Why Don't John and Ken (and the Media) Like Paul Tanaka?

Paul Tanaka
(friend or foe?)

The essence of politics is perception, then by extension disruption and distortion.

If any candidate has been the heated source (or victim) of media hype and distortion, look no further than Gardena Mayor and LA County Sheriff candidate Paul Tanaka.

I have read all the stories in the press, not just the LA Times, but also the LA Weekly (or should I now say "Weakly".)

At first, I was convinced that the LA Times was just denigrating Paul Tanaka because that's what the paper usually does to law-and-order Republican conservatives.

But then I heard Paul on the John and Ken Show in January.

And it did not go well.

Wow, it seemed to me that Paul tap-danced through the whole thing, and would not readily answer the questions.

The statement that stood out strongly for me, though, when Tanaka tried to explain his record of 33rd years: "Well, it's been a pretty checkered thirty-three years."

Ouch!

LA Weekly gleefully reported on how bad the interview went, and the two LA-area conservative radio hosts replayed the interview a couple of times.

When I listened to the thirty-minute audio a second time, I found that I was more sympathetic to Tanaka, since the radio hosts refused to let him answer many of the questions, and even some unsympathetic comments did point out that Tanaka was not permitted to talk about certain issues regardless.

John and Ken -- Not Big Paul Tanaka Fans

Still, I was more conflicted than calm about voting for this Paul Tanaka guy, even though for a while I felt that all the negative press was easy enough to brush away.

A few days ago, Paul Tanaka gave a guest appearance at a local club, and I had my questions ready.

I wanted to ask him about the Vikings, his tattoo, and why he claimed that he could command an entire organization, when he supposedly did not know what was going in Lynwood.

During his speech, he mentioned his commitment to the law and safety of all residents, and his commitment to promoting law and order in all sections of LA County, whether in Malibu or Monterey Park.

He talked up his fiscal conservatism, taking the city of Gardena from the brink of bankruptcy to a stable prosperity. Gardena is one of the safest cities I have visited. I have walked in that town at nighttime, and I feel safe.

For the record, Gardena's pension liabilities are not as bad as the city of Torrance. The city has a $10 million surplus, and the LA County Sheriff's department went from major deficits to surpluses to cover the losses.

Finally, he addressed the allegations that he was some neo-Nazi thug, that he sanctioned a culture of violence, and that he encouraged sheriff's deputies to operate in the "gray area."

About the Blue Ribbon Jail Commission, Tanaka pointed out that one of the LA County Sheriff's candidates, Jim McDonnell, sat on that panel.

Interesting.

But about the "gray area" issue, as far as I understand, most law enforcement officers cannot help but operate in the "gray area" since the laws of criminal procedure change constantly. Not that Paul Tanaka ever encouraged such behavior, but having spoken to individuals involved in law enforcement, it can be very difficult not to step close to the limits under pressing circumstances.

Of course, no one should condone misconduct from peace officers, ever.

Still, I was concerned about the Lynwood allegations. In the John and Ken interview, he pointed out that he was never named in the indictment. And he wasn't. Here's a copy of it.

I pressed him about the tattoo. He refused to show it to me, or to anyone else. He said it was a Minnesota Vikings tattoo, just like the one for the football team. Different sheriffs' stations throughout the Department had different logos.

It's on his leg, he tells me, not on his ankle, contrary to what the LASDabuse blog claims.

Still, why would he get a tattoo as a member of a softball team?

I never believed that he was a neo-Nazi, and he brought up information about the federal judge, who called "The Vikings" a terrorist group. The judge was getting the information from one of the litigants in the case, the same case in which Tanaka was neither a subject nor a target.



 Paul is right there in the center

After the meeting, I presented the above photo to Tanaka, and he answered very casually: "Oh that's from 1983, when I was at Carson. After work, I was having a beer with some buddies."

However, the website "LASD Abuse" features this photo under the Vikings Allegations. Hmm.

The truth is, this photo is from the 1980s, judging from the clothes and the style of the sheriff uniform.

Notice the "C" as opposed to "L" signs they are flashing. Duh!

Notice also that there are number of diverse people -- black, white, and Hispanic.

Nothing Neo-Nazi about this group!

Furthermore, Paul came up to me afterwards and offered to take a picture with me (I had no camera at the time). I still had questions, though, like he did not know what was going on at Lynwood Station in the late 1980's early 90s.

There were three hundred people working there, right?

He corrected me, about one hundred, then added that he worked the graveyard shift. . .

A lot of "he said, she said" still seemed all too prominent in this discussion.

