CaliforniaRepublic

[6/28/07]

[Bill Leonard] - 12:05 am [permalink]
Immigration Law Several people last week were critical of my piece about the California Republican Party’s use of a special talent visa to hire a Canadian for a top position in the CRP (another recent hire from Australia resigned over the weekend).

One anonymous commenter tried to make a case that critics of the decision are anti-immigrant. This is simply not a logical response. Whether it is appropriate to offer a foreign national a job that is very California-specific has nothing to do with the question whether immigrants are good for America generally.

My personal philosophy is, except for some rare exceptions, labor should be able to follow demand for labor. My objection to current immigration law is that we do not enforce it in a consistent and orderly manner, and there is a grotesque level of taxpayer dollars in the form of welfare offered to immigrants (legal and illegal) once they get here. As for this particular situation, the fault is not the young Canadian’s for responding to the demand for his talent. I wish him well.

[6/26/07]

[Senator Tom McClintock] 12:07 am [permalink]
Scary Movie… Speaking to 200 mayors from around the country on Saturday, Gov. Schwarzenegger continued his crusade against global warming, warning that it was causing “longer droughts” and “more intense hurricanes.” And, of course, saving the planet looks like a job for….Supergov.

Let’s at least get our hysterics straight. As the climate warms, evaporation increases and so does precipitation. During both the Roman Warm Period from 200 to 600 AD and the Medieval Warm Period from 900 to 1300, the planet was warmer than it is today – indeed, during the Medieval Warm Period wine grapes thrived in England, and Greenland supported a burgeoning agricultural economy. Both periods were marked by above average rainfall in many parts of the world. In the second century AD, Ptolemy recorded year-round precipitation throughout the Mediterranean, and North Africa was wet enough to support substantial grain production.

Sea temperatures and temperature differentials are critical components in hurricane development. Warming air temperatures reduce that temperature differential. In the first half of the 20th Century, we experienced much more violent hurricanes than during the second half. And in the 18th Century (the end of the Little Ice Age, when Boston and New York Harbor often froze over in winter) three times as many hurricanes per year were reported in the Caribbean than we’ve recorded since 1950.

The warmer periods in earth’s history have been far more optimum for human life than the colder periods – but either way, it’s been going on a long time before the Green Governor decided to save the planet.

I recall a poem -- by Ogden Nash, I think -- that went something like this:

The ass was born in March.
The rains came in November.
‘Such a flood as this,’ he said,
‘I scarcely can remember.’

[6/25/07]

[Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles] 12:05 am [permalink]

City Hall Lets Illegal Aliens Revoke Citizen’s Permit Activist Ted Hayes went to the trouble of getting a lawful permit to stage a peaceful protest, against illegal immigration, in a park. But laws meaning nothing to the City of L.A., because we don't have rule of law here. Instead, we have mob rule, driven largely by people who aren't even in the country legally.

So the people who bring you Special Order 40 today brought you a new travesty today: illegal aliens can revoke permits.

Villaraigosa's and Bratton's police department refused to protect the rights of Hayes and his followers to assemble peacefully and protest, in accordance with their rights under the First Amendment and their City-issued permit.

Instead, a mob of pro-ILLEGAL alien protesters, WITHOUT A PERMIT, were allowed to occupy the location specified in the permit. Rather than ordering the illegals to disperse for assembling without a permit, the American citizens who had a permit were ordered to go away. After all, we mustn’t have any TV pictures of the police ordering "immigrants rights" protesters to disperse. That would be too “May Day Melee.”

This town is so far gone it's not even funny.

We're told the City won't enforce federal laws because, well, immigration is a "federal" problem. If that's the real reason, then why won't the City enforce its own lawful permits? Is that a "federal" problem, too? Of course not. This has nothing to do with "federal" problems. This is about corrupt politicians who don't give a damn about our country, our culture, or even the pretense of rule of law. [Moore is Better blog]

[6/21/07]

[Senator Tom McClintock] 12:07 am [permalink]
Which Way CA?... The gloomy economic news from the UCLA Anderson Forecast (which comes on the fourth day past the legislature’s constitutional deadline to put a budget on the governor’s desk) has serious implications. The Anderson Forecast is perhaps the most authoritative economic analysis in the state – it has more accurately predicted California’s ups and downs over the years than any other source. And although it is not predicting a recession next year, it is forecasting a decided economic downturn with job growth slowing to one percent and taxable sales slowing to two percent through the end of the 2007-08 budget year.

Now here’s the budget problem: the Governor’s May budget revision (which is already 2.5 billion in the red) cheerfully predicts a 5.8 percent increase in revenues.

