[Ron Kaye is the former Editor of the Los Angeles Daily News, and one of those standing up to the latest ploy within the City of Los Angeles. Plan to hear A LOT more about Proposition B and my efforts to defeat it in March]
Lawsuit Seeks to Squelch Public Debate on Solar Energy Fraud
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his team of lobbyists, strategists and pay-to-play cronies have sued the eight people who signed the No. on Prop. B ballot argument -- an attempt at intimidation under the guise of law.
This measure isn't about solar energy and has nothing to do with the largest solar energy initiative ever undertaken. The City Council and mayor could initiate that by their own actions. This is solely about paying blackmail to the DWP and its IBEW union which have blocked solar projects for a decade and would have exclusivity on large-scale projects under this measure.
The Solar Eight -- Jack Humphreville, Soledad Garcia, Humberto Camacho, Kristine Lee, Nick Patsaouras, Joe Pulido, James O'Sullivan and me -- will not be silenced by this tactic.
But our lives have made difficult as we need to respond in court on Tuesday to the allegations that are ballot argument is false and misleading. We were unable to find a lawyer knowledgeable in city election law because this was dropped on us during Christmas week but Noel Weiss, candidate for City Attorney, has now volunteered to provide us help in putting together our pleading. The next hearing in court is Jan. 8.
Stephen Kaufman's law firm, which represents the mayor, eight City Council members and a host of other political figures, is handling the case for the City Hall political machine for the named plaintiff, Mitchell Schwartz, a high-powered environmental lobbyist.
This isn't just an attempt to squelch the Solar Eight or the debate over this phony ballot measure but a direct assault on everyone's right to freedom of speech and to participate in the political and electoral process.
We need support from Neighborhood Councils, homeowner and resident groups, service clubs, churches and every individual who cares about L.A. This is a defining moment. We need to come together and stop the political machine that is destroying the city. If we won't fight as one against these tactics and this dirty deal, I don't know that we ever will.
The March 3 primary gives us the chance to change L.A., to elect candidates to the City Controller's and City Attorney's offices who can stand for the community. Villaraigosa, Wendy Greuel and Jack Weiss along with the 15 obedient council members will have nothing in their way if they prevail in this election.
I have written about it today and over several days recently. Here are the links to copy and paste:
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/prop-b-is-for-bribery-and-blac.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/sunshine-on-solar-fraud-the-ci.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/laura-chick-chicagostyle-polit.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/scenario-for-dictatorship-los.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/las-solar-energy-fraud-is-this.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/las-solar-energy-fraud-is-this.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/the-secret-solar-plan-document.html
http://ronkayela.com/2008/12/the-city-hall-political-machin.html
Support the Solar Eight. Support the efforts to make this a great city and get rid of Chicago-style corruption.
ronkayela.com
cell 818-621-8349
office 818-704-8418
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Jerry Brown: California's Panderer General
The “shift” of Attorney General Jerry Brown to oppose the decision of California voters, mostly Black & Hispanic majorities who voted for Proposition 8, is pandering to the far-left at its best.
Minority voters, who represent a large portion of both the religious faithful and patriotic segments of California’s citizenry, stood up for their beliefs just as they voted for “change”. What they did not count on was the lack of “change” in the rhetoric and special-interest pandering by Democratic officials, of which AG Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown is one of the best. Brown actually tried to change the wording of this proposition to increase its chances of not passing; even then, it passed with strong support from minority voters. It would likely have passed by a stronger majority had Brown left the wording alone.
This “shift” by AG Brown is nothing more than failing to carry out his duties to support the will of the citizens of California even if that will does not agree with the principles of Brown’s far-left agenda. Jerry Brown is choosing far-left partisan loyalties over his responsibilities as Attorney General. Brown’s secular principles, brought forward from his hippie days, are not in touch with today’s values of California’s voters, especially those of our strong minority families.
Meanwhile, my experience with the protesters of Proposition 8 (and of the Iraq War) has been almost totally absent of any minority representation on the protester side. This is an issue Democrats will face in future state elections, including their gubernatorial primary in June 2010. Can religiously faithful and patriotic minority voters support a gubernatorial nominee who rendered their vote for traditional marriage irrelevant because he “now” discovered that the proposition was unconstitutional to begin with? Does Jerry Brown believe California voters are that dumb? Are we?
Minority voters, who represent a large portion of both the religious faithful and patriotic segments of California’s citizenry, stood up for their beliefs just as they voted for “change”. What they did not count on was the lack of “change” in the rhetoric and special-interest pandering by Democratic officials, of which AG Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown is one of the best. Brown actually tried to change the wording of this proposition to increase its chances of not passing; even then, it passed with strong support from minority voters. It would likely have passed by a stronger majority had Brown left the wording alone.
This “shift” by AG Brown is nothing more than failing to carry out his duties to support the will of the citizens of California even if that will does not agree with the principles of Brown’s far-left agenda. Jerry Brown is choosing far-left partisan loyalties over his responsibilities as Attorney General. Brown’s secular principles, brought forward from his hippie days, are not in touch with today’s values of California’s voters, especially those of our strong minority families.
Meanwhile, my experience with the protesters of Proposition 8 (and of the Iraq War) has been almost totally absent of any minority representation on the protester side. This is an issue Democrats will face in future state elections, including their gubernatorial primary in June 2010. Can religiously faithful and patriotic minority voters support a gubernatorial nominee who rendered their vote for traditional marriage irrelevant because he “now” discovered that the proposition was unconstitutional to begin with? Does Jerry Brown believe California voters are that dumb? Are we?