A few members came up to me after the meeting sharing that they had also gone back and forth on some of the allegations, particularly his poor stint on the John and Ken Show.

One person reminded me that Tanaka was not in charge of the jails during the time when the abuse was taking place.

Then someone else dropped a bigger bomb-shell: John and Ken are pro gun control, and Tanaka not only supports the Second Amendment, but will expedite the concealed-carry permit process for future applicants (unlike retired Sheriff Lee Baca, who withheld permits for politically connected friends of his)

Gene Maddaus (with Jane Harman)
Daily Breeze.com

Perhaps John and Ken wanted to disrupt and distort Paul Tanaka's campaign, pure and simple. I know that they are liberal on some issues, and their knowledge on guns is not that strong (per Los Angeles Magazine). Other discussions about John and Ken reveal a latent hostility to gun users, too. One of them admitted: "I don't care about people's gun issues" during one taping.

Public sector unions want to end Tanaka's campaign, and so does LA Weekly "journalist" Gene Maddaus, who is obsessed with bringing down Tanaka. He used to work for the Daily Breeze. Tanaka claims that Maddaus was fired for unethical reporting. Still researching that one.

I am (sadly) accustomed to media distortions to bring down people, though. Clive Bundy the Nevada is not a racist, but his heavily distorted/edited remarks confirm that the New York Times was looking for any way they could to scapegoat the guy with a bum "racism" rap. The "mainstream media" has ignored one scandal after another from the Obama Administration, yet spends weeks covering New Jersey's "Bridge-gate" or Donald Sterling's racist rants in a private and illegally recorded conversation.

Law enforcement officials have shared time and again that they take very little seriously, and trust even less what is written in the press, as do I at this point.

They called Tanaka's record a "pretty checkered thirty-three years." Peace officers get sued all the time. I have friends in the LAPD who have reported on the numerous lawsuits, and that the department just settles because of the enormity of these cases. An incident in the late 1980s (a Korean teenager was killed), the Vikings allegation, and then the jail-abuse indictments. Besides those three incidents, there is very little to suggest a pattern of abuse.

So far, the facts don't seem to add up that Paul Tanaka is some neo-Nazi racist with a Napoleon complex.

I appreciated that he answered all of my questions and didn't throw a fit when I asked them and kept asking them (unlike some political figures in the GOP: *Jim Brulte*), and even when I was still concerned, he addressed those questions, as well.

Now, at least I understand why they (John, Ken, the media in general) don't like Paul Tanaka: too conservative for their taste, and and a full faith, concealed-carry advocate of the Second Amendment.

Seth Stodder for State Senate District 26

Seth Stodder (on the Right) for State Senate District 26

Three of the seven Democrats running for State Senate District 26 (which includes the Beach Cities, Palos Verdes Peninsula, and greater parts of Torrance) are calling themselves fiscally responsible or fiscally conservative.

 

None of them will live up to that label, since they will caucus with the liberal Democrats in Sacramento, who for the most part have looked the other way while on Democrat after another is either convicted or indicted for corruption

Dr. Vito has union-backing, and while Manhattan Beach mayor Amy Howorth can promote her fiscal responsibilities all she wants, but she is a Democrat, and her party has been embroiled in one scandal after another in Sacramento,

Granted, Richard Riordan has endorsed two other Democrats because he claims that they will cut the spending in Sacramento. He specifically calls Santa Monica school board member Ben Allen a fiscal watchdog.

 

But Allen is also buddy-buddy with the retreating liberal Democrat, Henry Waxman. No fiscal conservatism there.

 

Then there's Betsy Butler, who aside from voting "no vote" on a bill which would have made it easier to fire a teacher guilty of misconduct, she touts the following reform for solving the water shortage issue in our state: get rid of people's lawns.

 

I've got a better idea: Get Off My Lawn!

 

Manhattan Beach mayor Amy Howorth is showcasing her local experience on the Manhattan Beach School Board and the City council, where she fought against fraud and waste. Local leaders have to spend prudently, especially in Beach Cities, where the voters are always watching.

Still, does anyone really believe, that any one these Democratic candidates will enter the partisan fray of Sacramento and keep their word?

Unions are spending lavish sums to put candidates in place who will protect their interests, which often run counter to the fiscal necessities of running a state government within budget and cutting waste, fraud, and regulatory burdens.

Frankly, for Democrats to call themselves "fiscally responsible" makes about as much sense as Bush's "We have to suspend the rules of the free market to save it", or "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" or Hillary Clinton's tone-deaf, insensitive "What difference does it make?" in responses to serious queries from US Senators regarding Benghazi.

