The Daily Breeze v. The South Bay?

There is nothing wrong with in-depth, hard-hitting investigative journalism, as long as the truth is uncovered, or what people read about gets them mad enough to do something constructive about it.

The Fourth Estate, otherwise known as The Press, was intended to the key security against misrule.

Expose to the voting public what our leaders are doing, good or bad, and hold them accountable.

Perhaps for that reason we find so much entertainment and infotainment media in our cultures, and politicians who tacitly support it. Keep people distracted about former Olympic medalist Bruce Jenner's transgender transformation, or recount Miley Cyrus' latest display of self-loathing and shame, and they will find local or national politics too complicated or extreme to follow.

Yet local papers exposing behind the scenes corruption can agitate sufficient interest from readers. The year-long expose by the Daily Breeze's former education reporter Rob Kuznia about now-terminated  Centinela Valley superintendent Jose Fernandez. The LA Times made short work of the rapacious former Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo, who was bilking hundreds of thousands out of the small city's working-class residents, along with a greedy, complicit city council. These exposes should quicken people to pay attention to what their local leaders are doing, whether on the city council or the local school board.

Yet for the past few months, it appears that the Daily Breeze has spent more time needlessly upsetting local leaders, refusing to listen to them, or to honor their side of any story. Other complaints have centered on the paper's wider focus on LA issues, without extensive interest in South Bay matters.

Carson, California discussed boycotting the Daily Breeze because of its frequently "negative" reporting. When describing crime, one of the city councilmembers complained that the paper would deliberately describe the incidents occurring "near Carson", when the paper could have reported that the crimes occurred in Los Angeles, or near Torrance.

Does Carson have a crime problem? If it does, then the paper has a duty to report it. There have been a number of upsetting shenanigans taking place in the city, from the petty squabbles among city councilmembers (they would switch name placards on each other), to the recent hiring then firing of a city manager, all within one month. The city even toyed with passing an anti-bullying ordinance. Were the city leaders going to sue each other as soon as that ordinance was passed?

One source has informed me that city leaders in Torrance and Lomita do not want to speak with the current Daily Breeze journalist assigned to their cities. Another source had suggested that one South Bay mayor had threatened the paper's editors with a lawsuit if they did not back away from publishing certain stories? Libel and fraud is wrong, but when the paper is exposing incompetence or the misdeeds of local leaders, local readers should applaud.




South Bay, Los Angeles (Metro,net)

The question remains: How does any reporter balance writing the truth about government without alienating key contacts?

As long as the local press is doing its job, following tips and leads, reporting the facts of a story, considering the different sides of an issue, then the paper's stock and esteem will not diminish for local readers.

Still, any reporter who insists on repeating old conflicts, or republishes tired accounts of past mistakes, is not going to gain credibility, increase readership, or engage the public to hold South Bay government officials accountable. Newspaper editors and publishers must exude impartiality, integrity, and honesty in their stories. Some recent columns in the Daily Breeze, however, have left the impression that there are personal differences setting off conflicts among editors and local government officials.

The local press cannot operate on a "We v. They" model. The truth  may require reporting many sides, yet no story can be credible if incredibly one-sided, focusing only on bringing out the worst without resorting to key first sources, eyewitnesses, records, and accounts. Hopefully, the strained animus between city officials and the local paper will dissolve where needed, and South Bay residents will learn more of the good, as well as do something about the bad, in their city governments.

Torrance: Electric Cars and CCA?

The next Torrance city council meeting (January 27th, 2015) will be busy with consent items and appropriations. Two issues stood out for me: electric car charging stations and Community Choice Aggregation.

First, the discussion about the charging stations, all detailed in Planning and Development item 10 A:

10.	PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

 

10A.	Community Development - Award contract for the development of publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Expenditure: $491,624.

Recommendation of the Community Development Director that City Council award a contract to ChargePoint, Incorporated of Campbell, CA for $468,213 with a 5% project contingency of $23,411 to provide, manage and maintain publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the City of Torrance (RFP B2014-30).

