November and only involves one city, the Greater Irvine RA will vote later this year on endorsing Choi.

Next up: AD-73

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey speaks of spending her own money to be in DC this past week lobbying Congress against high-speed rail. She notes her voting record and endorsements from conservative organizations.

Harkey ENDORSED by voice vote.

END: With shocking efficiency, the convention ended at 1:04, just four minutes late.

Posted in 1st Supervisorial District, 29th Senate District, 37th Senate District, 39th Congressional District, 3rd Supervisorial 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, 72nd Assembly District, 73rd Assembly District, 74th Assembly District, Irvine, Orange County, Orange County Board of Education | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

John Campbell: Biggest national-security threat is debt

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on March 23, 2012

This article from the Orange County Register just came across the wire from the Campbell for Congress campaign. It is actually a really good read:

John Campbell: Biggest national-security

threat is debt

By JOHN CAMPBELL

2012-03-22 15:11:03

As conservatives, we are always trying to reduce federal spending because there is a lot of waste and inefficiency in government, because more government spending often does not result in better outcomes, and because there are many things the federal government simply should leave to “the States respectively or to the people,” as the 10th Amendment instructs.

Clearly, spending for the “common defense,” enumerated in the preamble to the Constitution, is one of the unassailed responsibilities of the federal government. No argument there.

But, why is it conservative orthodoxy to assume that defense spending is immune from waste and inefficiency or that more spending in this area alone is always better? It shouldn’t be. It is inconsistent and wrong. Defense spending should be subject to scrutiny for cuts just like any other type of federal expenditure.

For example, there are now 800,000 civilian Defense Department employees – 800,000 people not in uniform or carrying a weapon. And, that doesn’t include employees of defense contractors. That number is not available because we don’t audit the Pentagon, which is another issue.

Some people estimate that the contractors employ a similarly large number of employees entirely through our defense spending. If that’s true, then the civilians working in some way for the Defense Department would outnumber the 1.4 million uniformed members of the Armed Services.

That makes no sense. That is a huge bureaucracy that military personnel tell me does more to get in the way of their duties than help.

Many defense-spending hawks will point out that our Navy now has the smallest number of ships since 1914. OK. What relevance does this have? At the outbreak of World War I, potential European foes had large navies that represented a legitimate threat. Today, we have 10 supercarriers. That is over three times more than the rest of the world combined, including our allies! And, the three foreign fleet carriers are refurbished versions of decades-old ships.

Instead of recapitalizing our existing fleet of Humvees at a much lower cost, we are spending billions developing a new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle with slightly upgraded mission capabilities.

Some people say we need a new strategic bomber to replace our aging B-52s without considering the reduced credibility of the deterrent threat of long-range bombers in an age of missiles and drones.

In no way do I want to reduce the capabilities of the Armed Services to fight existing threats or cut uniformed military pay or benefits. But, throwing more money and equipment at weaponry or strategies to counteract threats that no longer exist makes no sense.

Furthermore, we face another threat, which is much more likely to cause serious damage to U.S. prosperity, hegemony and security than any foreign army. That threat is our huge national debt. Throughout history, great nations have fallen economically before they have been conquered militarily. The most recent example is the Soviet Union, largely brought down by economic, rather than military, failure.

We must get these debts and deficits under control or they will bring us down more quickly and conclusively than anything else.

We can defend the country for less. We can reduce spending and waste without reducing capability to counter threats. And, we must do so. Not only because no element of the budget should be immune to cuts when you are spending 30 percent more than you are taking in. But, also because it is hard to argue that there is waste and cuts to be made in social programs, but zero waste in defense or homeland security. More spending does not necessarily yield better results.

Posted in 45th Congressional District | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

S.O.A.R. Endorses Tom Daly For AD 69

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on March 23, 2012

This just came across the wire from Support Our Anaheim Resort aka S.O.A.R. regarding their endorsement of Tom Daly for Assembly:

Save Our Anaheim Resort PACDedicated to Educating the Community and Protecting the Interests of Anaheim’s Resort District
 
S.O.A.R. PAC Endorses Tom Daly for the 69th Assembly DistrictANAHEIM, CA – The Support Our Anaheim Resort District Political Action Committee (S.O.A.R PAC) has announced its endorsement of Tom Daly for the 69th Assembly District. During his tenure as Anaheim Mayor, from 1992-2002, Daly was a lead advocate for the creation of the Anaheim Resort District. To date, he remains a strong supporter and continues to recognize the value of the Anaheim Resort District. The Anaheim Resort District represents less than 5 percent of Anaheim’s land, and generates 50 percent of the City’s tax revenue.“We are thrilled to endorse Tom Daly for the 69th Assembly District” said Jill Kanzler, S.O.A.R. PAC. “He has a proven record as a local leader who will continue to fight for sound policies that foster job creation and a business-friendly environment. He shares our passion to make Anaheim and the rest of Orange County the best it can be, as one of the world’s top tourism destinations. Few elected officials have shown as much support for the Anaheim Resort District and we are confident that he is the only candidate who will continue to be a strong business voice in Sacramento,” concluded Kanzler.S.O.A.R. PAC is a political action committee that supports pro-business, pro-resort candidates.

