Fallout from Monday's GOP debate - Amador asks for investigation

There has been a lot of buzz since Monday's GOP debate about candidate Robert Beadles' assertions that the January 4 raid on his home and business (RBI, a construction safety company) was politically motivated. Beadles also alluded during the debate that one of the other candidates has hired illegal aliens and cheated on taxes, though that wasn't reported in the papers.

Today's Stockton Record has an article "Probe of raid urged" which reports that another candidate, former US Marshal Tony Amador, sent a letter to California Attorney General Jerry Brown asking him to investigate the allegation by Beadles that the raid was politically motivated in an attempt to intimidate Beadles and discourage or dissuade him from running for office. I'd post a link here to the Record article, but they've gone to a "pay wall" format this week so you wouldn't be able to read it unless you have a subscription.

On Beadles' official campaign website, he has a copy of what basically is a press release sent out the morning of the raid from his competitor's office (Farwest Safety) notifying Brad Goehring, Jerry McNerny, the Contractors State License Board and every newspaper in the area of the raid. Also on Beadles' website is a signed statement by one of his employees recounting a phone call he received from an employee of Farwest Safety while the raid was in progress. The timing of the phone call and the press release are suspicious, as if Farwest Safety knew in advance that Beadles' business was going to be searched.

A few weeks ago, Contra Costa Times political editor Lisa Vorderbrueggen uncovered information that a campaign consultant for Brad Goehring had been anonymously bashing three of the other candidates, including Beadles and Amador, on a conservative political blog. When he was confronted, the consultant David Creager admitted it and said he didn't realize it was a conflict of interest. You can read the entire article here.

In a statement to The Record, another consultant for Goehring, Carl Fogliani, said that the Goehring campaign had nothing to do with the search of RBI and called the accusation "delusional." Sheriff Steve Moore, whose office headed up the investigation of the complaint against Beadles, has endorsed Goehring as a candidate but claimed he had no idea that Beadles was also a candidate until a briefing on the raid on January 4.

Keep an eye on this story, it might have "legs." There is nothing new about political opponents trashing each other's reputations.... we all witnessed the vicious campaign against Lathrop Mayor Kristy Sayles in 2008. This campaign seems even more vicious if the accusations by Beadles against Goehring turn out to be true and even more disturbing if it involves the sheriff's department.

Justice for Jeremy walk

Group marching from SJ Co. Jail to Lathrop on 12 Sep 09 to protest or bring awareness to Jeremy Lum. Total distance about 6 miles. Some made the walk without shoes to simulate the conditions Jeremy found himself.

Manteca Pumpkin Fair

 

Here’s an early look at the Manteca Pumpkin Fair.  I got there early this year and got lots of free trinkets!  And talked to a few of the political movers and shakers.

GOP needs to return to its roots

I attended the South San Joaquin Republicans meeting at Chez Shari Restaurant in Manteca a couple of weeks ago. I should have written something about it sooner, because it's becoming a dim memory but I'm not a winter person. Cold, dreary, dark days make me want to hibernate until spring comes and this meeting didn't raise my spirits any. I've been to a few of the SSJR meetings in the past and there's usually a pretty good turnout but this one seemed sparsely attended. Maybe all the Republicans were depressed over Obama's win.

I'm a registered Republican though I feel like an outsider at GOP functions. I'm on the libertarian side of conservatism and have been totally disillusioned with the Republicans for a long time. The party of "smaller government" has become almost indistinguishable from the Democrats. Both spend taxpayer money on an ever expanding insatiable government and there's no end in sight. Freedom is an endangered species in the United States with both sides favoring taking away rights. There are two major issues that polarize both parties and are the only real areas where the parties differ: Gay marriage and abortion. Two areas that government should not be involved in at all because both are moral and religious issues.

Frank Aquila, president of the SSJR, puts a lot of work into organizing these meetings and is a good soldier for the party. He had quite a line-up of guests for this month's meeting, but some bailed on him and no-showed, including newly elected state assemblyman Bill Berryhill who sent a young aide to fill in to thank volunteers who worked on GOP campaigns in 2008. Most of the speakers spouted the party line about Bush's "war on terror," no gay marriage and no abortion and how successful they'd been in putting out "our values" and that we must never stop, blah, blah, blah, blah. I zone out and start wondering when it will ever end.

One young man, Adam Ellison of Pacific College Republicans, spoke about his efforts at UOP to register Republicans and crusade against gay marriage. He recounted fun college antics of tearing each others Prop 8 posters down and seemed fixated on gay marriage as if that was the only thing Republicans care about. If he really wants to make a difference and entice young people to consider voting Republican, he should focus on things like smaller government, less taxes and less government intrusion into our lives. By focusing on gay marriage and abortion, the GOP is seen as the party of repressiveness and religious zealotry and drives away more young people than it attracts.