Saturday, December 20, 2008
RPLAC: "Change" for the sake of "change"
To begin, I want to be on record that I warned the former Executive Board that moving the Republican Party of Los Angeles County (RPLAC) Organizational Meeting to the same day as the USC-UCLA game, the SEC Championship game and, most importantly, the Army-Navy game would be bad luck! Up until the night before, I was still undecided on whether I was going to attend. I know for sure of at least three newly-elected members who chose the Rose Bowl over the Reagan Building, where the meeting was held. I personally took a lot of flack from fellow Navy alumni, even though we trounced Army 34-0, for choosing politics over tradition.
But what happened on December 6th at this normally routine meeting was anything but routine!
The purpose of the Organizational Meeting is to set up the county committees, the district-level officers, and the county executive board officers for the next term, 2008-2010. For the previous six years, Chairwoman Linda Boyd & her husband, California Republican Party Vice-Chair for L.A., Doug Boyd, had been well-prepared to get the full body of central committee members quickly through an agenda of setting up the necessary committees, running the members through each of three sets of district elections (assembly, state senate, and congressional district committees), and then introducing their slate of "endorsed" board officer candidates to be approved by the body. Each of the past three meetings, (2002, 2004 & 2006), there were a small group of disgruntled members, primarily unelected state office nominees, that tried to organize enough to challenge the Boyds for one or more of the board positions. Each time, the Boyds have been far more organized & ensured a strong majority of attendees to the meeting were supportive of their agenda. I have been very impressed with both Linda & Doug, and have been blessed to have learned much about both Republican politics & Los Angeles County from them. They are extremely smart and tuned in to some of the key political issues. Unfortunately, their intelligence was equally matched by their egos, and they far underestimated the amount of change and dissatisfaction those of us on the local levels were seeing within the Republican Party. By choosing to ignore the opportunities to bring in some of these new & younger faces to our team, the Boyds unwittingly gave that opportunity to one of their long-time rivals, Carl Davis, himself a former RPLAC chairmam. Carl Davis and I have talked about key issues, and I also consider him a smart & valuable resource. But his unilateral mission to get back at the Boyds for removing him from power has been a prime mover for him in all he does.
This year, Carl Davis organized some key groups under a common motive to remove Linda and her supporters.
To start, the alliance of opposers included not only more state-level nominees (who are often called "sacrificial lambs" in L.A. County for obvious reasons), but an increased number of new Republicans, including Log Cabin Republicans & supporters from the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Our own local committee has a few new members from this group, and I made it a point to both welcome these new, enthusiastic members and to try and mentor them in the basics of the party structure. All of these groups bring new perspectives, lessons learned from their struggles, as well as some concerns they want to see addressed. Only through open dialogue will we be able to find the common ground opportunities for all of us; the lack of this open dialogue between the June primary electing these new members & the December organizational meeting is what led to what I like to call the "restructuring".
The first thing this group did was ask for help from former RPLAC Second Vice-Chair Al Han to run for the temporary chairman role at the meeting. This is the person who basically runs the restructuring until a new county chairman is officially elected. I have often talked about the reputation of Al Han as being extremely supportive and fair of the democratic process, whatever those results yield. Al does not come to meetings with an agenda, so much as a desire to bring out topics of discussion and see what the democratic process yields. Because the Boyd loyalists had a predetermined agenda that had no room for variety, Al Han's election to the temporary chair role was a serious blow, as well as a warning for the rest of the meeting.
I won't go into every detail of the meeting, but the truly shocking moment came when the Boyd loyalists staged an attempt to have the meeting quorum removed, thereby making the meeting results null and void. Out of the established attendance of 119 members, the Boyds attempted to have 50 members walk out in order to get below the by-laws required quorum of 70 members. Unfortunately for them, only about 35 or so took the hint/bait when they first removed themselves from the board nominations and then walked out. So a new board, led by new chairman Glen Forsch, has taken over the county party and will soon release their agenda for the next term. One of our own members from the 54th AD, Lydia Gutierrez, was elected First Vice Chair. I will post an assessment in January of the new board, after a planned January meeting between them with all of us new AD chairs.
I will also post an update very soon of your new 54th Assembly District members, including your new executive board and some key areas we hope you'll be interested in getting involved in.
I want to finish this posting by stating that fellow committee member Al Han performed his role at the organizational meeting as the temporary chairman the way that most Republican voters would have wanted him to perform. Republicans in both Los Angeles and throughout California are tired of the same agendas and strategies that have made us a permanent minority party. We are not entirely impatient, but we need to see some progress and activism to show us that our elected leaders and representatives have not settled for the status quo. Whether this is what Linda and Doug actually did in Los Angeles County is not relevant; this was, and still is, the perception of the majority of Republicans in Los Angeles, and they need to see a renewed effort to challenge the liberal, union elitists who only represent their special interests while waging dishonest marketing campaigns to dumb down the voting population.
Al Han has been a fighter for re-educating these voters and ensuring they turn out for key elections. If the new county executive board takes on these noble objectives and creates a positive change in Los Angeles County, they can expect a long tenure of both respect and influence within the party. If any of the new board members instead tries to bring in their own personal agendas to "change" the platform of the party, provide support solely for their own chosen candidates, and otherwise engage in physical or verbal conduct that would bring disrepute to the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, they will very soon find themselves in the same or worse position than the Boyds were.