For more information about S.O.A.R. PAC, please visit our website at www.SOARanaheim.com

 

S.O.A.R. PAC | PO Box 9049 | Anaheim, CA 92812

(714) 400-0734 | ID #1323921Contributions are not tax deductible

Posted in 69th Assembly District, Anaheim | Tagged: | 8 Comments »

Dana Rohrabacher St. Patricks Day Fundraiser

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on March 23, 2012

This came across the wire from the Dana Rohrabacher for Congress campaign:

ST. PATRICK’S FUN-RAISER UPDATE: BREITBART.COM EDITOR-AT-LARGE BEN SHAPIRO WILL BE JOINING US AS OUR SPECIAL GUEST!

Recognizing the loss of our friend, patriot and citizen journalist Andrew Breitbart, we invite you to join us in closing out the St. Patrick’s season at our annual Irish pub event, this year totally dedicated to carrying on the freedom revolution Andrew Breitbart championed.  We are expecting patriots, freedom fighters & revelers from OC and beyond who knew Andrew as a visionary and a warrior for the conservative movement.

As many of you remember, this time last year Andrew Breitbart was the guest of honor and wowed us at our annual St. Patrick’s Celebration.  CLICK HERE to watch the video.

  • Date:  Sunday, March 25th
  • Time: 3pm – 6pm
  • Place: Skosh Monahan’s Pub in Costa Mesa (2000 Newport Blvd, at 20th Street)

This year we’ll have our traditional Irish music, beer, food and humor, but more than that we will have a living memorial to our favorite freedom fighter, watching from St. Patrick’s favorite heavenly pub.  Yes,  Andrew, we will carry on the fight, with all the gusto, courage and humor he demonstrated to us so many times.

RSVP NOW: by email: irish@rohrabacher.com or phone: 714-655-9420

Posted in 48th Congressional District | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

All The Problems In L.A. Have Been Fixed

Posted by OC Insider on March 22, 2012

Everybody will be glad to know that the City of Los Angeles has solved all problems in their City and is moving on to other important issues like stopping the evil KFI 640 AM.

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles has historically supported policies that
prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual
orientation, and disability; and

WHEREAS, KFI 640 AM merged with Clear Channel Communications in 2000, making KFI 640 AM Clear Channel’s flagship AM radio station in Los Angeles;

WHEREAS, KFI 640 AM, averages approximately 1.5 million listeners during any given weekday; and

WHEREAS as noted in a recent L.A. Times article, a growing percentage of Southern California cities, including the Great City of Los Angeles, contain significant populations of at least two racial or ethnic groups; and

WHEREAS, February is National Black History Month; and

WHEREAS, on February 15,2012, KFI640 AM’s talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou of the “John and Ken Show” referred to pop music icon Whitney Houston as a “crack ho”, three days after her death;

WHEREAS, March is National Women’s History Month; and

WHEREAS, on February 29,2012, on the eve of Women’s History Month, KFI 640 AM’s syndicated talk show host Rush Limbaugh referred to Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student, as a “slut” and a “prostitute” for testifying on Capitol Hill about women’s access to contraception;

WHEREAS, given Clear Channel Media Holdings stated view on the value they-place on diversity, it is our belief that corporate action must start at the top with KFI 640 AM; and

WHEREAS, Clear Channel Media Holding’s commitment to diversity is not being realized at its flagship station KFI 640 AM, where out of 15 on-air personalities, only one is a female and none of them are African American; and

WHEREAS there are not any African Americans currently working in KFI 640 AM’s newsroom as full-time producers or engineers, or as outside paid contributors, fillin hosts, or other on air personalities; and

WHEREAS, when you have an absence of African Americans and other minorities in the workplace, it is easy to become desensitized to what other groups find intolerable which ultimately fosters an environment where negative comments can go unchecked and corporate guidelines and policies are no longer being enforced; and

WHEREAS, a truly diverse work includes the hiring of Women, Blacks, and other minorities;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that by adoption of this resolution, the City Council urges KFI 640 AM’s station management and Clear Channel Media Holdings do everything in their power to ensure that their on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs over public airwaves in the City of Los Angeles; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the derogatory language used by some radio personnel has no place on public airwaves in the Great City of Los Angeles or anywhere in America; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a truly diverse work environment must include the hiring of a work force that reflects the diversity of Los Angeles which includes women, African Americans, Latinos, and Asians.