 

Of the candidates running for State Senate 26, only one candidate is a non-Democrat: Seth Stodder.

 

But he was a Democrat, during the Bush Administration, and there were many Democrats who worked in the Bush Administration (and support Bush's reelection in 2004), because this country was facing off against Islamo-fascism, and Stodder (like many Democrats) wanted to do whatever they could to ensure the safety and security of this country.

 

He even become a Republican and campaigned on behalf of John McCain in 2008, yet even after the Arizona Senator's loss, Stodder remained a Republican to assist the Obama Administration with border security issues, as well.

 

Whatever his party affiliation he put the national security of this country ahead of politics.

 

Now, he has a chance to put the best interests of State Senate District 26 ahead of the political follies which define (er, dominate) Sacramento.

 Seth Stodder is running for the state senate seat, who has not only Riordan's backing, but has taken no union money. Union corruption has tainted members of both of parties (many more Democrats than Republicans). He even has the support of reform Democrat Gloria Romera, an activist who campaigned hard for Prop 32 to reform the influence of union money in politics.

Stodder is pro school choice, pro Prop 13, and pro bringing businesses back to California. He supports energy exploration, and he is not afraid to say "Toyota", one of many businesses leaving the state because of Democratic anti-economic policies.

As a former supervisor had intoned to Seth the day after 9-11, when the Bush Administration requested Stodder's legal experience with customs and border control: "Seth, we need your help."

Vote for Seth Stodder for State Senate District 26 on June 3rd and November 4th.

Real Health Care Reforms

From a critic regrading my stance on government run health care (specifically Obamacare)

The HealthSource RI app was humorous marketing. It's sad to see you lack a sense of humor, or at least the ability to detect when something is done in jest. Yes, the Exchanges are not working as hoped, and obviously that could have been a far better process. That said, millions of people now have coverage who didn't before. They're going to seek care, many who will get preventive care as opposed to waiting for something to get so serious that they wind up incredibly ill, and ultimately much more expensive. Yes, young and healties were needed - you know, because it's insurance. Any type of insurance works that way. Do you think everyone who gets car insurance gets in an accident that year? You need all the people not getting in accidents to adjust for the people who do. That's how health insurance works, and without healthy people, it just doesn't. But you can sit there complaining without offering any actual alternatives for people who need care. That's incredibly productive.

The person who offered me this extended comment suggested that I have been nothing but negative about the current health care "reforms" offered by President Barack Obama. To be precise, President Obama has not offered anything, but has in fact forced a terrible, government driven model which will increase costs and rationing while diminishing access and efficiency.

More importantly, however, I have indeed in the past and now offered solutions and health care reforms which will work, as opposed to granting more power to the government.

1. Health Savings Accounts (HSA). Dr. Ben Carson suggested permitting individuals from birth receive the opportunity to own and invest in an HSA, so that in the event of an emergency, the child can resort to the account for major expenses. Furthermore, HSAs should be tax deductible, thus increasing the incentive for individuals to invest in them.

2. Health Insurance Across State Lines. Currently, individuals seeking health care plans must resort to the limited market within their respective states. Car owners are permitted to purchase car insurance from any firm in the country, a market mechanism which has helped drive down the costs of car insurance. Such a simple reform as permitting the purchase of health insurance across state lines expand access as well as options, the reform would increase competition, accountability, and affordability.

3. Remove sclerotic licensure laws. While this reform sounds counterintuitive at first, the fact that physicians  must seek a medical license in every state has actually made it more difficult for professionals to practice medicine, yet has not done as much to prevent misconduct, incompetence, or abuse. License laws are unnecessary when the dimensions of supply and demand, reputation and expectations factor more largely in whether a physician retains a practice or not. Medical firms which wish to remain in business must practice good medicine, or get used to being out of business. Once a doctor has passed all required courses and residencies, has obtained his degree and earned a basic license demonstrating competence, there is no need to require that person to relicense himself every time he or she seeks to establish a practice in a different state.

4.  End the arbitrary barriers which prevent doctors from forming limited co-ops. Currently, doctors must either set up an individual practice, or they must work in a hospital. It is very difficult and rare indeed for a group of physicians to create a set medical status which exceeds one individual yet does not entail all the comprehensive care of a hospital. By removing such arbitrary restrictions to private group medicine, patients will have access to more opportunities to seek medical care.

5. Allow more people to become doctors. The American Medical Association has fashioned a guild-like cabal which severely restricts the number of individuals who can graduate from medical school and become MDs. These arbitrary limits were designed to drive up the cost, er salaries of medical professionals, which is wrong. The demand for quality health care from individual citizens should inform medical costs, not arbitrary unions or unaccountable government bureaucrats.

6. Restore  a trade-oriented, cash-cost direct relationship between doctor and patient as much as possible. Government controlled health care is bad health care, where third-party agents engage in arbitrary decisions, all of which betray the best interests of the patient as well as undermine the authority and integrity of the doctor. By eliminating health insurance as a the customary means of payment, beyond catastrophic needs (as car insurance operates), clearly indicated prices for health care will drive down costs while increasing competition and efficiency.

7. Tort Reform. Aside from suing for damages, patients (and by extension lawyers) should not be allowed to sue doctors, hospitals, and other medical-related firms for exorbitant punitive damages, which discourage the practice of medicine altogether. In nations like France, an independent attorney reviews the claims of both parties in a civil suit and arrives at a settlement which often pleases neither party. In Great Britain, the losing side in a civil case must pay the attorney's fees for the winning side. These legal reforms would discourage court-mandated outcomes and discourage frivolous (i.e. fraudulent) lawsuits, thus eliminating a number of the ancillary costs which doctors are compelled to accrue, whether in paying for liability insurance or in completing simple medical tests.

Most of these reforms strike liberals as either uninformed, unfair, or unrealistic. Yet for decades, if not centuries, health care was not viewed as a right, but as a commodity to be purchased, and health was a responsibility which every individual invested in. Free market reforms, not government-driven mandates, will ensure efficient as well as effective health care which encourages healthful habits as well as medical interventions when needed.

"Fiscally Responsible" Dems: Who Are They Fooling?

Three of the seven Democrats running for State Senate District 26 (which includes the Beach Cities, Palos Verdes Peninsula, and greater parts of Torrance) are calling themselves fiscally responsible or fiscally conservative. At least two of them are openly critical of the billion dollar bullet train boondoggle which Democrats in Sacramento have slowly turned against.

"Fiscally responsible" Dr. Vito Imbasciani has issued  numerous fliers touting his desire to protect the middle class and protect college students from high tuition and diminished access to higher education. However, Imbasciani is also getting union endorsements and independent mailers on his behalf. Not just imprudent, but corrupting and corrosive describes such halted influence.

Richard Riordan has endorsed two other Democrats because he claims that they will cut the spending in Sacramento. He specifically calls Santa Monica school board member Ben Allen a fiscal watchdog. A the same time, Allen is advertising his tight friendship with liberal profligate spender retiring Congressman Henry Waxman, the same representative who declared "We're not broke!" despite trillions in national debt.

Manhattan Beach mayor Amy Howorth is showcasing her local experience on the Manhattan Beach School Board and the City council, where she fought against fraud and waste. Local leaders have to spend prudently, especially in Beach Cities, where the voters are always watching.

Still, does anyone really believe, that any one these  Democratic candidates will enter the partisan fray of Sacramento and keep their word?

Unions are spending lavish sums to put candidates in place who will protect their interests, which often run counter to the fiscal necessities of running a state government within budget and cutting waste, fraud, and regulatory burdens.

Frankly, for Democrats to call themselves "fiscally responsible" makes about as much sense as Bush's "We have to suspend the rules of the free market to save it", or "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" or Hillary Clinton's tone-deaf, insensitive "What difference does it make?" in responses to serious queries from US Senators regarding Benghazi.

There is one Independent, Seth Stodder, running for the state senate seat, who has not only Riordan's backing, but has taken no union money, and is the only candidate willing to talk about economic reforms. He deserves your vote on June 3rd and November 4th.

Torrance City Council Races: Mike Griffiths

Torrance City Council candidate Mike Griffiths also responded to my seven questions, but he did not submit them to me in time.

Still, here are his answers:

1. Why are you running for city council this year? Did you ever plan on running for office before?

1. Sold my computer business in 2000, and have devoted myself to my family and the community since that time. My website details out my extensive involvement with the community (www.ilikemike2014.com). And I think that with my blend of business experience, community service and City government experience, that I have the needed skills, and experience to serve the community that I care about so much as a new member of the City Council.

2. What is your political party affiliation? Why?

2. I have never run for elected office before. And my party affiliation is "Undeclared" which has been my status my whole adult life. Partisan politics is clearly not working and making it impossible to get things done. I want to do what's best for the City of Torrance, not any particular political party's agenda.
 

3. Tell us about your prior professional/political experience and how they can help the City of Torrance?

 

3. You can find extensive information about my experience on my website mentioned above.

4. What measures, reforms, and policies would you implement on a city level to bring in more business and increase economic activity in the City of Torrance.

4. As a former successful business owner here in Torrance, something I have said from the very beginning of the campaign is that we MUST ATTRACT AND RETAIN THE BEST BUSINESSES FOR OUR CITY.  I'm endorsed by the Torrance Chamber PAC as well as the BizFed PAC because of my strong understanding of the importance of businesses in our community. We as a City must work in a 3-pronged approach to businesses - City Council, City Economic Development Dept., and Chamber of Commerce MUST be working together with the same mission of attracting and retaining the best businesses. Our economic development department should be strengthened with additional staff expert in the understanding of business development. We need to identify the top 250 employers in Torrance, and rank each business based on their potential for being lured out of Torrance, and then work the 'high-risk' employers to see what steps can be achieved to ensure that they do not relocate away. We need to work with the County and the State as well to ensure that we are ALL doing our best to be as business friendly as possible.

5. What concerns do you have about crime and public safety in Torrance?

5. Crime is a big concern of mine. Even though we are ranked 10th safest city in America for Cities our size, we are now facing increasing efforts by criminals to undermine our City's safety as a result of AB109, early prisoner release program. First and foremost, we need to ensure that the State and County are providing us the funds/resources needed to better deal with this issue, and I don't think that they are. We need to be ever-more diligent in being proactive in protecting our community from this increasing criminal population back on our streets. Education of our residents and businesses is critical so they understand the patterns of crime and what to look for so they can be additional eyes and ears for our Police is very important. And we need to let our lawmakers in Sacramento know that our citizens are outraged that criminals are barely serving the sentences that they are being given and that we want them to serve, and that this is a disservice to our law-abiding population.

It's good that city council candidates remark that they are not afraid to take their case to Sacramento lawmakers, too. They need to represent our values in our cities as well as across the state.

6. There are growing revelations about the city's massive pension liabilities -- $400 million, an online reports confirm that at least 600 city employees out of 200 are earning at least $100,000 a year in total compensation (per 2012 data). What reforms or steps do you support to deal with these massive pension liabilities?

6. Pension expenses are a significant concern to me and taking a bigger and bigger bite out of our budget each year, forcing other services to be cut to cover this expense without some other source of revenue to cover it. The State and our City have taken some steps to try to reduce this burden with recent policy changes, primarily affecting new employees. But we need to find ways to do more but at the same time, we can't put our City at a competitive disadvantage. We want the best possible employees working for the City. With that said, we, Torrance, can't do this on our own. We need to work with the surrounding communities, who face the same growing problem, and attack it in a concerted effort, so that the playing field stays as even as possible. And I also think that we need to change election campaign funding rules eliminating the financial contribution of public employee organizations to candidates, especially to those in office who make decisions about these same groups labor contracts.

 I agreed with Mike's sentiment that there should be rules which prevent public sector labor unions from contributing to political campaigns. Still, there are a number of reforms which the city of Torrance can enact without passing state laws or overturning key court decisions.

The notion that comprehensive pension reform would put the city at a disadvantage, however, is not a compelling statement. Torrance is not a high-risk city like Los Angeles or Long Beach, and there are a number of prospective peace officers out there scrambling for jobs, as in other professions. In the city of El Segundo, there are at least one hundred applicants for every job opening for police officer or firefighter. If instituting pension reforms does diminish the number of qualified officers who apply for a position, that diminution won't have much of an effect.

I disagreed greatly with the idea that the city should work with other cities on resolving the pension issue. Honestly, that statement alone would have put Griffiths at a disadvantage of getting an endorsement from me.

Still, Griffith's prior business experience and present city service investments deserve recognition.

7. People have responded very favorably to my common sense approach to running our City Government, and to my experience. Most believe that I have the right mix of experience that will serve me and the City well as one of your next members of our City Council.

About Local Women Running for Office

Last week, the Argonaut spotlighted the many women running for office in the Santa Monica Bay.

Former Los Angeles City Controller Wendy Greuel claims that the 18% of female Congressional representatives is “not good enough”. However, her reasons for getting elected are not good enough, either. From blaming the TEA Party for the ills of  Washington DC, to replaying the tired and broken “War on Women” rhetoric about reproductive rights and the glass ceiling, Greuel ignores real policies and attacks strawmen (or women?) to distract from her “not good enough” record.

Marianne Williamson has a non special-interest following, yet for most supporters, her “special interest” includes disaffected leftists who want someone to stand outside of both parties. At least Williamson is relying on individual donations with a commitment toward restoring civil liberties.