Republicans want positive change, but this time, we're not willing to wait six more years to see it.
But what happened on December 6th at this normally routine meeting was anything but routine!
The purpose of the Organizational Meeting is to set up the county committees, the district-level officers, and the county executive board officers for the next term, 2008-2010. For the previous six years, Chairwoman Linda Boyd & her husband, California Republican Party Vice-Chair for L.A., Doug Boyd, had been well-prepared to get the full body of central committee members quickly through an agenda of setting up the necessary committees, running the members through each of three sets of district elections (assembly, state senate, and congressional district committees), and then introducing their slate of "endorsed" board officer candidates to be approved by the body. Each of the past three meetings, (2002, 2004 & 2006), there were a small group of disgruntled members, primarily unelected state office nominees, that tried to organize enough to challenge the Boyds for one or more of the board positions. Each time, the Boyds have been far more organized & ensured a strong majority of attendees to the meeting were supportive of their agenda. I have been very impressed with both Linda & Doug, and have been blessed to have learned much about both Republican politics & Los Angeles County from them. They are extremely smart and tuned in to some of the key political issues. Unfortunately, their intelligence was equally matched by their egos, and they far underestimated the amount of change and dissatisfaction those of us on the local levels were seeing within the Republican Party. By choosing to ignore the opportunities to bring in some of these new & younger faces to our team, the Boyds unwittingly gave that opportunity to one of their long-time rivals, Carl Davis, himself a former RPLAC chairmam. Carl Davis and I have talked about key issues, and I also consider him a smart & valuable resource. But his unilateral mission to get back at the Boyds for removing him from power has been a prime mover for him in all he does.
This year, Carl Davis organized some key groups under a common motive to remove Linda and her supporters.
To start, the alliance of opposers included not only more state-level nominees (who are often called "sacrificial lambs" in L.A. County for obvious reasons), but an increased number of new Republicans, including Log Cabin Republicans & supporters from the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Our own local committee has a few new members from this group, and I made it a point to both welcome these new, enthusiastic members and to try and mentor them in the basics of the party structure. All of these groups bring new perspectives, lessons learned from their struggles, as well as some concerns they want to see addressed. Only through open dialogue will we be able to find the common ground opportunities for all of us; the lack of this open dialogue between the June primary electing these new members & the December organizational meeting is what led to what I like to call the "restructuring".
The first thing this group did was ask for help from former RPLAC Second Vice-Chair Al Han to run for the temporary chairman role at the meeting. This is the person who basically runs the restructuring until a new county chairman is officially elected. I have often talked about the reputation of Al Han as being extremely supportive and fair of the democratic process, whatever those results yield. Al does not come to meetings with an agenda, so much as a desire to bring out topics of discussion and see what the democratic process yields. Because the Boyd loyalists had a predetermined agenda that had no room for variety, Al Han's election to the temporary chair role was a serious blow, as well as a warning for the rest of the meeting.
I won't go into every detail of the meeting, but the truly shocking moment came when the Boyd loyalists staged an attempt to have the meeting quorum removed, thereby making the meeting results null and void. Out of the established attendance of 119 members, the Boyds attempted to have 50 members walk out in order to get below the by-laws required quorum of 70 members. Unfortunately for them, only about 35 or so took the hint/bait when they first removed themselves from the board nominations and then walked out. So a new board, led by new chairman Glen Forsch, has taken over the county party and will soon release their agenda for the next term. One of our own members from the 54th AD, Lydia Gutierrez, was elected First Vice Chair. I will post an assessment in January of the new board, after a planned January meeting between them with all of us new AD chairs.
I will also post an update very soon of your new 54th Assembly District members, including your new executive board and some key areas we hope you'll be interested in getting involved in.
I want to finish this posting by stating that fellow committee member Al Han performed his role at the organizational meeting as the temporary chairman the way that most Republican voters would have wanted him to perform. Republicans in both Los Angeles and throughout California are tired of the same agendas and strategies that have made us a permanent minority party. We are not entirely impatient, but we need to see some progress and activism to show us that our elected leaders and representatives have not settled for the status quo. Whether this is what Linda and Doug actually did in Los Angeles County is not relevant; this was, and still is, the perception of the majority of Republicans in Los Angeles, and they need to see a renewed effort to challenge the liberal, union elitists who only represent their special interests while waging dishonest marketing campaigns to dumb down the voting population.
Al Han has been a fighter for re-educating these voters and ensuring they turn out for key elections. If the new county executive board takes on these noble objectives and creates a positive change in Los Angeles County, they can expect a long tenure of both respect and influence within the party. If any of the new board members instead tries to bring in their own personal agendas to "change" the platform of the party, provide support solely for their own chosen candidates, and otherwise engage in physical or verbal conduct that would bring disrepute to the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, they will very soon find themselves in the same or worse position than the Boyds were.
Republicans want positive change, but this time, we're not willing to wait six more years to see it.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
What went right, wrong & what's next?
OK, I know! Where the heck have I been?
When I started this blog in January, I was committed to doing an update at least weekly, and was doing a pretty decent job of meeting that recurrence up until about mid-September. Then...life got a bit hectic. Now, I'm not going to blame any particular change, whether it was the birth of my 2nd child, Violet, some urgent matters at work that took me away from California, or just a simple burn-out of issues. Now that the results are in, we should be able to look back at some things that went right, things that went wrong, and what we should be looking at now.
Despite the defeat of our presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, we had may efforts succeed that we can take pride in. To start, we defeated an attempt by the Democrats to remove one of our stalwart warriors, Congressmember Dana Rohrabacher. Many of you contributed many hours to making phone calls, walking your neighborhood, and getting the word out about Dana, and you should feel proud of your success. This was achieved despite a 2% decrease in Republican voter registration in the L.A. portion of the 46th CD. Your efforts ensured that the registration decrease was countered by a higher voter turnout. This turnout was also a key factor in the passage of Propositions 8 and 11.
As many of you know, the opponents of Proposition 8 have been less than accepting of their defeat, despite the wide spectrum of support it had. They are trying to label it a "racist" measure, but how do you do this with a 70% support among African-American voters & over 55% support from Hispanic voters. I have my own theories regarding why these two groups supported Proposition 8, but the focus here is on the efforts many of you made to ensure it's passage.
Proposition 11 should be seen as a covert victory for the California Republican Party. We will know for sure after the 2010 census when the districts are re-established under the requirements of this measure. But with the districts gerry-mandered as they are now, I think it's safe to say that we in Los Angeles County have no where to go but up. My only caution for those ecstatic about Proposition 11 passing and "can't wait for the new districts" should step aside while the rest of us try to work on improving the party in this environment. The earliest we'll see improvements is 2012, and even then, the Democrats will already be working to mitigate those effects. We need to work now to ensure that the effects of Proposition 11 are both improvements and are long-lasting.
These are not all of the things that were successes, but I want to make an observation about what I believe is a fundamental operational problem with the Republican Party. I state this as a holder of a Certification in Marketing Communications, among other degrees, when I say that the Democrats are far better at marketing their messages to voters than Republicans. This is true not just locally or in California, but across the nation. The Democratic message that resonated among voters this year was actually begun in 2005, and Republicans not only did not counter it quickly and strongly, but did not even see what destruction it was doing to our party. We saw a glimpse of it in 2006 when we lost both Houses of Congress, but by then the slide was in full force. I also have a more detailed theory about this, but I'll focus on the point - Republicans need to get better at delivering a message that the average voter can quickly absorb. We teach Dale Carnegie students that the initial message has to be a complete, powerful statement that takes seven (7) seconds or less; otherwise the audience will likely tune out for the rest of the discussion. Democratic campaign managers know this well, as well as another important fact - the brain takes much more convincing than the heart. (Ever hear of "Knowledge at First Sight"? Me neither!)
Take an example - Proposition 2 passing. The Democratic message behind Proposition 2 was simple - Fight Animal Cruelty! If you vote against Prop 2, you hate animals! What was the "logical, conservative" response? Draw a 30-second connection between the financial effects of the measure with the eventual increase in meat & poultry products from Mexico, and hence an increase in salmonella. The problem with this tactic - most viewers of the ads had already tuned out. The initial message needed to be quick, sustaining - how about a "Kentucky Fried Tofu" billboard, just to lure the audience in, and then quickly state that this is the agenda of the Prop 2 supporters? Voters like animals, but they also like their KFC, McDonald's, and Taco Bell.
So what's next? How do we take what we learned this year and in 2006 and start the road to improvement? The primary thing we do is we keep the momentum, the passion, and the desire to see tings through. How do we do that? We get involved. This past week, I was extremely impressed with the enthusiasm and interest at two key meetings. The first was the local Central Committee meeting in San Pedro, in which the newest members of your local Republican Party got together to talk about many of the things I mentioned above, as well as strategies to start building back our foundation. The second, even more inspiring, was the tremendous turnout at the Beach Cities Republican Club event in Torrance on Thursday. I've never seen the level of turnout, over 120 people, who all wanted to learn more about what they can do. Club President, Pete Kesterson, and Southern California Republican Coalition Chairman, James Crean, both laid out opportunities for these motivated individuals to get more involved in taking action. My recommendation to all of you, if you were not at the Thursday meeting and did not sign up, is to join one of these great Republican Clubs. We will all be working together to rebuild, strengthen, and take back both what was lost and what should rightfully be done.
Please take a look at the list of clubs and their associated links in the left column. Please send me an email at stammiam@yahoo.com if you need some recommendations on which club(s) you should check out. Regardless of which you get involved with, you'll learn more about what you can do to be a part of the Republican revival! I hope to see you at these meetings soon!
When I started this blog in January, I was committed to doing an update at least weekly, and was doing a pretty decent job of meeting that recurrence up until about mid-September. Then...life got a bit hectic. Now, I'm not going to blame any particular change, whether it was the birth of my 2nd child, Violet, some urgent matters at work that took me away from California, or just a simple burn-out of issues. Now that the results are in, we should be able to look back at some things that went right, things that went wrong, and what we should be looking at now.
Despite the defeat of our presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, we had may efforts succeed that we can take pride in. To start, we defeated an attempt by the Democrats to remove one of our stalwart warriors, Congressmember Dana Rohrabacher. Many of you contributed many hours to making phone calls, walking your neighborhood, and getting the word out about Dana, and you should feel proud of your success. This was achieved despite a 2% decrease in Republican voter registration in the L.A. portion of the 46th CD. Your efforts ensured that the registration decrease was countered by a higher voter turnout. This turnout was also a key factor in the passage of Propositions 8 and 11.