You can also view a copy here:

12-0342_RESO_03-07-12

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Carpetbagger Running In AD 69?

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 22, 2012

UPDATED 1:17 PM: According to an article in the Voice of OC the OC Register article is flat-out wrong. You can read that article here.

It was reported yesterday in the Orange County Register that we might have another case of a carpetbagger running for office. Allegedly Julio Perez does not live where he claims according to a process-server. I will not post the address due to privacy issues, but it does not look good for Perez. Although, I do not believe that carpetbagging actually lands him off the ballot as judges are rarely willing to rule this way.

Where this will likely hurt him is in a mail piece that will likely go out from the Tom Daly or Michele Martinez campaign. This could end up costing him a spot in the top two for this election, which he had an outside shot at due to all kinds of union money that would have been spent on this race.

The two likely candidates to emerge from the June primary are Jose Moreno (R) and Tom Daly (D).

Moreno will advance because he is the only Republican in this race in with the Democrats splitting the vote four ways he will get into the top two, possibly in the #1 slot. Now that he is in the race I hope that he can win, as it would be nice to see a Republican win this seat, but the odds are definitely against him.

Daly will advance because of the Latino vote being split amongst the three other Democrats and also the fact that he has huge name ID from his time on the Anaheim City Council and also the many years he has been Orange County Clerk-Recorder.

I guess the good news for all of the candidates running is that none of them used Kindee Durkee as a treasurer.

Posted in 69th Assembly District | Tagged: , , , , | 11 Comments »

ATTN: Candidates Do Not Use Copy/Paste For Press Releases

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 22, 2012

I was taking a look at some of the press releases sitting in my inbox this morning and one of which was a press release from Dan Hughes a candidate for U.S. Senate. As you can probably guess since this article is not being posted under the “Newsletter Reprint” account, more to this story exists than a simple press release. Here is the exact press release issued by the Hughes for U.S. Senate Campaign this morning:

This Friday, March 23rd, marks the 130 city “Stand up for Religious Freedom” rally.  I will be attending the rally at 12:00 noon at the San Diego County Administration Building.  Please find the rally nearest to you and attend.

Thank you to all who have stood firmly in vigorous opposition to the unjust and illegal HHS mandate, including the Catholic Church, women and men of all religions (or none at all), legal scholars, and civic leaders. It is this enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate. We will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.

I would like to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the religious institution’s hand or funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the religious institutions wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing religious institutions—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against religious teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

So what is it about?

An unwarranted government definition of religion. The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a “religious employer” deserving exemption—employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith. I am deeply concerned about this new definition of who we are as people of faith and what constitutes our ministry. The introduction of this unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom. Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry. HHS thus creates and enforces a new distinction—alien both to our religious institutions and to federal law—between our houses of worship and our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need, of any faith community or none.  All—not just some—of our religious institutions share equally in the very same God-given, legally recognized right not “to be forced to act in a manner contrary to [their] own beliefs.” Dignitatis Humanae, No. 2.

A mandate to act against religious teachings. The exemption is not merely a government foray into internal Church governance, where government has no legal competence or authority—disturbing though that may be. This error in theory has grave consequences in principle and practice. Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers” will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world.

“We the People” throughout our country must join together for the complete protection of our First Freedom—religious liberty—which is not only protected in the laws and customs of our great nation, but rooted in the teachings of our great Tradition.

 

I was tipped off that the majority of this press release was copied and pasted from the “United States Conference of Catholic Bishops” website. Take a look at the statement from their website:

March 14 Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate

 A Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

March 14, 2012

The Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gathered for its March 2012 meeting, is strongly unified and intensely focused in its opposition to the various threats to religious freedom in our day. In our role as Bishops, we approach this question prayerfully and as pastors—concerned not only with the protection of the Church’s own institutions, but with the care of the souls of the individual faithful, and with the common good.

To address the broader range of religious liberty issues, we look forward to the upcoming publication of “A Statement on Religious Liberty,” a document of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. This document reflects on the history of religious liberty in our great Nation; surveys the current range of threats to this foundational principle; and states clearly the resolve of the Bishops to act strongly, in concert with our fellow citizens, in its defense.

One particular religious freedom issue demands our immediate attention: the now-finalized rule of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would force virtually all private health plans nationwide to provide coverage of sterilization and contraception—including abortifacient drugs—subject to an exemption for “religious employers” that is arbitrarily narrow, and to an unspecified and dubious future “accommodation” for other religious organizations that are denied the exemption.