Former assemblymember Betsy Butler switched her campaigning from an Assembly race to the state senate seat. Contrary to the Argonaut’s description, she did not lose her seat by a “razor-thin” margin, but by one thousand votes, in part because of her abstention on a key teacher reform bill, SB 1530, which would have expedited the process to terminate teachers guilty of misconduct.

Manhattan Beach mayor Amy Howorth offered that a representative government should have “over 50% women”. Why? How is a war on men supposed to bridge the disconnect between elite politicians with everyday voters?

Sandra Fluke’s campaign is a fluke (and a joke). Claiming that ten years of legislative advocacy qualifies her, Fluke trumpets standing up to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that she has a right to demand the government pay for her birth control. Really?

Why should voters evaluate anyone based on gender? Based on the issues, policies, and their views, none of the featured female candidates offered candid reasons for voters to support them.

Kashkari Will Leave us "Akin"

This smear is the essence of desperation

Kashkari's campaign is so desperate, in spite of the money and endorsements, that he has resorted to comparing Tim Donnelly to Todd Akin, a Missouri Congressman who lost his election over a stray remark.

If anyone should be compared with the one-gaffe doom-and-gloom, it should be Neel Kashkari:




The comparison between Akin. . .

and Kashkari is more accurate

Let's take a look over some of Kashkari's many gaffes and upsets.

Salon.com bashed him with the following:

It’s true, he is not a career politician. He is much worse: a Wall Street and Beltway insider who served as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and then followed Hank Paulson to the Treasury Department, where he ran the TARP program.

Ouch! Talk about the "illegitimate rape" of our tax dollars!

Uber-leftist (socialist) US Senator Elizabeth Warren mercilessly excoriated Kashkari:

“We pressed him on the status of the big financial institutions: Did Treasury anticipate additional bailout assistance to the giant banks? Could we see the terms of the arrangements that had been worked out so far? Kashkari objected to the word bailout, so we wrangled about that for a couple of minutes,” Warren wrote. “But he was very clear on one point: The big cash injections were done, and Treasury would now concentrate on getting assistance to smaller banks.”

But what about quotes right from Neel's own mouth? From the John and Ken debate earlier this week (May 15, 2014), Kashkari said:

We need to enforce the law on immigration. Obama does not enforce the law.

However, Kashkari voted for President Obama (another reason not to vote for him), and the crowd at the debate made sure he didn't forget it. The whole TARP program operated outside of the rule of law, too, granting unprecedented and unacceptable discretion to the executive branch to spend taxpayer dollars.

Consider his testimony on 2008 following investigations into TARP. Rep Manzullo of Illinois demanded to know what the TARP supervisor would do about about a failed CEO receiving a $3 million bonus despite the failure of his company:

Congressman, I don't have an answer in my head that this is an appropriate bonus level. . .

Keep in mind, the bonus went to a CEO whose firm went bankrupt and furthered the financial crisis.

Kashkari continued:

Congressman, our track record is clear. . .

Not to Rep, Manzullo, who never got a definitive "Yes" or "No" answer about whether $3 million was too much to give to a  failed CEO - $3 mill of taxpayer dollars, by the way.

Congressman Darrell Issa leaned on Kashkari to explain why the TARP handlers decided to switch from buying toxic assets to spending on other purchases: "Was Congress lied to?"

The decision was made by Secretary Paulson. It's not just a question of assets. . . .We have met with  hundreds of organizations. . .

Blah, Blah, Blah.

Congress was lied to. Pure and simple.

This extended statement from his Op-Ed in the Washington Post should make any reader retch with disgust:

Our belief in free markets is founded on the idea that each individual acting in his or her self-interest will lead to a superior outcome for the whole. The financial crisis has reminded us that free markets are not perfect — but they do allocate capital better than any other system we know. A “me first” mentality usually makes markets more efficient.

If markets are not perfect, then why are you running as a Republican, Mr. Kashkari? The Republican Party is predicated on the acceptance of free market principles as the marked reality to ensure the greatest and freest allocation of goods without government intrusion or fraud.

But this “me first” mentality can also lead to shortsighted political decision making. Most Americans agree that we need more energy from clean sources, such as wind power — until someone proposes installing a transmission line near their homes. Most people are against earmarks — unless it is their representative scoring money for their district.

Kashkari is screaming "me first" with this run for office. He is not a Republican, and the only reason he is running as one, one has to wonder, is so that he could stand out and have some kind of a chance to run against Brown. He probably did not expect Donnelly to put up such a fight.

Cutting entitlement spending requires us to think beyond what is in our own immediate self-interest. But it also runs against our sense of fairness: We have, after all, paid for entitlements for earlier generations. Is it now fair to cut my benefits? No, it isn’t. But if we don’t focus on our collective good, all of us will suffer.