10A - STAFF REPORT (64 pages of data!)

10A - RFP B2014-30

Electric vehicles! Really? $491k for electric vehicle charging these vehicles? How many are there in the city? Is there any viable interest in investing in this stuff? The money comes from grants, but what cost will the city bear in the long run for these charging stations?

Why is the city investing in the electric cars? Where will these stations appear? What is the value of implementing these programs, as gas prices are plummeting and even the most ardent of electric car adherents still struggle with getting adequate mileage out of the vehicles? Besides, what about the long-term damage which these vehicles pose through their ongoing use of electricity, which is generated by. . .coal!

Electric cars and electric power for automobiles are driving up the costs of electricity and not helping with pollution.

I would like the city to reject Item 10A.

Electric Cars in Torrance?

Then there's the Community Choice Aggregation:

12B.	City Manager - Adopt RESOLUTION to support study of feasibility study of Community Choice Aggregation.

Recommendation of the City Manager that City Council adopt a RESOLUTION to participate in a non-binding study of feasibility of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) for the City of Torrance.

12B - STAFF REPORT

What is Community Choice Aggregation, anyway?

Community choice aggregation (CCA) is a state policy that enables local governments to aggregate electricity demand within their jurisdictions in order to procure alternative energy supplies while maintaining the existing electricity provider for transmission and distribution services.

There is a disturbing element of power-grab and limitation of local authority in this proposal:



One Design of CCA

Most CCAs are "opt-out" entities, meaning that the customer is by default part of the aggregation unless the customer opts-out. This opt-out arrangement has given community aggregation entities much higher participation rates than utility green power programs. The lowest participation rate for opt-out programs that offer a renewable energy component is around 75%20 compared to the highest participation rates in the low twenties for the most successful opt-in utility green power programs.

How many cities have rejected this proposal? According to one source, two South Bay cities turned down exploring CCA because it would be too expensive.

The San Diego Union-Tribune offered the following:

It’s called community choice aggregation, and it aims to provide ratepayers with cheaper, cleaner energy than our outdated, oversized utilities can provide.

 

It allows a region to buy electricity wholesale from independent sources and sell it to ratepayers as an alternative to the private utilities. The power is delivered to homes and businesses through the existing grid.

 

"An alternative to private markets." In other words, a public entity will be taking charge of the energy sources for the city. I have heard these arguments before, how the government would create choices for consumers. The result? Obamacare. The whole CCA sounds more insidious, not less.

 

According to the Torrance staff report, the city would enter into a joint powers agreement with other cities about energy uses and  needs. Right away, I have a problem with that, because these agreements can be very complicated matters and  created delays. I have already researched what SCROC is dealing with to maintain funding through its current JPA. This power arrangement is dead-on-arrival with me.

 

I spoke with one of the city council members, and I explained that the city is taking so much time looking into all these potential programs. We can be open-minded to so many things, but the city should spend more time on making it easier for homeowners and business owners to live their lives and expanding their operations. Business fees are a problem, and roads still need repair. The city should not be diverting city staff resources to assessing a feasibility study on alternative forms of energy.

 

I have spoke with members in other states, including Rhode Island,  where they have addressed Community Choice Aggregation. In the Ocean State, the program is called "RhodeMap RI". My contact Dexter Lieu and a number of citizens in the Ocean State have rejected the program, because the contractual obligations CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) force municipalities to conform with federal dictates, or face heavy lawsuits.

 

 

I would say that the city should vote against 12B.

 

All of this grant money usually comes with strings attached, and the city could face submitting to noxious federal regulations as well as cluttering up the city with these fanciful initiatives. Yet still key concerns are not getting addressed, like the well-being of the streets and public safety for the residents.

 

The City of Torrance needs to get off the Green agenda, and start focusing on saving the green, as in our taxpayer dollars, and start looking at proposals and reforms to restrain spending, invest in government efficiency, make homeownership less costly and more feasible, and give small businesses a break in building, hiring, advertising, and expansion.