We begin, first, with thanks to all who have stood firmly with us in our vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate: to our brother bishops; to our clergy and religious; to our Catholic faithful; to the wonderful array of Catholic groups and institutions that enliven our civil society; to our ecumenical and interfaith allies; to women and men of all religions (or none at all); to legal scholars; and to civic leaders. It is your enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate. With your continued help, we will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.

Second, we wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church’s hand and with the Church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops’ somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

So what is it about?

An unwarranted government definition of religion. The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a “religious employer” deserving exemption—employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith. We are deeply concerned about this new definition of who we are as people of faith and what constitutes our ministry. The introduction of this unprecedented defining of faith communities and their ministries has precipitated this struggle for religious freedom. Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry. HHS thus creates and enforces a new distinction—alien both to our Catholic tradition and to federal law—between our houses of worship and our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need, of any faith community or none. Cf. Deus Caritas Est, Nos. 20-33. We are commanded both to love and to serve the Lord; laws that protect our freedom to comply with one of these commands but not the other are nothing to celebrate. Indeed, they must be rejected, for they create a “second class” of citizenship within our religious community. And if this definition is allowed to stand, it will spread throughout federal law, weakening its healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity. All—not just some—of our religious institutions share equally in the very same God-given, legally recognized right not “to be forced to act in a manner contrary to [their] own beliefs.” Dignitatis Humanae, No. 2.

A mandate to act against our teachings. The exemption is not merely a government foray into internal Church governance, where government has no legal competence or authority—disturbing though that may be. This error in theory has grave consequences in principle and practice. Those deemed by HHS not to be “religious employers” will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions. This is not only an injustice in itself, but it also undermines the effective proclamation of those teachings to the faithful and to the world. For decades, the Bishops have led the fight against such government incursions on conscience, particularly in the area of health care. Far from making us waver in this longstanding commitment, the unprecedented magnitude of this latest threat has only strengthened our resolve to maintain that consistent view.

A violation of personal civil rights.The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing “services” contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption. This, too, is unprecedented in federal law, which has long been generous in protecting the rights of individuals not to act against their religious beliefs or moral convictions. We have consistently supported these rights, particularly in the area of protecting the dignity of all human life, and we continue to do so.

Third, we want to indicate our next steps. We will continue our vigorous efforts at education and public advocacy on the principles of religious liberty and their application in this case (and others). We will continue to accept any invitation to dialogue with the Executive Branch to protect the religious freedom that is rightly ours. We will continue to pursue legislation to restore the same level of religious freedom we have enjoyed until just recently. And we will continue to explore our options for relief from the courts, under the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws that protect religious freedom. All of these efforts will proceed concurrently, and in a manner that is mutually reinforcing.

Most importantly of all, we call upon the Catholic faithful, and all people of faith, throughout our country to join us in prayer and penance for our leaders and for the complete protection of our First Freedom—religious liberty—which is not only protected in the laws and customs of our great nation, but rooted in the teachings of our great Tradition. Prayer is the ultimate source of our strength—for without God, we can do nothing; but with God, all things are possible.

This is not a smart move from the Hughes campaign and I think that one of his opponents will likely call him on it. If you are going to copy and paste your content for a press release, at least cite the source that you are taking your content from.

Posted in California | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

CD-47: Which Long Beach Resident Will Represent Garden Grove, Westminster, Cypress, Los Alamitos, Stanton, Buena Park, and Rossmoor?

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 22, 2012

Gary DeLong, Steve Kuykendall, and Alan Lowenthal

Councilman Gary DeLong (R-Long Beach), former Congressman Steve Kuykendall (R-Long Beach), State Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach)

CD-47 is one of the LA-OC Congressional districts.  When created by the Redistricting Commission, Congresswoman Linda Richardson (D-Long Beach) resided within its borders; however, the Democrats’ voter registration advantage proved too small for Richardson’s comfort, so she’s running for CD-44 against fellow Congresswoman Janice Hahn (D-Los Angeles).  In CD-47, Democrats comprise 42.4% of registered voters, Republicans 31.7%, and No Party Preference 21.1%.  In CD-44, Democrats comprise 63.9% of registered voters, Republicans 13.2%, and No Party Preference 18.6%.

The Los Angeles County portions of CD-47 (Signal Hill, 82% of Long Beach, and 22% of Lakewood) comprise 58% of the district.  The Orange County portions of CD-47 (Cypress, Los Alamitos, Stanton, Rossmoor, 61% of Westminster, 60% of Garden Grove, and 24% of Buena Park) comprise 42% of the district.