I was impressed by two speakers, former congressman Richard Pombo (whom I've heard speak before) and newly elected Stockton councilman Dale Fritchen. Neither talked about abortion or gay marriage though "values" may have been mentioned once. Pombo, who was defeated by Jerry McNerny two years ago, talked about how important it is to get out and meet the people in your district and how that made a difference in getting him elected to office when he was young and unknown. He had good advice for anyone thinking about running for public office. Fritchen spoke about what the party really stands for and offered quiet strength and inspiration to continue on despite the losses. I wish him luck in what has to be a tough job...representing south Stockton, one of the poorest areas of the city and the county.

The SSJR is planning "A Tribute to our Gold Star Families" on May 15, 2009 with a special dinner honoring families who have lost a loved one in the war. If you're interested in attending, you can contact Frank Aquila by email at mantecarepublicans@yahoo.com

Blueprint for tyranny

A lot of "planning" goes on in California.
The latest round of "planning" for San Joaquin County is organized by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (COG) using a $2 million grant from the federal government. The general idea is that they are supposed to use the money to organize a program of "finding out what people want" with regard to "planning."


One should always be a little wary when the government spends a lot of money to "involve" you in some plan, or their plan. If history is any guide, whenever the government funds a plan to gauge public opinion, the answers always seem to be what the government experts wanted in the first place.

Now we are getting a chance to witness this first-hand. The COG is organizing a series of public meetings or "workshops" to, presumably, find out what people "want."

I got to attend one of these workshops in Lathrop.


It starts out with a presentation from the expert about the scary growth. He then suggests that it's up to "us" to determine "what to do about it."

Maybe this was a quirk, but I found it interesting that of all the persons at our table, only ONE (1) was someone who lived in the community. Others were City Councilmen, former city councilmen, planning commissioners, real estate brokers, someone in the building trades. I introduced myself as someone interested in the process, which is the truth, but I didn't live in Lathrop either! The facilitator seemed perfectly happy with the group mix, and even invited me to be sure to come to workshop in Manteca! (The Manteca workshop is Wednesday, Mar 21, at 6:30 pm at the Manteca Public Library -- you should go!)

Next, after breaking up into small groups led by a COG "facilitator" we get the chance to express "what we want." We're presented with seven areas of interest, and have to pick the five most important. For example, things like "housing" or "water" or "transportation." This, presumably, tells us what we think is important.

However, note that what we are really choosing is which of the five topics presented by them is most important. This is different than what the people think is important. For example, no where on that list of "things you think are most important" did anything like "freedom" or "property rights" or "abuse of eminent domain" or "abuse of redevelopment" appear. Those, apparently, aren't options the people are allowed to think about or choose.

After choosing the five "most important" issues (as determined by them), next we were to choose what to do about them.

The way this exercise worked is that everyone is given a stack of colored cards, about the size of playing cards. For each of the issues that they, I mean we, determined were important, you then have to pick one of four cards, indicating "what you want to do about it."

For example, lets say the topic is "water." You have to pick one of the four pre-selected options for how to deal with the "water problems." And here's the interesting thing. The cards have bar graphs on them indicating how much governmental interference you would prefer. They are ranked one to four, with one being the least regulation and four being the most regulation. The cards were also coded with playing card suits, that is, clubs, diamond, spade and hearts. Although the reason for the suits is unclear.

One person was a little confused by the process. I half-jokingly suggested that the four cards represent "the Republican, Democrat, Green Party and the Communist Workers' Party, take your pick."

This is the point -- in every case, the "lowest level of regulation" was the current level of regulation. And it went up from there. Level 2 was "a little more regulation," level 3 was "a moderate amount of regulation," and if you picked the fourth card, you were choosing "heavy regulation." So, I ask, where is the choice for less regulation? What kind of answer do you expect to get when the lowest level you can choose is the current regulations? Where is the voice of those who want less regulation?

Maybe that's sacrilege to them. The possibility that someone would blame the current regulation for some of our problems apparently either never occurred to any of the government facilitators or, that's just not an answer they want to hear.

Overall, our groups seemed to center around "level 3." You can tell this because the selected cards are handed in and put on a board, they form what looks like a bar graph on the board. Given the limited choices and various other ways that each option was presented (I haven't gone into details here) that is what we are being told that we want. It is interesting that that process doesn't just involve getting input from the public. Information was going both ways, we were not only being told what we want, but also being told "see, this what all your neighbors want too!"

So quit arguing!