Says the Anderson Forecast (which is almost always right): “…the UCLA Anderson Forecast looks for a significant slowing of the California economy in 2007, as the double-whammy from construction and mortgage finance creates drag on the rest of the (state’s) economy.”

Says the Governor’s Finance Department (which is almost always wrong): “…economic growth should steadily improve beginning in the third quarter of 2007.”

Place your bets.

[6/19/07]

[Larry Stirling] 12:55 am [permalink]
More from the religion of peace: ABC News reports that suicide bombers have been sent to the US When will we understand that Muslims intend to rule the world by terror and fear?

Muslim world inflamed by Rushdie knighthood

[6/16/07]

[Found in the ebag-from Barry Jantz] 12:09 pm [permalink]
Mr. Echo's Knickers in a Knot Over Larson's Leaving No, not Mr. Echo from "Lost." Mr. Echo as in Echo Chamber, the proverbial poli-buzz-buzz that follows any announcement such as that of Mark Larson yesterday morning.

Larson, an oft rumored candidate but never yet the bride, announced on the air Friday morning that he is leaving his KOGO Radio talk show effective immediately. Mark posts on his blog, "This is fully my decision, based on many factors. It's no secret that the programming change a couple of months ago has been a difficult transition, and something that was increasingly difficult to do with all of my other business interests. The day felt like it was two days long." (As that probably wasn't enough of a toughie, he and his wife later in the morning found one of their dogs had died.)

As there has been much conjecture about Larson's possible run for an open Duncan Hunter seat (C.D. 52), especially considering Duncan's son is in the mix, the announcement drove Mr. Echo into high gear. I came home last night to several emails -- from reporters, consultants, and fellow hacks -- asking what I had heard. Red County/San Diego posted that Larson was resigning to run for Congress, implying the possibility that Duncan D. is now not doing so (Larson is close to the Hunters).

Obviously, the conjecture from some (many?) is that the KOGO resignation must be due to a bid for Congress. However, no question the Clear Channel programming change was having a negative impact on Larson, so it may not be as simple as folks want to believe.

Sometimes, timing is simply coincidence. Sometimes, not.

I thought to myself, "Why don't I ask Mark?" A novel approach, something the political blog community should consider more often.

Mark's answer: "I'm sorting it all out. I''ll tell you more soon. I'm going to make a decision regarding Congress by July 4 at the latest."

OK, he's not out, he's not necessarily in. As simple as anything in politics. More to follow.

In the meantime....

Mark Larson's Blog: http://larsonblog.blogspot.com/

Red County/San Diego: http://www.redcountysandiego.com/

[6/15/07]

[Bill Leonard - CA Board of Equalization] - 12:05 am [permalink]
True Believers Take Out Nuclear Power’s Competition In case you missed it, a couple weeks ago the California Energy Commission unanimously approved rules that will forbid municipal utilities, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, from buying electricity made from coal. Identical regulations were imposed on private utilities in January. This implements SB 1368 (Perata), which prohibits the state's publicly owned utilities from entering into long-term financial commitments with plants that exceed 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt hour. This also follows AB 32 (Nunez) that requires California to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases by 25 percent by 2020.

On one hand this policy is a short-sighted price penalty on consumers. America has lots of coal and the industry is rapidly making coal-to- electricity conversion cleaner and more efficient. But coal is not a zero emission fuel source. True believers of the need to drastically cut back on emissions that cause global warming have no choice but to ban coal everywhere they can. And, we learned last month they do not care for liquefied natural gas either. On the other hand, by going after cheap and available fuel sources the environmentalists accelerate the need for nuclear power with every victory.

Let me offer an inconvenient truth: California has a growing population and growing economy. California consumers will consequently demand more electricity. This demand will be reflected in the market and in the political arena.

This is a dangerous game for our political leaders. If they think Californians are going to casually bake in 100-degree summer heat with no air conditioning, they will be surprised by the push-back from a public more concerned with how warm they are now than how warm the world might become in a hundred years -- maybe.

[6/14/07]

[Found in the ebag-from Karen England, Capitol Resource Institute] 12:01 am [permalink]
SB 777 will be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee next Tuesday. SB 777 is the legislation that will ban textbooks and teachers from any instruction that "reflects or promotes bias against" homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals or those with perceived gender issues.

This bill not only affects textbooks and instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1-12, it also affects all school-sponsored activities.

School-sponsored activities include everything from cheerleading and sports activities to the prom. Under SB 777 school districts could potentially be prohibited from having a "prom king and queen" because that would show bias based on gender and sexual orientation.