The Republicans running for this open seat are:

The Democrats running are:

Oddly, Jay Shah and Usha Shah are married to each other.  For the sake of family peace, I really hope the Shahs’ two adult sons live outside CD-47.  I would love to have a seat at the Shahs’ next family dinner.

The three front-runners for June are definitely DeLong, Kuykendall, and Lowenthal.  They’re the ones with the name ID and the money.  Once Republicans DeLong and Kuykendall settle their battle, one of them will face off against Lowenthal, the Democrat.

At the close of 2011, DeLong led the money race with $367,486 cash on hand and $4,912 in debt.  Lowenthal was next with $169,221 and $10,172 in debt.  Kuykendall had $37,659 and $9,040 in debt.  Oddly, Mathews had $64 cash on hand and $349,511 in debt!  Usha Shah had no cash on hand and $31,920 in debt.  All other candidates had no cash on hand and no debts.

Posted in 47th Congressional District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Why were three 17 year olds robbing a medical marijuana clinic in Santa Ana at 2:15 AM?

Posted by Thomas Gordon on March 21, 2012

20120321-192753.jpg

Just what were three 17 year old kids from Santa Ana doing out last night at 2:15 in the morning in the city that bills itself the 4th safest in America no less….

They were robbing a medical marijuana clinic along with an 18 year old named Gustavo Alexander Penaloza, when they were captured by SAPD.

With the assistance of a police helicopter they were arrested and booked into juvenile hall.

Santa Ana not only has an epidemic of teenagers roaming the streets at all hours of the night in violation of our curfew laws, but a multi-million dollar graffiti problem and an excessive drop out rate from Santa Ana Unified School District.

Where were their parents? Were these children no longer attending school?

Just what do you think should be done about this and who is ultimately to blame?

Posted in Santa Ana, Santa Ana Unified School District | Tagged: , , | 17 Comments »

Glad OC’s Not in the IE: Riverside Registrar Abrogates Public Review Period

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 21, 2012

Riverside County in Black, Orange County in OrangeIn Orange County, the Registrar of Voters has long published both candidates’ statements and ballot designations for review by the public in the ten days after candidate filing.  They cite Elections Code Section 13313, which states, “(a) The elections official shall make a copy of the material referred to in Section 13307 available for public examination in the elections official’s office for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents…”  (Section 13307 refers to the candidate’s statement, name, age, and occupation; the occupation is of course what the ballot designation describes.)

In a stunning disregard for public input, the Riverside County Registrar of Voters has completely abrogated the public review period for ballot designations.  No fewer than 61 candidates had “Ballot Designation Pending” during the entire public review period (and actually still do as of this morning).  Keep in mind, I’m using the most generous standard possible in counting just 61: I’m excluding the US Senate race, along with any multi-county Congressional races or multi-county state legislative races (in multi-county races, you could go to the Registrars of the other counties to find the ballot designation).  Candidates for everything from Congress to State Legislature to County Supervisor to County Board of Education to Central Committee had “Ballot Designation Pending” as their ballot designation.

In the system as run by the Orange County Registrar of Voters, the ballot designations are published literally the same night that candidate filing closes, and the public is allowed ten days to file suit to obtain a writ of mandate from the Orange County Superior Court to force a ballot designation change if the plaintiff is able to prove (to the satisfaction of the judge) that the ballot designation is false, misleading, or somehow otherwise does not meet the requirements of the Elections Code (like using certain words on the forbidden word list).  Every election, there’s at least one, usually more, lawsuits in Orange County seeking writs of mandate over ballot designations.  Indeed, there are often suits at the state level over ballot designations (Attorney General and Board of Equalization District 2 come to mind from 2010).

Candidate filing for most offices closed on Friday, March 9, meaning the 10-day public review period ended two days ago on Monday, March 19.

However, the Riverside County Registrar of Voters has completely abrogated this public review for ballot designations.  The 10-day public review period has come and gone, and 61 candidates still have “Ballot Designation Pendling” under their names.  If a Riverside County resident had wanted to file suit to obtain a writ of mandate from the Riverside County Superior Court to force a ballot designation change, they would not have been able to do so because they would not have been able to view the ballot designations in order to file suit.  A plaintiff cannot prove a ballot designation is false, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the Elections Code if the ballot designation is simply pending.

While the Orange County Registrar of Voters allows voters to appeal ballot designations by giving them time to file suit with the Orange County Superior Court during the public review period to challenge ballot designations, it seems the Riverside Registrar of Voters wants to act as the all-powerful final arbiter of ballot designations, allowing no public recourse.

Posted in California | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »