Galloway In Wonderland. With Cute Shoes.

Sometimes you have to wonder just how dumb some of our politicians really are. One of the problems is that they actually start to believe the campaign bullshit they peddle out to the electorate and begin to take themselves so seriously that they don’t even know when they’re being played. Even by a famous satirical comedy “news” program.

Here’s a vastly entertaining clip from The Daily Show, with the ever irreverent Jon Stewart. Enjoy the sanctimony, confusion and ultimate horror on the face of Anaheim’s own teen queen, Lorri Galloway. When I first saw it I coughed up an old chew toy. Keep from laughing. I dare ya!

And that, Friends, is what happens when you combine vast ambition and profound brainlessness.

Norby Demands That Sidhu Stop the Fraud

Well, let me tell you. I came this close to telling the truth...

Harry Sidhu has been playing campaign website musical chairs and it had finally started to get noticed. But not in a good way. You see, Sidhu has his personal website to which he directs readers of his ghostwritten newsletters, and it includes a collection of endorsements that he got, presumably, from any of his many previous runs for public office. But it doesn’t say that.

We first reported on the situation, here. Tucked into the upper right hand corner is a link to Sidhu’s Supervisor campaign website.

We have learned that our State Assemblyman, Chris Norby has just sent Harry Sidhu an email demanding that Sidhu remove Norby’s name from the list that intentionally misleads people into believing that Norby – as well as a host of Orange County politicos – is endorsing Harry Sidhu for 4th District Supervisor.

Chris Norby has not endorsed Harry Sidhu for the 4th District Supervisors seat. Norby has endorsed Fullerton councilman Shawn Nelson for the job he once held.

Visitors to our site are well aware that Sidhu has proven that it doesn’t bother him to fool his constituents. in fact, his first act as a candidate to represent us was to lie about his “residence” in the seedy Calabria Apartments – right next to the Linbrook Billiard hall.

Sidhu has a big problem with the truth. Let’s see if he ever cleans up his website misdirection.

High Speed Rail Boondoggle Splashed With Cold Water

According to a Sunday Los Angeles Times story, here, the high speed rail (HSR) project, every big-government lover’s answer to all our problems, is starting to receive more unwelcome scrutiny lately. Skyrocketing projected costs and ticket prices, federal subsidy guarantee requirements, incomprehensible ridership projections, and property takings that include, apparently, some part of Buena Park’s Metrolink Station or the adjacent residential development are causing folks to take a harder look at this fiasco in the making.

Things have gotten so bad that even lefty Long Beach State Senator Alan Lowenthal is upset.

HSR should be a source of great alarm to everyone in north Orange County, both in terms of its cost to the taxpayers, the damage that it will do to established communities, and also because so many clueless but ambitious politicians like Harry Sidhu and Lorri Galloway are using it as a mantra to solve unemployment woes in California, and in particular Orange County.

When and if this monstrosity is ever built, the jobs will go to giant out of town engineering firms. Most of the construction workers will be imported from the Inland Empire and Los Angeles County – just like they are on every public works project. The only local recipients of reliable employment benefit will be the lobbyists like Anaheim’s outgoing mayor, Curt Pringle and his ilk who are promoting this giant money sucking vortex in their own interest.

And just watch as the onerous environmental laws that the rest of us have to live by are waived for the politicos pet project.

The Truth About Matthew Cunningham

A Friend pointed out something that bears mentioning for those of us that have some sense of ethics but may be naïve when it comes to blogs and how some operate.

Did you know that Matthew Cunningham has another website besides the oh-so Mauve County?  It’s Pacific-Strategies where he brags about “employing innovative social media strategies to advance your message and create community” and “influencing opinion leaders through via both new and tradional media”.  Nice typo’s Matt.  Clearly he is the superior communicator!  I’m not too sure what this clown is trying to say with this: “successfully guiding your projecting throuygh the government approval process” and “providing seasoned counsel to ensure your message is taken seriously by opinion leaders ad key decision-makers”.  It is hard to take anyone seriously that brags about communication and swaying public opinion when the author can’t even complete a sentence.  A wordsmith he is not but maybe a word-butcher.  Just imagine a game of scrabble with him.