As many of you know, the opponents of Proposition 8 have been less than accepting of their defeat, despite the wide spectrum of support it had. They are trying to label it a "racist" measure, but how do you do this with a 70% support among African-American voters & over 55% support from Hispanic voters. I have my own theories regarding why these two groups supported Proposition 8, but the focus here is on the efforts many of you made to ensure it's passage.
Proposition 11 should be seen as a covert victory for the California Republican Party. We will know for sure after the 2010 census when the districts are re-established under the requirements of this measure. But with the districts gerry-mandered as they are now, I think it's safe to say that we in Los Angeles County have no where to go but up. My only caution for those ecstatic about Proposition 11 passing and "can't wait for the new districts" should step aside while the rest of us try to work on improving the party in this environment. The earliest we'll see improvements is 2012, and even then, the Democrats will already be working to mitigate those effects. We need to work now to ensure that the effects of Proposition 11 are both improvements and are long-lasting.
These are not all of the things that were successes, but I want to make an observation about what I believe is a fundamental operational problem with the Republican Party. I state this as a holder of a Certification in Marketing Communications, among other degrees, when I say that the Democrats are far better at marketing their messages to voters than Republicans. This is true not just locally or in California, but across the nation. The Democratic message that resonated among voters this year was actually begun in 2005, and Republicans not only did not counter it quickly and strongly, but did not even see what destruction it was doing to our party. We saw a glimpse of it in 2006 when we lost both Houses of Congress, but by then the slide was in full force. I also have a more detailed theory about this, but I'll focus on the point - Republicans need to get better at delivering a message that the average voter can quickly absorb. We teach Dale Carnegie students that the initial message has to be a complete, powerful statement that takes seven (7) seconds or less; otherwise the audience will likely tune out for the rest of the discussion. Democratic campaign managers know this well, as well as another important fact - the brain takes much more convincing than the heart. (Ever hear of "Knowledge at First Sight"? Me neither!)
Take an example - Proposition 2 passing. The Democratic message behind Proposition 2 was simple - Fight Animal Cruelty! If you vote against Prop 2, you hate animals! What was the "logical, conservative" response? Draw a 30-second connection between the financial effects of the measure with the eventual increase in meat & poultry products from Mexico, and hence an increase in salmonella. The problem with this tactic - most viewers of the ads had already tuned out. The initial message needed to be quick, sustaining - how about a "Kentucky Fried Tofu" billboard, just to lure the audience in, and then quickly state that this is the agenda of the Prop 2 supporters? Voters like animals, but they also like their KFC, McDonald's, and Taco Bell.
So what's next? How do we take what we learned this year and in 2006 and start the road to improvement? The primary thing we do is we keep the momentum, the passion, and the desire to see tings through. How do we do that? We get involved. This past week, I was extremely impressed with the enthusiasm and interest at two key meetings. The first was the local Central Committee meeting in San Pedro, in which the newest members of your local Republican Party got together to talk about many of the things I mentioned above, as well as strategies to start building back our foundation. The second, even more inspiring, was the tremendous turnout at the Beach Cities Republican Club event in Torrance on Thursday. I've never seen the level of turnout, over 120 people, who all wanted to learn more about what they can do. Club President, Pete Kesterson, and Southern California Republican Coalition Chairman, James Crean, both laid out opportunities for these motivated individuals to get more involved in taking action. My recommendation to all of you, if you were not at the Thursday meeting and did not sign up, is to join one of these great Republican Clubs. We will all be working together to rebuild, strengthen, and take back both what was lost and what should rightfully be done.
Please take a look at the list of clubs and their associated links in the left column. Please send me an email at stammiam@yahoo.com if you need some recommendations on which club(s) you should check out. Regardless of which you get involved with, you'll learn more about what you can do to be a part of the Republican revival! I hope to see you at these meetings soon!
Friday, September 19, 2008
State Propositions - Part 2
I apologize for the delay in completing my run-through of the propositions. However, I was extremely fortunate to attend the South Bay Lincoln Club luncheon today and listen to my good friend, Stephen Frank, run through them for us. As most of you know, Stephen Frank is a political genius and watchdog who may very well be the best we have at critiquing and analyzing ballot measures like these, as well as executive and legislative action from our legislators. (It's no coincidence I have subscribed to his RSS feed in the left column of this blog from Day 1.)
After talking with Stephen today and listening to his review, I am now prepared to run down the remainder of the propositions for you. I'm going to start where I left off with Proposition 4, as my analysis of the first three was accurate, and run through the next three.
Prop. 4
Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Don't let any side spin about this proposition fool you. This is a modified version of the original Parental Notification measure, relaxed in some ways in order to obtain what is hoped to be the necesary majority vote. These are the relevant changes:
- Consent is not required; only notification. The form of notification is either personal written or via mail;
- Medical emergencies;
- another adult family member can be notified if the minor submits a written statement that she fears physical, sexual or emotional abuse from a parent;
- a waiver could be granted by a juvenile court.
Some have asked me if I'm comfortable with all of these exceptions. What I'm less comfortable with is the current state, where no exception is needed because the procedure can be done without ANY notification.
The simple fact that Planned Parenthood, which I believe is simply an organization dedicated to performing as many abortions (especially minority abortions) as possible, is working hard to oppose this proposition tells me that it's better than what exists now and I urge a YES vote on Proposition 4.
Prop. 5
Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.