Where Does State Senate President Kevin De Leon Live?

State Senator Kevin De Leon (Neon Tommy)

Newly installed State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon  (D- Los Angeles) takes over after the fractured and tumultuous tenure of Darrell Steinberg, who sat by and did little to nothing while not one, but four state senate Democrats were arrested, indicted, and convicted for public corruption felonies.


State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) was arrested then indicted for bribery and gun-running, all while he was pushing gun control. State senator Roderick Wright (D-Inglewood) was placed on paid leave, even though he had already been convicted of perjury and voter fraud, reporting his legal address as within his district (required by law to serve in the state senate), yet he was living outside of the district. He was convicted, and ultimately removed from office, and served all of . . .one hour in jail.

Hmmp!

 Recently,  De Leon has removed the Senate Oversight Office. Where does he live? In Wonderland, where there are no rules, no accountability, and no one watching?

There have been further allegations of pay-for-play corruption connected with the Los Angeles politician.

He faced a strong challenge from a reform-minded Democrat in 2014, but he was reelected.

Kevin De Leon has wasted no time flaunting his new power in the state senate, either, as well as stumbling along the way:

Take, for example, his remarks to Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton in June about beginning the bullet train project in the San Joaquin Valley.

“I don’t think it makes sense to lay down track in the middle of nowhere,” de León told Skelton. “It’s illogical. No one lives out there in the tumbleweeds.”

How about killing the "crazy train" outright? Then he threw a massive party, with big money from Big Business:

Did de León learn a lesson about being more cognizant in word and deed? Apparently not. In October, he staged an elaborate “inauguration” in downtown Los Angeles costing $50,000 – money donated to a Latino political fund by corporate interests – and earning him more bad press.

This guy is living it up, while most Californians are barely getting by. . . Where does State Senator De Leon live? In castles in the air, perhaps, but not in the down and gritty with the rest of California's mere mortals. Lately, rumors have been circulating that De Leon is also perpetrating voter fraud, claiming one address for voting (and election) purposes, but really living somewhere else (a la Roderick Wright).

One website lists the following: Despite being named 56 times in the FBI affidavit in the indictment of Senator Calderon, he appears to be hitting some of his own issues. DeLeon escaped prosecution for turning state’s evidence on Calderon, when he agreed to return $5,000 to the FBI which he knowingly took illegally.

From the website Buzzpro.com

Senator Kevin DeLeon is running in District 24. Rumor has it, that he has a 1 bedroom apartment which he neither visits nor resides in listed as his residence. We are unable to verify that he owns any residence in his district through traditional methods. Since this is not his full time residence he has no business representing people from within the district! In fact we feel confident any listed place he puts is simply for show. He is flaunting his new position of power yet again.

Pro Temp President Senator Darrell Steinberg admitted to knowing of similar corruption issues within the Senate, yet he did not speak out against the fraud. This level of complacency is criminal in my opinion. If any member of the legislature knows of  fraud and does not speak they are ex concessis.


So, where does De Leon live? In Downtown LA, or in ritzy Encino, far away from the people whom he is supposed to be representing? Whatever may be going on, whether Kevin De Leon is an arrogant lawmaker, or is arrogating to himself powers and privileges contrary to the rule of law, California residents, taxpayers, and community leaders need to start asking questions.

Does he live to serve his state and his constituents, or does he live to serve himself?

Call Senator De Leon's Office, and demand some answers for these disturbing choices. Where is the Oversight Office? Why does he have two different addresses? Do you live in our daily concerns or are you living only in the elite world of big Sacramento politics, ignoring the needs and concerns of your constituents and the state?

Where do you live, Senator De Leon?

Capitol Office:
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: (916) 651-4024
Fax: (916) 327-8817

District Office:
1808 W. Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: (213) 483-9300
Fax: (213) 483-9305

How Inhofe Schooled Whitehouse on Climate Change

US Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

US Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) returns as chairman of the US Senate Environmental Committee for the 114^th Congress. A vocal opponent of climate alarmism, the senior statesman, entering his eighth decade of life and third decade in Congress, outlined the unsettled science around global warming, or “climate change”. Leftist blog Think Progress mocked the newly-installed chairman for purportedly continuing to deny the obvious.

In light of what Chairman Inhofe recently accomplished, left-leaning global warming militants may rethink their snide attacks against serious policymakers, who dispute the seriousness of slightly increasing temperatures in limited cases around the word. Last week, during the Senate Amendment process for Senate Bill One, authorization of the Keystone Pipeline, Inhofe the “climate change denier” joined with polar opposite US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to cosponsor Amendment 29, which read as follows:

To express the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax.

Did the conservative Republican from Oklahoma finally buckle under the heat and drink the climate change koolaid? Not at all. In what NewsMax described as “Sen. Jim Inhofe Outfoxes Dems on Climate Change in Keystone Vote”, the Senator slyly removed the language from the amendment which identified climate change as a dangerous phenomenon created by man, and therefore they would have to do something about it.
Inhofe issued the following tweet on his co-sponsorship:

Senators - join me in voting YES on Whitehouse's amdmnt saying climate change is a hoax, bc it is. I'll address my vote in floor speech soon.

So, the amendment actually affirms that climate change is a hoax? What’s going on, Senator?

In his remarks on the floor of the US Senate, the Oklahoma representative explained:

Mr. President: The climate is changing. The climate has always changed, and will always be. There is archeological evidence of that. There’s Biblical evidence of that. There’s historic evidence of that. It will always change. The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful, that they can change climate. I ask for my colleagues to vote for the Whitehouse-Inhofe amendment.

 

Inhofe explains why climate change is a hoax

 

The Senate approved the Amendment, 98-1. Roger Wicker (R-MS) voted “Nay”, and Senator Reid was “necessarily absent” following a brutal slip and fall while jogging on the icy, cold Nevada streets.

After the vote, Inhofe took further efforts to explain his cosponsorship and vote. First, he denounced Cap-and-Trade, dressed up as a carbon tax to protect the environment, but in reality a Wall Street scam which will enrich the few at the expense of the many, while creating more pollution. He then cited the Wharton School, which denounced the carbon-reduction program, having figured that such a tax would cost the average American family $3,000 a year more in taxes.

He slammed the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He listed the numbers of scientists who called him to challenge global warming, or climate alarmism, including Richard Lindzen of MIT. He provided charts documenting long periods of fluctuation in the global climate. Where Inhofe presented facts, Whitehouse delivers rhetoric: “Time to Wake Up!” Zzzzz.

By the way, recent research confirms that conservatives are smarter in general, and more scientifically researched/well-read than their illiberal counterparts. Inhofe radiantly provided this point.

Inhofe addressed prior administrators (President Clinton, Vice President AL Gore), then referenced to the same medium, Time Magazine, followed by the weekly magazine’s frequent shift of position on climatic, climactic cataclysms: “The World is Freezing!” followed thirty years later by “The World is Warming Up!” From the science, to the scientific consensus, to opinions of local climatologists (including weather forecasters), Inhofe outlined the startling lack of agreement on the subject of climate change, and particularly whether the United States should care about it, or pass laws to control it.

 

US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Now, the fact that Inhofe faced the liberal Whitehouse’s argument head on is commendable. Analyzing this political power play further, Republicans in Congress, and conservatives in general, can adopt and expand their game to other issues. Consider the following: Why are we talking about climate change instead of global warming? The hazy language of the Left has permitted climate change alarmists to push their reasoned opponents into a corner. Anyone who says “I don’t believe in climate change” is evidently wrong, precisely because the climate is changing. Yet liberal politicians looking to enshrine the bureaucratic dream of carbon control have subverted the terms to refer to catastrophic global distortions.

Like Inhofe, conservatives can subvert Leftist rhetoric, restore the words’ proper meaning, and deflate the entire argument. “Of course I believe in climate change. Why are you worried about it?” Carry this political logic to abortion. “I support a woman’s right to choose, and many of them choose to support reasonable restrictions on abortion.” What about gun control? “I support gun control. Let’s keep them out of the criminals’ hands!” Equal pay for equal work? Duh!

While Whitehouse pretended to have gained the upper hand, Republican Senate staffers mocked the Democrats for wasting the chamber’s time. The political climate is changing on climate change, and savvy Senate conservatives like Inhofe are winning.

Underreported Accuracy in Reporting: Santa Barbara News-Press

On January 3rd, 2015the Santa Barbara News-Press reported the following on the front page:

“Illegals Line Up for Driver’s Licenses” followed by the opening paragraph:

Many illegal aliens stood in line Friday at California Department of Motor Vehicles offices across the state to apply for driver's licenses.

Yes, individuals who are living in this country illegally are illegal immigrants, or aliens. One local activists corrected me, and told me immigrants by definition must be legal resident. There is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant".

The Los Angeles Times offered their own (limited, biased) assessment. First of all, the LA Times provided a background on the destructive influence of political correctness on local reporting:

Those terms ["illegal" and "illegal alien"] were criticized as offensive and eventually gave way to "illegal immigrant," a label that itself was jettisoned by most outlets two years ago, when the Associated Press banned the term from its stylebook in favor of language that more precisely describes a person's immigration status.

So, the Associated Press has dissociated itself from accuracy in reporting? Is it any surprise that American readers hold the mainstream media in such low esteem?

Then The Times added:

The News-Press, which began in 1855, has experienced diminished goodwill in the community since 2006, when reporters and editors began departing en masse, citing editorial meddling from billionaire owner and publisher Wendy McCaw.

What does this background have to do with the present protests at the newspaper building?

Other disturbing statements should have readers alarmed. . .about the lack of analysis from the LA Times:



Cathy Murillo

"I respect their right to free speech," said City Councilwoman Cathy Murillo, who attended the pro-immigrant rally, "but they don't have to be hateful. It's like the 'N-word' for blacks."

Excuse me? Who is the one making this about race? Illegal is illegal, regardless of skin color. Apparently, councilwoman Murillo is not aware of migrant farmworker advocate Cesar Chavez, who denounced illegal aliens taking jobs. There is no sense whatsoever to the racist smears coming from Councilwoman Murillo. Is anyone in Santa Barbara planning on recalling her or challenging her in the next election?

 I commend the courage of the Santa Barbara News-Press for printing the obvious. So did "We the People Rising":

"They should be allowed to decide the type of language they want to use," said Robin Hvidston, executive director of We the People Rising. "They have a right to use that word. Where do you stop?"


Freedom of speech and the press are crucial to a free society. The attacks on the SBNP need more press. Who will speak out against this vandalism? Immigration activists and (very likely) the illegal immigrants themselves protested the comments, and even attacked the newspaper's headquarters. Breitbart reported on the issue at length. Here is the picture of the graffiti:

Illegal Alien Activist "Speech": Vandalism

Are these graffiti remarks worthy of a response? This illegal protest in defense of illegal aliens is indefensible, both in word and in deed. As uninformed and foolish as Murillo's race card, borders are the essence of legality. Mexico has a secure Southern border, so much so that national guard troops shoot at illegal aliens trying to enter that country. Yet Mexican officials chastise the United States about its push for tougher border security.


In the midst of the heavy-handed slurs, property damage, and personal attacks, The News-Press publisher, Arthur von Weisenberger, published the following statement:

We will not give in to the thugs who are attempting to use political correctness as a tool of censorship and a weapon to shut down this newspaper.

I am proud that at least one paper has the courage to report the truth, and not flinch from bearing up against the unsound political correctness of California's liberal chattering classes.