Ah, but now Matt’s “strategies” at Mauve County are clear!  He gets to be a paid consultant (I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually give him a dime) via one company, Pacific-Strategies, while he attempts in vain to sway public opinion on his Mauve site by “employing” those innovative social media strategies.  I speculate that those strategies include but are not limited to the hiring of extra bloggers to post pro threads for Cunningham’s paid cause and then the twerp has these same extras jump in and lob personal attacks to discredit any opposition or support for their paid cause. “We’re experienced with effective strategies for favorably influencing elected leaders, government officials, and community and opinion leaders—building coalitions and mobilizing opinion in support of your goals, and neutralizing critics.”(http://www.pacific-strategies.com/collaboration/)  So his job is to NEUTRALIZE CRITICS!  If you pay him some money or do him a favor, he will NEUTRALIZE critics.  Is he talking about offing someone?  Bumping someone off?  Or just a shotgun approach for attacking anyone with a different opinion, especially one supported by facts?

After reading these carefully crafted words from Matthew Cunningham own website, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind just how Red County operates under his direction and the truth behind Matthew Cunningham slanderous lies.  He is completely void of any moral or ethical foundation which a normal person might be grounded in.  In his own words, Cunningham says “More and more people get more and more of their information from new media such as blogs, Twitter and FaceBook, and your organization needs to engage them in those arenas. Properly used, new media tools powerfully enhance your organization’s ability to not only communicate with your target audience, but build trust and community.”  Building trust through outright lies and deception is usually called FRAUD. That is particularly bad when your own mission statement reads: “Red County strives to provide intelligent, well-informed insights into local political issues affecting the lives of readers in each market we serve. In striving to support the ideals of limited government and individual liberty, Red County will hold the mirror up to Republicans and Democrats alike.”  Clearly, there is no mirror in the arsenal at Fraud County.

And as if that wasn’t bad enough!  Anyone with their own website, including FFFF, can determine visitor’s internet provider address much the same way we use caller ID.  If you are a genuine visitor and you leave genuine comments, no problem…unless of course you are on Cunningham’s web site.  Bloggers on Blogspot.com don’t normally have that level of access, so no need to worry about posting on those sites.  The real concern should come when a commentator dishes out insider information on a government agency and the head of that agency has the blogger in his back pocket.  Then the blogger gets to out the commentator.  It is not ethical to throw a genuine whistle-blower under the bus but we are not talking about an ethical person, now are we.   It is reminiscent of the reports of Cunningham outing of sex abuse victims.  I don’t know if Cunningham was actually paid to out anyone, but the content of his other website begs the question.

There are a lot of talented people reading this who are much smarter than me and I encourage you to do some digging yourself.  After I did my own digging into this, I realized just how biased I have become against Red County and several of their resident (generally newer) bloggers.  Therefore, it is imperative that you check for yourself.  I’m no great sleuth like the other FFFF’ers but if we can shed a little light up this dark hole, all the better.

I would love to know the names of anyone who has ever contributed a penny to Pacific-Strategies and follow that paper trail.

The Tom Daly Experience. The Longer You Look, The Worse It Gets

Just keep saying "fiscal conservative."

UPDATE: FYI, our document request only extended back to 2005.  Any retainer payments to GFR in 2004 are not included in the spreadsheet, below.

– GC

Yesterday we reported on the dubious contract between Tom Daly’s County Clerk office and a Republican PR man and campaign agent, Brett Barbre, that put a cool $48,000 in Barbre’s pocket, and produced no evident accomplishment. We also learned that Mr. B was not only a political supporter of Daly, but a big contributor, too – to the tune of one thousand bucks.

Today’s revelation is just as startling. Starting in the summer 2004 Daly made an agreement with an operation called Government Finance Research from Rocklin, CA, and it’s principle consultant, Peter A. Lauwerys, for a retainer deal that would cost the County $1695 per month, each and every month with special projects billed separately. Consider the implications: over twenty grand a year to some sort of research firm in order to do….well, nothing.

In the documents provided to us through our request for “all activity status reports” and “lists of work completed,” we have identified two principal GRS project proposals: one was to do a “push” survey to support Daly’s desire to expand his empire by opening satellite offices. The survey project as outlined in a September 2004 proposal would cost $16,200. Apparently that project was not finished per the original contract because in January 2005 Mr. Lauwerys proposed a nine-week extension that would cost the County another $14,000 – a whopping 86% increase. The survey was finally produced in April 2005 – a meager twenty-two page double-spaced report, including tables, plus photos and appendices.

One year and twelve more retainer payments later, in June, 2006 Lauwerys submitted a second proposal: $15,800 to “prepare and complete” the California County Recorder Association’s Statistical Report for 2006, a job that Daly apparently decided to take over from the County of Riverside. Why the County of Orange and not the Association paid for this “report” is unknown.

Finally in November, 2007 and another year and a half of retainer payments later, GFR did some sort of analysis of the benefits of “outsourcing” data entry clerks and found a savings. We do not know if Daly implemented the recommendation contained therein.

Since then two more years of monthly retainer payments have been made by the taxpayers of Orange County to the lucky boys at GFR.

The County’s invoice and billing records pertaining to GFR appear to be incomplete and somewhat confused. But one thing is perfectly clear: GFR has been receiving a monthly retainer of $1700 a month for over five years, and counting. The latest check was cut on January 15, 2010, so presumably the GFR spigot has not been turned off. Not yet, anyway.

The total payout to this operation to date has been $113,810, including the 2006 California Recorders Association project. But the billing for the original satellite office survey contract and its extension in 2004 and early 2005 seems not to have been included in the material that we received; that total was $30,200, as proposed.

Of course we question the utility of these projects as even necessary; Daly’s die-hard devotees would probably disagree. However what appears to be incontrovertible is the evidence of a complete and frivolous waste of public funds in the retainer payout to a Sacramento area firm to essentially do nothing – for over five years.

As with the Barbre contract we ask: what was the consultant selection process? Was this a no-bid arrangement? What are GFR’s unique qualifications that justify a retainer agreement, and for that matter, what are the Clerk/Recorder’s needs that justify it?

Maybe one of Daly’s supporters who have been pitching his fiscal conservatism can help us out here.

Chris Norby Supports Profanity!

At least that’s what Ackerman, Inc, would no doubt be saying about our recently elected State Assemblyman Chris Norby if their opinion mattered anymore. We just said it in a cheap attempt to grab your attention to read this post.

Will they wash his mouth out with soap?

What happened was that yesterday one of our typical idiot Assemblymen proposed a resolution declaring next week “anti-cursing week” (or something of the like).

To his credit, Norby stood up and denounced the measure as a complete waste of time in a state that is fiscally and managerially bereft. Apparently fellow legislator Sam Blakeslee from SLO joined Chris in making a statement about the state of the State; and a statement about the state of the State Assembly and all those stupid “_____ Week” resolutions they just love to pass.

A Little Posturing for a Parcel Tax in Fullerton?

This video is from the South Pasadena School District.  Fullerton School District Superintendent Mitch Hovey felt that this was a good enough example of how a school district could “send a message to Sacramento” to present it at the FSD School Board meeting the other night.  Enjoy the manipulation of children by the same mindless fools who put our current legislature in office.  You should have seen the FSD employees and most of the board members smiling and bopping their heads to the music.

Incidentally, South Pasadena passed a $120/year parcel tax last year.  

Come join the Revolution, Matt

After my piece here last week defending Shawn Nelson and the noble profession of defense attorney, I was criticized on Red County by Matt Cunningham, who runs that Web site. I could respond point by point, but there’s no use in doing that.

Instead, I’ve just been thinking how sorry I am that he, and so many over at Red County, are not joining what I call the Third Conservative Revolution. There’s still time, boys, to jump on board.

The First Conservative Revolution was, of course, Barry Goldwater’s run in 1964 against the ogre LBJ. Barry campaigned for sharply cutting government and restoring the Constitution.

I still remembering voting for Barry in my 4th grade class when I was nine, in those mock elections schools have. I was reflecting my parents’ views, of course. My late mother once told me how much her father, my grandfather, loathed FDR and his socialist New Deal. So I guess conservatism is in my blood.

The Second Conservative Revolution was the Reagan Revolution. I was in the U.S. Army for the first part, but by 1982 I had been honorably discharged and was in Washington, D.C. First I was assistant editor of “Conservative Digest,” then editor of “The American Sentinal,” then editorial page editor at “The Washinton Times” – all conservative publications. We worked to win the Cold War, sharply cut government and restore the Constitution.

To quote Wordsworth: “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!”

I’ll bet that’s the feeling the youngsters are getting nowadays as they back Ron Paul.

Alas, both previous revolutions were hampered by conservatives, including me, supporting a strong military during the Cold War. It was hard to cut budgets and deficits with defense spending so high.