Free market good but not really. . .entitlements need to be reformed, but it's not fair. .

Now, if it's a legitimate rape, the female body can just shut the whole thing down. . .

If the voters in the state of California, particularly the Republicans, want a legitimate conservative candidate for governor, they will shut the whole Kashkari campaign down and vote for Donnelly in June and November.

If Kashkari wins, he will kill the turnout in November since Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, will not turn over to vote for this turncoat RINO.

Seven Democrats Running for SD 26th

I have gotten nothing but fliers and fliers and fliers from candidates running for State Senate District 26, the seat which Ted Lieu vacated to run for Congress.

Who is running for this seat, anyway?


From Ballotpedia:

District 26

Note: Incumbent Holly Mitchell (D) is running for re-election in District 30.

June 3 Blanket primary candidates:

Ben Allen

Barbi S. Appelquist

Betsy Butler

Sandra Fluke

Amy Howorth

Vito Imbasciani

Patric M. Verrone

Seth Stodder

There is no Republican running in this seat. One resident called the race  a "clusterf--k".

In spite of the broad cluster of Democrats running for this seat, there is one centrist Independent, Seth Stodder, running for the seat as well.

 I will comment on him later.

For now, I want to focus on the seven Democrats running for the seat.

I have gotten fliers from three candidates so far.

Amy Howorth is the current mayor of Manhattan Beach. She has ties with the city, and she is touting her experience raising  family and working with the school district.

Amy Howorth

She also has an endorsement from Mayor Richard Riordan. Since he has already endorsed three candidates, the value of these endorsements has become more suspect.

Howorth claims in one ad after another that she will fight the waste and fraud in Sacramento.

Then there's Ben Allen, who not only champions the idea of killing the billion dollar bullet train boondoggle, he also cares about dealing with staggering job losses and lack of opportunities in the state of California. Another ad highlights the three Democratic state senator who have been convicted or indicted for corruption.

Ben Allen

Another candidate, Vito Imbasciani, stands on his prior medical experience. He has very little money of his own, but unions connected with the medical profession are backing his candidacy. One ad blasts the key importance of saving the middle class and providing a broad means of college students to get a good education without losing money.

Vito Imbasciani

The first glaring concern about all these candidates -- they are liberal Democrats running in a liberal seat. What gives anyone the impression that these politicians will stand up to Sacramento liberal-Democratic-statist-progressive pressures and special interest dominance?

The fact the Imbasciani has unions endorsing his pleas to protect the  middle class should alarm voters all the more. Whatever good Amy Howorth claims that she has done for Manhattan Beach, no voter should believe that she can stand up to the Sacramento shuffle of going with the Democratic caucus which has said little and done even less regarding the three corrupted officials (with more to follow).

Ben Allen has gotten more positive press, in part because of former Republicans, now Independent and failed Congressional candidate Bill Bloomfield is bankrolling Allen's ad blitz. Enough already!

Allen has posted with Henry Waxman in key fliers already. What gives Allen the impression that he can tell the voters in the same district different stories and get away with it? He supports single-payer health care (worse than Obamacare) and legalizing marijuana, both marginal views which will not play well in the South Bay.

As for Betsy Butler, I have already written how beholden she has been to the unions and the Green Lobby. She went as far as suggesting that Californians give up their lawns to deal with the intense water shortage in the state.

Sandra Fluke

Then there's Sandra Fluke. Aside from her brazen, entitled demand that the government pay for her birth control, there is nothing outstanding or worthwhile about this candidate, aside from the fact that she would rather by kidnapped by Nigerian terrorists rather than allow a Republican to touch her.

I am certain that voters with any sense or semblance of self-respect (or sanity) will not want to put a pen next to her name on a ballot, let alone touch her.

Her campaign is like her name -- a total fluke, and a joke.  Appelquist and Verrone have sent out nothing so far, and it looks as if their campaigns will be going nowhere fast.

Is this the best that the Democratic Party can offer the State Senate District 26?

Betsy Butler 86'd by SB 1530

Betsy Butler is running for office, again.

Betsy Bulter (Source: Mrariruiz)

She was my state assembly rep for a few terms. I never paid much attention, because my district was hopelessly liberal, and the point spread was too great for any viable Republican or conservative to capitalize on the folly which defined and dominates Sacramento.

Now that the Citizens Commission has made more seats competitive, people like Butler faced opposition for reelection in 2012, even if the competition was another Democrat -- Richard Bloom the mayor of Santa Monica

He was slightly less left-leaning (I suppose), and he bit Butler by 1000 votes.