The paper's statement on the matter is also noteworthy:

It has been the practice for nearly 10 years at the Santa Barbara News-Press to describe people living in this country illegally as “illegals” regardless of their country of origin. This practice is under fire by some immigration groups who believe that this term is demeaning and does not accurately reflect the status of “undocumented immigrants,” one of several terms other media use to describe people in the Unites States illegally…It is an appropriate term in describing someone as “illegal” if they are in this country illegally.

Despite the negative reporting from the Los Angeles Times, and the false, immoral arguments from the amoral promoters of illegal immigration, I hope that more Californians read, respect, and even promote the Santa Barbara News-Press in the future, one of the most underreported papers in the state of California which is actually reporting the news accurately.

Elections Have Consequences, Ma'am!

Twice in the last week, I have heard conservatives utter the following phrase:

"Elections have consequences."

Who first made this statement? US Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who thankfully will be retiring in 2016.

When did she say it? In 2007, when she took over the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee from conservative Republican James Inhofe. CNN reported that the hearing was a "heated exchange" over former US Senator Al Gore's statements on global warming. Senator Boxer's arrogant bravado was on full display that day, in front of the Washington Press Corps and Congressional staffers. Even the CNN anchor felt flustered and embarrassed.

Fast forward eight years, and now Chairman Inhofe had the last laugh. Boxer began the first EPW meeting of the 114th Congress:

See this gavel. The last time it got transferred was eight years ago, and I had to fight Inhofe for it.

Not really. Senator Inhofe simply never stopped fighting for the voters of Oklahoma, and for the growing number of Americans fed up with the climate alarmist rhetoric.

And this time, I have to say, Jim, you and I are friends.

Now Boxer wants to play nice. She might as well, since she will not be sitting in the US Senate for much longer.

And if I was going to hand this gavel over to anyone, I am very happy that it's you. So, I'm going to hand that gavel over to you. And when you recognize me, I have some gifts for you.

Inhofe graciously responded:

Well let's do this. Let's start by bringing us to order. I'll just go ahead and recognize you. . By the way, I remember the statement that she said that got everyone's attention: "Elections have consequences. And I have the gavel" Now I have a picture of that. And it looks like she's about to hit me with that on the head.

Boxer:

Well, I have no intention of doing that.

Senator Boxer giving Chairman Inhofe gifts

She then announced that she was glad that Chairman Inhofe had reminded everyone of that gleeful statement she had made, then presented the newly reinstalled Chairman with a  T-Shirt, which read "Elections have consequences" with a gavel rapping on a woodblock.

Next, she presented Inhofe a yellow truck for his grandchildren, to represent the thousands of jobs which the US Senate could help create with infrastructure funding.

Then she gave the Chairman a toy Prius: "a very clean car", so that while Congress focused on building roads, the air does not get dirty. Inhofe responded:

That's why I use CNG in my car, which is now in Oklahoma more expensive than regular gasoline.

Rather than allowing Boxer to pontificate while giving gifts, Inhofe challenged the basic notion that "clean energy" is a worthwhile investment. All of the gifts were political posturing as well as a friendly exchange, but the Oklahoma Senator was good-humored about the whole display.

Senator Boxer ate her own words that day, but today (January 25, 2015), George Will also quipped "Elections have consequences".

Indeed. Americans are hoping for change, and they voted for it in widespread numbers. Republicans gained an unprecedented nine seats in the US Senate, removing five incumbent Democrats. The House GOP increased their numbers by double digits, exceeding even their own expectations.

PJNews labeled Boxer a US Senator who "did nothing much". Her claims to fame have been dishonoring the CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce, waving large bills around the US Senate, and the most disgraceful display of self-promotion, when she ordered a Brigadier General to address her as "Senator."

Now that she has been demoted to ranking member, and she will be retiring in 2016, what else can we say?

Elections have consequences, Ma'am!

The Abortive Renee Ellmers

Pro-Life Ribbon

This week, I was getting minute by minute reports from an Alabama conservative reporting on the House passage of HR 7, which would defend the unborn by defunding Planned Parenthood, barring taxpayer funds for abortions.

This welcome passage coincides with the 42nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a disastrous legal decision which took the power of life and liberty away from the mother, the unborn child, in many instances the father, and the fostering of local communities. Liberal and conservative jurists have blasted that decision, arguing against its poor legal logic and its one-size-fits-all judicial activism.

After later reports, I learned that the House conference wanted to pass a bill to ban abortions after twenty weeks, except in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Yet the bill was pulled at the last minute, sending fearful shockwaves throughout the conservative blogosphere and right-wing intelligentsia.

One of the most alarming headlines read:

Why Everyone Should Be Terrified By The GOP’s Abortion Bill Debacle

While the article highlights the last-minute pulling of this bill, the overreaction beating out in the hyperventilated rhetoric needs some tempering.

First of all, Democrats have been the minority in the House since 2010, having lost their majority after only two election cycles. Their forced passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act forced out sixty Democrats. In case anyone has been paying attention, the Democrats have their leanest minority caucus since the 1930s. Add to that the 70% of state legislatures controlled by Republicans, plus the comprehensive gerrymandering after the 2010 shellacking, and Republicans are pretty much destined to hold the House Majority well into the next decade.

Second of all, Democrats as a brief majority party were hardly the model of partisan unity. Cap and Trade passed by the slimmest of margins in 2009, then died in the supermajority Democratic US Senate. Two dozen Democrats defected and voted against the ACA in 2010, and after that, minority leader Nancy Pelosi witnessed her caucus disappear, dwindle into insignificance, or defect to the Republicans on key issues. During the 2013 government shutdown, Democrats began voting with Republicans to repeal key portions of the offensive Obamacare, as well as fund the government piecemeal. Even “Crazy Black Lady” Maxine Waters has had to play nice with conservatives.

 The diminishing mainstream media will scream with preening vanity every time Republicans make a mistake. This time, however, the countermedia and local conservatives are pushing aside this biased narrative. Take a deep breath, everyone: the myth of a fractured and vastly incompetent GOP caucus is greatly exaggerated. No need to think of a happy place. We are already in one.

Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC)

However, what caused an otherwise near-certain bill to get pulled at the last minute? Tony Perkins of the Family Research indicted two key Republican lawmakers, Renee Ellmers and Jackie Walorski (R-Indiana), both into their third terms in Congress, and both starting to fray on key issues. Both had supported the full provisions of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act  (PCUCP) in 2013, but reneged on their support this time. Congresswoman Ellmers (R-NC) was already wobbling on this bill, and threatened to take with her key votes for passage. Wanting to present a clear veneer of unity, Republican leaders pulled the bill.

The fault, dear readers, lies not with House Leaders. Ellmers and Co. aborted a popular abortion restriction bill because of concerns about the reporting requirements for an individual mother who seeks an abortion because of rape or incest. Yet they had supported the same bill two years ago, with that provision included.

Time to panic? Soaring elephants now tripping on their trunks? No way.

First, the House GOP conference will have another chance to pass PCUCP. Second, the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act unites even fiscally conservative yet socially liberal types, since no one with any fiscal restraint would support funding abortions with taxpayer dollars. Want to kill a baby? Do it with your money, not mine.

Third, the stronger, conservative tone of Washington is making it easier to identify then remove the Republican squishes who have weakened their colleagues' hand on certain causes. Ellmers has proven to be an unwelcome, and now unnecessary thorn in the Republican conference, and the conservative cause. She has relentlessly pressed for immigration "reform", as well as caving on the life issue. She backed away from backing North Carolina's gay marriage ban. About her female colleagues  Ellmers quipped:

We need our male colleagues to understand that if you can bring it down to a woman’s level and what everything that she is balancing in her life – that’s the way to go.

In other words: "Women are too stupid to understand all that complicated man-talk". Really?