Expands drug treatment programs to allow those committing major drug offenses, including meth dealers and other drug felons, to opt out of most of their jail time in exchange for a "commitment" to attend drug treatment programs. Here's the problem - those that attend these programs instead of jail time have a higher rate of committing more drug offenses. (How many celebrities can you think of that have gone through these programs?)
Guess who's supporting this proposition? Owners of treatment centers that will be funded through this proposition. Big surprise!
Know who opposes it? Among others, L.A. County District Attorney, the Honorable Steve Cooley, and State Senator Jeff Denham, the target of the "Don Perata" recall against Republican senators who opposed higher taxes. These two outstanding Republicans have the credibility to convince me - NO on Proposition 5.
Prop. 6
Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.
This measure is a comprehensive anti-gang and crime reduction measure that specifically targets the gangs that prey on our children and on the immigrant communities. Specifically, provisions include:
- prohibiting bail to illegal immigrants that commit violent or gang crimes;
- imposes an additional 10-year penalty on gang offenders that commit violent crimes;
- requires convicted gang members to register with local law enforcement every year for five years following conviction or release from custody;
- increases penalties for manufacture or sale of meth, to match that of cocaine;
- additional 10-year penalty for felons that carry loaded or concealed firearms in public; and
- increased penalties for multiple acts of grafitti.
This measure was written by State Senator George Runner, after consultation with Jamiel Shaw, Sr. (father of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., the outstanding football player that was brutally gunned down by Pedro Espinoza, illegal Mexican gang member, simply for being black), and is endorsed by our own L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca.
This is a close state version of the "Jamiel's Law" we're trying to pass in the City of Los Angeles, and will go a long way toward reducing the ability of gangs to "import" members through illigal immigration.
Vote YES on Proposition 6.
More to follow soon...
After talking with Stephen today and listening to his review, I am now prepared to run down the remainder of the propositions for you. I'm going to start where I left off with Proposition 4, as my analysis of the first three was accurate, and run through the next three.
Prop. 4
Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Don't let any side spin about this proposition fool you. This is a modified version of the original Parental Notification measure, relaxed in some ways in order to obtain what is hoped to be the necesary majority vote. These are the relevant changes:
- Consent is not required; only notification. The form of notification is either personal written or via mail;
- Medical emergencies;
- another adult family member can be notified if the minor submits a written statement that she fears physical, sexual or emotional abuse from a parent;
- a waiver could be granted by a juvenile court.
Some have asked me if I'm comfortable with all of these exceptions. What I'm less comfortable with is the current state, where no exception is needed because the procedure can be done without ANY notification.
The simple fact that Planned Parenthood, which I believe is simply an organization dedicated to performing as many abortions (especially minority abortions) as possible, is working hard to oppose this proposition tells me that it's better than what exists now and I urge a YES vote on Proposition 4.
Prop. 5
Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.
Expands drug treatment programs to allow those committing major drug offenses, including meth dealers and other drug felons, to opt out of most of their jail time in exchange for a "commitment" to attend drug treatment programs. Here's the problem - those that attend these programs instead of jail time have a higher rate of committing more drug offenses. (How many celebrities can you think of that have gone through these programs?)
Guess who's supporting this proposition? Owners of treatment centers that will be funded through this proposition. Big surprise!
Know who opposes it? Among others, L.A. County District Attorney, the Honorable Steve Cooley, and State Senator Jeff Denham, the target of the "Don Perata" recall against Republican senators who opposed higher taxes. These two outstanding Republicans have the credibility to convince me - NO on Proposition 5.
Prop. 6
Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.
This measure is a comprehensive anti-gang and crime reduction measure that specifically targets the gangs that prey on our children and on the immigrant communities. Specifically, provisions include:
- prohibiting bail to illegal immigrants that commit violent or gang crimes;
- imposes an additional 10-year penalty on gang offenders that commit violent crimes;
- requires convicted gang members to register with local law enforcement every year for five years following conviction or release from custody;
- increases penalties for manufacture or sale of meth, to match that of cocaine;
- additional 10-year penalty for felons that carry loaded or concealed firearms in public; and
- increased penalties for multiple acts of grafitti.
This measure was written by State Senator George Runner, after consultation with Jamiel Shaw, Sr. (father of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., the outstanding football player that was brutally gunned down by Pedro Espinoza, illegal Mexican gang member, simply for being black), and is endorsed by our own L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca.
This is a close state version of the "Jamiel's Law" we're trying to pass in the City of Los Angeles, and will go a long way toward reducing the ability of gangs to "import" members through illigal immigration.
Vote YES on Proposition 6.
More to follow soon...
Monday, September 1, 2008
FLASH, FLASH, FLASH: Republican lawmakers unveil a no-tax budget at Sacramento press conference - CA
Forwarding from Red County &, of all places, the Los Angeles Times.
Source: www.redcounty.com
"During a 1:30 PM Sacramento press conference, Republican lawmakers led by Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill and Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines unveiled a no-tax budget that funds education at the same level that Democrats proposed while trimming spending in other areas."
Republicans unveil no-tax budget in Sacramento press conference.
By Evan Halper and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
August 31, 2008
SACRAMENTO -- Republican lawmakers, who are blocking plans by the governor and Democrats to raise taxes, proposed Saturday to balance the state budget instead with borrowing and deeper spending cuts.
Their plan, released 61 days into the new fiscal year, is the first complete budget offered by the Republicans. A vote on the proposal is not expected for days.