Just last month CRI was attacked by the sponsor of the legislation, homosexual advocacy group Equality California, for our opposition. A board member of Equality California threatened to "bury" CRI if we continued our efforts to defeat this outrageous legislative assault on religious freedom. Now is our opportunity to show that family values still matter in California. Please begin calling and writing!

[6/13/07]

[Nick Winter-administrative editor] 6:02 am [permalink]
Re: "Will the UN Rule the Waves" by J.F. Kelly: Below readers will find a letter from Caitlyn L. Antrim regarding J.F. Kelly's recent article. Mr. Kelly's response follows the letter.

Dear Captain Kelly,

I read your column "Will the UN Rule the Waves" with interest because I was part of the Reagan Administration team that reviewed the draft LOS Convention in 1981 and then was assigned as a Deputy US Representative on the final delegation sent by the Reagan Administration with specific instructions on what was to be achieved for the Convention to be acceptable to the Administration. In spite of an extreme effort, we were unable to get those changes in 1982 and as a result we voted against the adoption of the Convention and declined to sign it in December of 1982.

Because I was also the representative of the Secretary of Commerce, the department responsible for deep seabed mining (the area to which all of the Reagan objections were directed), I have has a long and deep interest in the evolution of the Convention. In 1990, after other countries realized that they needed the industrialized countries to join the Convention, they communicated that they believed they could make a revision to the Convention that would meet all of the Reagan objections. Those discussions continued throughout the rest of the Bush Administration and were completed under the Clinton Administration. I was very pleased to find that every one of the Reagan objections was corrected. The success should be judged by the recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Ken Adelman in which he notes that all of the Reagan criteria have been met and says that now the US should ratify the Convention.

I would also like to point out that the United Nations' role in the convention is limited to acting as a clerk to maintain the list of signatories, declarations and lists submitted by states. Navigation issues remain an issue to be resolved between states. It is only with regard to the mineral resources of the seabed beyond national jurisdiction (and this applies only to minerals) that a new regulatory body was created - the International Seabed Authority. The Authority has a guaranteed seat for the US, it uses chambered voting that magnifies the importance of the US, and, most important, it also provides a seat for the US in the Finance Committee where the US can block the financial decisions of the Authority unilaterally. Of course, the proof is in the operation of the Authority, which has been working smoothly with due respect for market principles for over a decade.

Captain Kelly, over the past two years I have read nearly every report and article published about the LOS Convention. I have seen many reports that grew from drafts that originally critiqued the 1982 convention that was opposed by Reagan but which never examined the 1994 Agreement on Implementation (the binding treaty that revises the 1982 Convention's provisions related to the seabed).

I would ask that you check the writings of two retired naval officers who understand the convention in depth. One is RAdm. William Schachte, a colleague on the Reagan LOS delegation who later became Navy Judge Advocate General (and who began his career on swift boats (and shares with you the experience of having been John Kerry's superior). The other is Captain George Galdorisi, who retired after a career in aviation and surface warfare. Both know the navigation portions of the convention even better than I know the seabed provisions, and Bill Schachte, like me, was present in the development of the Reagan instructions to the delegation and the efforts to protect our navigation rights through the 'freedom of navigation' program.

The LOS Convention, particularly after fulfilling Reagan's instructions with the 1994 Agreement, is a good conservative convention that protects American sovereignty and security. I hope you will look through the writings of Schachte and Galdorisi to see if you agree with me.

Sincerely,
Caitlyn L. Antrim

Dear Ms. Antrim:
    Thank you for your letter and comments on my column "Will the UN Rule the Waves?" in the California Republic.I very much appreciate your perspective as a part of the Reagan Administraation team that reviewed the draft LOS Convention in 1981 and as a deputy U.S. Representative on the final delegation for the Reagan administrtation as well as a representative of the Commerce Department. I share your interest in matters pertaining to the LOS Convention and wrote my War College thesis on the Territorial Sea.

   I read Ken Adelman's piece in The wall Street Journal but found it unpersuasive. I also studied various positions taken by the Navy Department and by several recent Chiefs of Naval Operations. I was more persuaded by a Wall Street Journal editorial that appeared opposite the Adelman op-ed which argued, convincingly I thought, against the need for another international bureacracy under UN auspices. I also found the Heritage Foundation research report by Edwin Meese, et.al, cited in my column quite convincing.