Renee Ellmers: The Female Eric Cantor

This "abortion fiasco" strengthens Republicans as they abort unhelpful members. Ellmers is the female Eric Cantor: pro-Establishment, anti-conservative base, pro-amnesty, and unwelcome. She faced fierce primary challenges from the right in two election cycles, and in her latest reelection, she faced off against the hapless, laughable self-parody Clay Aiken. In 2016, she will no doubt get thrown out in the face of a unified opposition.

Sudden Developments in SD 7 Special Election

California State Senate District Seven

Mark Meuser, a small business advocate and attorney from Walnut Creek, the purported Republican candidate for Special Election State Senate District 7, announced through an e-blast to supporters that he would not be running for the March 17 special election.

 

Mark Meuser

 

I had contacted Meuser late last year. A former chief of staff for a Missouri Republican legislator along with diverse careers in business and law, toward the end of the previous year, Meuser announced his views and plans on winning the to-be-announced special election. Providing information about the race, and his prospects of another upset in the traditionally Democratic East Bay stronghold, He related about his contacts with local party chairs in the region, specifically Alameda and Contra Costa counties. He had raised a significant amount, but refused to release specifics about  his campaign warchest.

Meuser's chances for victory were hardly negligible, according to local and state political analysts. In the 2014 election, Republican attorney Catharine Baker scored a stunning upset in Assembly District 16, defeating an Establishment Democrat in the general election. During the primary, she had faced off against three Democrats. Governor Brown had endorsed  labor-reform candidate Stephen Glazer, who lost. Glazer then supported Republican Baker, who carried the district by three points.

 

Assemblywoman Catharine Baker

 

Her ground game would have served as a launching platform for the Meuser campaign.

The special election for Senate District 7 opened up following the resignation of Senator Mark DeSaulnier, who had defeated Meuser in 2012. After liberal Democratic Congressman George Miller declared hisintentions to retire, DeSaulnier announced his campaign to replace Miller in the 11th Congressional District.

Meuser's announcement not to run coincides with the filing deadline for the race. Following a phone inquiry, Meuser affirmed that he had not filed papers for the seat. He repeated the contents of his eblast, printed below:

After much deliberation. Today I had to make a very difficult decision not to run for the special election for state senate.

 I really appreciated all the supporters who had worked so hard over the last several months. Running for the special election was going to be like running a marathon at a sprinters pace. It was going to be very difficult and a wise man counts the cost before they build a wall lest they get half way through and discover that they do not have the resources to finish. A close examination of how this election was shaping up revealed that the odds of winning were growing to almost impossible.

Many thanks to all those who were encouraging me to run. I really enjoyed campaigning around the district talking to people and hearing the problems that bad government has created. However, more important was learning about the creative solutions on how we could fix California problems. Nonetheless, this race was just not shaping up to be the right opportunity for me.

This development is a stunning departure in the wake of Republican victories throughout the state and the country, with growing momentum for further Republican victories in State Senate Districts 21 (Palmdale) and 37 (Orange County). One Bay Area activist commented that the contents of the email seemed very self-centered, as he was not informed until today (January 23, 2015).

Another report released earlier by the Contra Costa Times announced the following slate of candidates for the 7^th State Senate District election on March 17^th:

The special election to succeed him [DeSaulnier] has long been expected to feature Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, and former Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, both of whom filed before the deadline Friday.

 

Joan Buchanan (left) and Steve Glazer (right)

Susan Bonilla

 

But Glazer, who ran unsuccessfully last year to replace Buchanan in the Assembly, was not expected to run this time. Glazer is a long-time political adviser to Gov. Jerry Brown and a more politically centrist Democrat than Buchanan and Bonilla.



Michaela Hertle

Republican Michaela Hertle of Pleasanton and Democrat Terry Kremin of Concord also filed. The five candidates will appear on the ballot in a primary election scheduled for March 17. A runoff between the top two finishers is scheduled for May 19.

Terry Kremin

One Republican and four Democrats will be running to replace Mark DeSaulnier. Inquiries to Republican Michaela Hertle were not answered.