Butler is running for office again, and the one issue which dogged her in 2012 is coming after her again:

SB 1530.

The former Assemblymember made a guest appearance at a political forum at LA Harbor College, hosted by Rebel Alliance student leader Joseph Lopez.

Butler arrived late, but other guests attended and outlined their campaigns or core conservative values, including Shawn Steel and John Wood (who is running for Congress against Maxine Waters) as well as former candidate and local activists Craig Huey.

After an hour, Butler arrived, touting her outreach to the various list of minority groups -- the usual liberal staple. The hour prior, the conservative guests all discussed the terrible economy in California, and the need for good jobs and viable options for young college students.

Butler showed up, and wanted to talk about outreach to "our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters."

How tone-deaf can one be?

When she took questions from the audience, I praised her for her work with veterans, which was a subject of one of the few letters to the editor published by Herald Publications in 2012.

Then I pressed on her abstention vote on SB 1530, the "teacher pervert" bill which would have made it easier to get rid of teachers guilty of misconduct against students in the classroom.

She helped kill the bill by voting neither for nor against it.

Not just the LA Weekly, but CNN investigated her role in killing that piece of legislation. Anderson Cooper's staff went all the way to Sacramento, and with the help of a capitol aid, wrote questions to the assemblymember demanding answers. She rebuffed every request.

The voters in Santa Monica rebuffed her.

She squirmed to justify her response, offering that the bill would not have provided due process safeguards for teachers.

Baloney -- she was getting teacher union money, and the money pushes legislators to take positions contrary to what voters want them to do.

Besides, teachers with tenure have so many safeguard, provisions, recourses, and by-laws in their favor, it is almost impossible to fire them.

When she felt that she had adequately put aside my question, Craig Huey jumped and pointed out that such actions from our legislators all represent the pay-for-play perversions which define Sacramento politics, all of which push out the best interests of the public.

Butler got 86'd by SB 1530 I 2012, and that "abstention" should convinced voters in the 26th State Senate district to abstain from voting for her on June 3rd.

Not DeMaio or Peters: Kirk Jorgensen for Congress (CD-52)

Kirk Jorgensen (Jorgensen for Congress)

Fiscal discipline means nothing without moral values.

Otherwise, how can anyone make the case for not spending future generations' money by borrowing from the future?

Fiscal prudence, limited government, constitutional rule are all moral values and they are all predicated on the value of human life as well as the integrity of the human family.

A current in the political world, from political party elites to policy pragmatists all suggest that voters, and thus most conservatives, must compromise on key issues like abortion, the definition of marriage, the scope of the Second Amendment, the role of the state in protecting the environment, the proper influence of labor unions, and a number of issues.

Yet each of these issues is ultimately integrated with economic verities, too. The prohibitive cost of a police state which endangers all of us (if we are forbidden from protecting ourselves), the expense of "green technology" wasting our money and the incalculable detriment to our cities in the face of unfettered amnesty will cost the nation far money than money.

We may disagree about how to handle tragic circumstances and the acceptable times for allowing an abortion - but we cannot argue that life does begin at conception: that is a biological fact, not just a religious dogma.

We may dispute the origins of homosexual conduct, but we cannot dispute the danger, dysfunction, and ultimately death associated with such conduct, as witnessed in history as well as epidemiology, sociology, and other fields of inquiry.

Once again, lower taxes, less spending, looser regulations, individual liberty, limited government mean nothing without respect for values, which do not change, for realities which we must accept not try to change..

So, with these statements in mind, there is no reason why anyone should support either Scott Peters or Carl DeMaio for the 52nd Congressional District. Peters is a liberal Democrat who stands with a party complete out of synch with economic and moral realities. Democrats in my home town (Torrance) are endorsing Republicans for office because the moral and fiscal values are needed now more than ever in our city -- and in our state.

As for Carl DeMaio, his values do not match up with the Republican Party's full platform. He may please party activist Charlie Munger Jr., whose donations have benefited liberal candidates in the name of advancing fiscal conservatism. The fact remains that you cannot have one without the other. Munger should understand by now that relativity belongs in physics, but not in politics.

DeMaio is pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-environmentalism, pro-gun control, pro-immoral amnesty. These policies are not Republican, and thus he should have run as a Democrat or an Independent.

Kirk Jorgensen stands strong on every value - fiscal discipline, the right to life, the integrity of the family, the individual's power and necessity to protect himself, and the limited role of the state in managing affairs.

He is the best choice for the 52nd Congressional District. On June 3rd and November 4th, vote for Kirk Jorgensen.