   I will, as you suggest,look into Rear Adm. Schachte's and Capt. George Galdorici's pieces on the subject but my concern is not so much with regard to the navigation portions. I feel the Rules for Preventing Colision at Sea will survive intact whether or not we become a signatory to the LOS Convention. My concern, rather extends to the exploitation of the deep sea bed and the protection of U.S. commercial interests which would be subject to an international regulatory body or tribunal. This would be inimical, in my view, to U.S. interests and would amount to a socialization of the world's ocean floor.

Sincerely,
James F. Kelly, Jr., Ed.D.
Captain, United States Navy (Ret.)

[6/11/07]

[Bill Leonard, Member CA Board of Equalization] 12:03 am [permalink]
True Believers Take Out Nuclear Power’s Competition In case you missed it, a couple weeks ago the California Energy Commission unanimously approved rules that will forbid municipal utilities, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, from buying electricity made from coal. Identical regulations were imposed on private utilities in January. This implements SB 1368 (Perata), which prohibits the state's publicly owned utilities from entering into long-term financial commitments with plants that exceed 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt hour. This also follows AB 32 (Nunez) that requires California to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases by 25 percent by 2020.

[6/6/07]

[Found in the ebag-from Karen England, Capitol Resource Institute]
12:01 am [permalink]
Homosexual Marriage Approved by California Assembly, passes bill to overturn Proposition 22 In a 42-34 vote, the State Assembly voted to pass AB 43, allowing homosexual marriage in California. After a lengthy floor debate, Democrats voted to flout the will of California voters by choosing to overturn Proposition 22, the 2000 initiative that clearly defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

"The arrogant majority in the California legislature have decided that they know better than the people by voting to force AB 43 on California," declared Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "The people of California clearly decided this issue when they passed Proposition 22. It is outrageous for legislators to waste time and money debating an issue that Californians have decided."

Several lawmakers expressed their opposition to AB 43 by boldly declaring their support for traditional marriage. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore eloquently argued that this is not an issue of rights, but is a fundamental question of the purpose of marriage. Assemblyman Doug La Malfa expressed his dismay that there are no longer any institutions so sacred that they are untouchable by the liberal California legislature. Also speaking out against AB 43 were Assembly members Anthony Adams, Joel Anderson, Sharon Runner, Bill Maze, Mike Villines and Ted Gaines.

"Especially alarming was the tone of lawmakers as they argued in favor of AB 43. The contempt lawmakers have for the constituents they supposedly represent is appalling," continued England. "Instead of respecting the decision voters made with the passage of Proposition 22, lawmakers chided them for being 'discriminatory' and 'bigoted'."
Joining the derisive chorus, Assemblywoman Laura Richardson declared that even if her constituents voted for Proposition 22, she must make the right decision and override their decision. Assemblyman Lloyd Levine stated that, "what we have here is the need to overcome fear" and prejudice.

"Proponents of the bill argue that Proposition 22 did not apply to homosexual marriages within California-only marriages outside of the state. It is extremely disingenuous of lawmakers to obfuscate this issue with their legal jargon," stated Meredith Turney, Legislative Liaison for Capitol Resource Institute. "The people of California understood what they were voting for when they passed Proposition 22-protecting traditional marriage. It is the height of arrogance to overturn the will of the people simply because lawmakers believe they are more enlightened."

AB 43 will now be considered in the state Senate.

[6/5/07]

[Senator Tom McClintock] 12:07 am [permalink]
Garbage In, Garbage Out… In January, I noted that the Governor’s claim that there are 6.5 million uninsured Californians was highly misleading – the report actually said that 6.5 million Californians are without health insurance AT SOME TIME during the year, but that 45 percent had obtained insurance within four months. In other words, about half that figure is folks who are in-between plans, usually because of job moves.

Columnist Dan Walters last week reported that another of the Governor’s health care claims is equally misleading: that every family pays a “hidden tax” of $1,200 a year on their health insurance to subsidize those patients without health insurance. According to Walters, that statistic comes from a self-interested pressure group called the “New America Foundation.” A recent critique by economists for the Stanford University’s Hoover Institution reports that this estimate is overstated by nearly A FACTOR OF FOUR.

What the governor has proposed for health care is the biggest and riskiest intervention by state government in a market since the electricity debacle, and it appears to be based on two claims that are very highly suspect. Not only is the structure of his proposal a house of cards (as other states are now discovering), but it’s a house of cards that’s built on a shaky foundation.

[6/4/07]

[Found in the ebag] 12:01 am [permalink]
In Case You Cared: ROMNEY ANNOUNCES ADDITIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA LEADERSHIP TEAM - Governor Mitt Romney announced that Coronado Communications, led by Duane Dichiara, will head the daily operations of the California Romney for President campaign. Rob Stutzman and Mike Schroeder were named Senior Advisers for the California campaign. They join previously announced State Chairs Tony Strickland and Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman.