The legislative session ends at midnight tonight, and lawmakers are on the verge of breaking the record for the latest budget in at least 60 years, a mark set Aug. 31, 2002.
The failure of lawmakers to reach a budget agreement means the session will have to be extended, but no business other than the budget is likely to be discussed.
"Raising taxes at this point will definitely damage and hinder the economy and make it even more difficult to rebound form this downturn," said Dave Cogdill of Modesto, GOP leader in the state Senate.
Republicans are proposing instead to speed up borrowing against the lottery -- something the governor and Democrats had been proposing for next year -- to generate nearly $2 billion in cash in the current fiscal year. They would also take $349 million from a fund that cities and counties tap for redevelopment projects, including affordable housing.
The plan also would close the state's $15.2-billion gap with the help of $1.4 billion in service cuts beyond those already proposed by the governor and Democrats. The additional cuts would affect dozens of programs. Cash grants intended for the children of needy families, in-home care for the elderly and disabled, and financial aid for college students would all be reduced.
Programs to protect the environment, provide treatment to AIDS patients and offer new immigrants access to healthcare would also be scaled back. A labor studies center at the University of California would be eliminated.
Together, the measures would replace more than $4 billion in new sales taxes proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrats.
Schwarzenegger dismissed the proposal as one that would merely push more of the deficit into next year.
"We were sent to Sacramento to solve problems once and for all -- not kick the can down the alley for others to deal with in the future," he said in a statement Saturday.
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) called the GOP proposal a "blueprint for economic disaster."
Source: www.redcounty.com
"During a 1:30 PM Sacramento press conference, Republican lawmakers led by Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill and Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines unveiled a no-tax budget that funds education at the same level that Democrats proposed while trimming spending in other areas."
Republicans unveil no-tax budget in Sacramento press conference.
By Evan Halper and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
August 31, 2008
SACRAMENTO -- Republican lawmakers, who are blocking plans by the governor and Democrats to raise taxes, proposed Saturday to balance the state budget instead with borrowing and deeper spending cuts.
Their plan, released 61 days into the new fiscal year, is the first complete budget offered by the Republicans. A vote on the proposal is not expected for days.
The legislative session ends at midnight tonight, and lawmakers are on the verge of breaking the record for the latest budget in at least 60 years, a mark set Aug. 31, 2002.
The failure of lawmakers to reach a budget agreement means the session will have to be extended, but no business other than the budget is likely to be discussed.
"Raising taxes at this point will definitely damage and hinder the economy and make it even more difficult to rebound form this downturn," said Dave Cogdill of Modesto, GOP leader in the state Senate.
Republicans are proposing instead to speed up borrowing against the lottery -- something the governor and Democrats had been proposing for next year -- to generate nearly $2 billion in cash in the current fiscal year. They would also take $349 million from a fund that cities and counties tap for redevelopment projects, including affordable housing.
The plan also would close the state's $15.2-billion gap with the help of $1.4 billion in service cuts beyond those already proposed by the governor and Democrats. The additional cuts would affect dozens of programs. Cash grants intended for the children of needy families, in-home care for the elderly and disabled, and financial aid for college students would all be reduced.
Programs to protect the environment, provide treatment to AIDS patients and offer new immigrants access to healthcare would also be scaled back. A labor studies center at the University of California would be eliminated.
Together, the measures would replace more than $4 billion in new sales taxes proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrats.
Schwarzenegger dismissed the proposal as one that would merely push more of the deficit into next year.
"We were sent to Sacramento to solve problems once and for all -- not kick the can down the alley for others to deal with in the future," he said in a statement Saturday.
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) called the GOP proposal a "blueprint for economic disaster."
Sunday, August 31, 2008
California State Propositions 2008 - Part 1
As promised, I am planning to go through each of the California State propositions and my personal voting recommendation for each. I may skip a few in order to do a full posting dedicated to those; currently, I plan to skip Proposition 4 (Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Constitutional Amendment), Proposition 8 (Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment) and Proposition 11 (Redistricting. Constitutional Amendment and Statute) because there are strong cases for each side that should be addressed.
I should be able to go through the rest in order, so here is Proposition 1:
Proposition 1: SB 1856 (Chapter 697, 2002). Costa.
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.
This is the result of the famous trip that Speaker Nunez made to France, in which his traveling expenses later came into question. Not wanting to have that lavish trip bear no fruit, we now get the chance to vote on a European-style train system from Northern Ca to Southern. One of our Republican heroes in the Legislature, Assembly member Bob Huff, was one of the token Republicans on the trip, and spoke to us at the Peninsula Harbor Republican Club meeting in June about the differences between the questions by Democrats and those by Republicans throughout the trip. From Huff's presentation, I have two questions for those supporting this bill:
1) If we're going to implement a European train system, don't we need a European power source to ensure it doesn't cause rolling black-outs throughout the state? (Or are the Democrats So used to causing these black-outs that they simply want us to get used to them as a condition for living in California?)
- By the way, when our Republican assembly members asked the Europeans this question, they stated that they were able to implement this transit system primarily because they had a robust NUCLEAR power system in place. But I guess we'll just generate the extra electricity needed for this system through wind...maybe we can just rig sails on the trains!
2) If we're in a budget crunch already and need to find $15B+ in spending reductions, is this really the right time to be spending on luxury infrastructure like this?
- This will be a question for all of the bond measures, for which the answer, if the need for the measure is not "this is an emergent need", will always be "NO".