"California will play an important role in the upcoming primary elections, and this team will be critical in making sure every voter knows about my message of change in Washington," said Governor Romney. "I look forward to working with them so we can bring conservative leadership back to our government."

With today's announcement, Duane Dichiara said, "Coronado Communications is committed to electing a leader who is not afraid to fight for conservative principles and demand change. Governor Romney's proven leadership is needed today more than ever. He has successfully turned around private businesses, the 2002 Winter Olympics, and state government, and he will do the same as President."

Senior Adviser Rob Stutzman said, "Governor Romney is a strong leader who doesn't just talk about change, he gets real results. By using proven conservative principles, Governor Romney has shown he is the candidate who can establish benchmarks in Washington to streamline government and return fiscal responsibility to our nation's capital. I'm convinced Governor Romney is the candidate for Republican voters in California."

Senior Adviser Mike Schroeder added, "Governor Romney has a strong California team and we will work to make sure every voter in California knows Governor Romney is the leader our country needs. His new and innovative ideas are what our country needs to remain strong."

Background On The California Romney For President Leadership:
Coronado Communications, Duane Dichiara – Head of State Daily Operations: Coronado Communications, owned by partners Duane Dichiara and Jennifer Jacobs, is an award winning, full service political consulting and public affairs company with offices in Sacramento and San Diego. Coronado clients have included hundreds of successful federal, state, and local campaigns, including those of Congressman Brian Bilbray, State Senator Tom Harman, and Assemblywoman Shirley Horton.

Rob Stutzman – Senior Adviser: Stutzman is currently a principal at Navigators, an issues management firm with offices across the country. He is the former Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and is a California political operative. He co-directed communications for Governor Schwarzenegger's historic California recall election campaign. He was a founding partner of CommandFocus, a Sacramento based communications firm. Prior to CommandFocus, he operated a consulting venture which managed statewide campaigns and pioneered the use of internet communications for volunteer and campaign management efforts. In addition, he served as Communications Director for Attorney General Dan Lungren and worked in the Office of the Minority Leader in the California State Senate.

Mike Schroeder – Senior Adviser: Schroeder has a long history of running campaigns and Republican Party activities. He was the Treasurer, Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the California Republican Party. He was also the National Vice-Chairman of the New Majority Council for the Republican National Committee. He served as State Co-Chair for Bush for President in 1992, Dole for President in 1996, and Bush for President in 2000 and has advised over 40 campaigns. He most recently served as Political Director in Steve Poizner's campaign for Insurance Commissioner.

Previously Announced Romney For President California Leadership Team:
·       Tony Strickland – Chair
·       State Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman – Chair
·       Assemblyman Anthony Adams, Monrovia
·       Former Assembly Leader Scott Baugh, Orange County
·       Former Assemblyman and Republican Caucus Chair Russ Bogh, Yucaipa
·       Congressman John Campbell, Newport Beach
·       Fresno City Councilman Jerry Duncan, Fresno
·       State Senator Bob Dutton, Rancho Cucamonga
·       Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, Richvale
·       State Senator Bob Margett, Glendora
·       Congressman Buck McKeon, Santa Clarita
·       Assemblyman Jim Silva, Huntington Beach
·       Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, Moorpark
·       State Senator Mark Wyland, Carlsbad

[6/1/07]

[Steve Finefrock - scriptwriter] 12:05 am [permalink]
Run, Fred, Run? Listen, All, Listen! He’s In? Probably.

Fred Thompson is bucking some serious odds – oddly akin to my TV “un-WestWing” series’ star, Buck Sullivan – as he slips quietly into the presidential race. A lot against him – a Senator only, whereas we elect governors most of the time, and not much of a “fire in the belly” senator then – but we have a lot against us in this movement:

NO SPEAKERS WORTH HEARING.

All candidates, a NEW ALERT: Listen to Fred.

What he says should be copied and quietly, and privately, imitated. The most common complaint in my posse-dominatus circle is that No one can deliver our message.

True enuf – Rudy hits a triple once in a while, mostly doubles; Mitt is too-too-perfect, from central casting, and the POW candidate is erratic at best.

But Fred Talks Good!

Ain’t Paul Harvey smart enough a reason, with Fred taking that slot on the radio?

So, listen up and listen good, Americans of all colors and candidates of all winning-odds. Fred’s got the message, and you should inculcate yourself in how he explains things.

Cause republican got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do this time around,. And Fred’s the man, even if he’s ultimately not the candidate.