I am urging a "NO" vote on this proposition.
Proposition 2 : 1274. Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.
"Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue. (Initiative 07-0041.)"
After doing research on the websites of both the supporters and the opposition of this proposition, the issue boils down to the issue of "increased humanity for farm animals" beyond the strict laws already in the California statutes, versus the establishment of "optimal breeding and egg-laying conditions for farm animals", even if they are conditions one would not necessarily endure themselves. When both labor unions like the General Teamsters Local Union 386 & the United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council join with the California Small Business Association and a bi-partisan list of state legislators in opposing this, there must be a significant impact to one or more essential industries in the California economy. IN this case, my research found that the egg-laying industry in California, one of the last truly robust ones that the liberals haven't yet driven out. Proposition 2 is a risky, dangerous and costly measure banning almost all modern egg production in California, through enforcement of its overly-strict requirements. It was written by animal activists who are part of the "animals are people too" theology, which is probably all I really needed to say to over half of you reading this.
But now you have more objective facts, which is a better basis for me urging a "NO" vote on this initiative.
Proposition 3 : 1271. Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Statute.
"Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements. Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($1 billion) costs of the bond. Payments of about $67 million per year. (Initiative 07-0034.)"
I have heard much less about this proposition, and there is little on the web on it, except that the California Children's Hospital Association Initiative Fund paid consultants over $1 million to gather the signatures to place it on the ballot. With $980 million in principal and over $1B anticipated in interest to pay this off, this is a perfect example of a measure that should "earn your vote" before you support it. Research in Cal-Access shows that almost ALL of the over $5 million raised for this initiative comes directly from the very same hospitals claiming to have the urgent need for this bond money.
Hey, here's a thought...spend the lobbying money on your own improvements. What this "fund committee" has basically done is a shake-down of the children's hospitals throughout California to place an initiative on the ballot to add another $1.98B to our ballooning $15B+ deficit.
I am urging a "NO" vote to this blatant attempt to pull on the heartstrings of Californians and add almost $2B more to our state deficit.
I should be able to go through the rest in order, so here is Proposition 1:
Proposition 1: SB 1856 (Chapter 697, 2002). Costa.
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.
This is the result of the famous trip that Speaker Nunez made to France, in which his traveling expenses later came into question. Not wanting to have that lavish trip bear no fruit, we now get the chance to vote on a European-style train system from Northern Ca to Southern. One of our Republican heroes in the Legislature, Assembly member Bob Huff, was one of the token Republicans on the trip, and spoke to us at the Peninsula Harbor Republican Club meeting in June about the differences between the questions by Democrats and those by Republicans throughout the trip. From Huff's presentation, I have two questions for those supporting this bill:
1) If we're going to implement a European train system, don't we need a European power source to ensure it doesn't cause rolling black-outs throughout the state? (Or are the Democrats So used to causing these black-outs that they simply want us to get used to them as a condition for living in California?)
- By the way, when our Republican assembly members asked the Europeans this question, they stated that they were able to implement this transit system primarily because they had a robust NUCLEAR power system in place. But I guess we'll just generate the extra electricity needed for this system through wind...maybe we can just rig sails on the trains!
2) If we're in a budget crunch already and need to find $15B+ in spending reductions, is this really the right time to be spending on luxury infrastructure like this?
- This will be a question for all of the bond measures, for which the answer, if the need for the measure is not "this is an emergent need", will always be "NO".
I am urging a "NO" vote on this proposition.
Proposition 2 : 1274. Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.
"Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue. (Initiative 07-0041.)"
After doing research on the websites of both the supporters and the opposition of this proposition, the issue boils down to the issue of "increased humanity for farm animals" beyond the strict laws already in the California statutes, versus the establishment of "optimal breeding and egg-laying conditions for farm animals", even if they are conditions one would not necessarily endure themselves. When both labor unions like the General Teamsters Local Union 386 & the United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council join with the California Small Business Association and a bi-partisan list of state legislators in opposing this, there must be a significant impact to one or more essential industries in the California economy. IN this case, my research found that the egg-laying industry in California, one of the last truly robust ones that the liberals haven't yet driven out. Proposition 2 is a risky, dangerous and costly measure banning almost all modern egg production in California, through enforcement of its overly-strict requirements. It was written by animal activists who are part of the "animals are people too" theology, which is probably all I really needed to say to over half of you reading this.
But now you have more objective facts, which is a better basis for me urging a "NO" vote on this initiative.
Proposition 3 : 1271. Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Statute.
"Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements. Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($1 billion) costs of the bond. Payments of about $67 million per year. (Initiative 07-0034.)"
I have heard much less about this proposition, and there is little on the web on it, except that the California Children's Hospital Association Initiative Fund paid consultants over $1 million to gather the signatures to place it on the ballot. With $980 million in principal and over $1B anticipated in interest to pay this off, this is a perfect example of a measure that should "earn your vote" before you support it. Research in Cal-Access shows that almost ALL of the over $5 million raised for this initiative comes directly from the very same hospitals claiming to have the urgent need for this bond money.
Hey, here's a thought...spend the lobbying money on your own improvements. What this "fund committee" has basically done is a shake-down of the children's hospitals throughout California to place an initiative on the ballot to add another $1.98B to our ballooning $15B+ deficit.
I am urging a "NO" vote to this blatant attempt to pull on the heartstrings of Californians and add almost $2B more to our state deficit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