But then the Berlin Wall fell and there was no reason for any conservative to oppose large defense cuts. During the Cold War, tradeoffs were made: “Back a strong military and we’ll fund your favorite domestic programs.” That no longer was needed.

Unfortunately, Reagan didn’t have a third term. Instead, we got George H.W. Bush, who promised, “Read my lips! No new Taxes!” – then, once in office, raised taxes. The economy crashed and we got Clinton.

In 1996, Republicans nominated Bob Dole, whom conservatives long had dubbed “the tax collector for the welfare state” for his obsession with raising taxes, such as the the “waitress tax” that took money from the gals’ tips. What a cad. Clinton won again.

In both 1992 and 1996, Pat Buchanan raised a stir in the GOP primaries, even winning the New Hampshire primary in 1996 with his calls for large cuts in spending and taxing, and for bring American troops home. It was a kind of proto-Ron Paul Revolution.

In 2000, Republicans nominated George W. Bush, with his promise of a “humble” foreign policy and limited government. Well, like his father, he gave us the opposite of what he solemnly pledged. Enough said on that.

Obama promised “Change you can believe in,” but we got no change from Bush.

So no wonder people are upset, especially young folks who are doing the dying in the pointless Bush-Obama wars and will spend the rest of their lives paying off the Bush-Obama war debts, domestic debts, and bailout debts.

Enter the Third Conservative Revolution. It’s a combination of the Ron Paul Revolution of recent years and the recent Tea Party excitement.

There’s always an affection between the very young and the very old. That’s why the avuncular Ron Paul, at 75, is a hit with the kids. He’s also authentic, as the existentialists used to say. There’s no guile in him. WYSYWIG – what you see is what you get. Unlike most Republican supporters of the Bush-Obama wars, who never served in the military — such as Dick “Five Deferments” Cheney — Ron Paul was a flight surgeon in U.S. Air Force.

So, it’s not surprising that, at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Ron Paul won a straw poll, with 31% of the vote. In second place, at 22%, was the socialist Mitt Romney, whose Mittcare has proved a complete disaster in Massachusetts, but is the model for the Obamacare that Republicans now oppose (rightly).

Ron Paul is the future of the Republican Party — if it wants a future. More important, his ideas are surging just when we need them to saved America from Bush-Obama socialism.

Which brings me to Shawn Nelson’s candidacy for O.C. Supervisor. It’s also part of this Third Conservative Revolution. He’s an authentic, tested conservative who has voted against waste and dumb programs while on the city council in Fullerton. He’s endorsed by the man he wants to succeed, former supervisor and new Assemblyman Chris Norby, who also has a strong record of voting against waste and protecting taxpayers.

The next four years on the Board of Supervisors are going to be the most trying since the bankruptcy 15 years ago. It could even be worse, as back then the state and national economies were in a strong recovery and could pull O.C. out of its problems. Today, the federal and state economies are not recovering, precisely because Ron Paul’s policies – sound money, tax cuts, spending cuts, restoring the Constitution – are not being heeded.

I’ll leave the last words to The Bard, in this YouTube of “The Times They Are A’Changin’.” It’s good advice for anybody not yet ready to “lend your hand” to the Ron Paul Revolution and the Shawn Nelson campaign:

There’s a battle outside
And it is ragin’.
It’ll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlUSwcuY29I&feature=player_embedded

John Seiler, an editorial writer with The Orange County Register for 19 years, is a reporter and analyst for CalWatchDog.com. His email: writejohnseiler@gmail.com.

Will Fullerton Cash in on DUI Checkpoints?

California Watch released a report last week suggesting that DUI checkpoints in many California cities are focused on revenue generation via vehicle impounds rather than stopping drunk drivers. OC Register data shows that checkpoints in some OC cities stop relatively few drunk drivers, but do cash in on massive impound fees through revenue-sharing agreements with local impound yards. Most of the impounds come from unlicensed drivers, not DUI arrests.

We couldn’t help but notice that Fullerton PD is ready to pitch the creation of it’s own impound yard to the city council in the coming weeks. Revenue generation is the motive.

Papers Please

Coincidentally, the city has planned six DUI checkpoints in Fullerton through the end of summer.

So what’s the problem?

First, the report states that many cities are ignoring case law that would prevent them from making many of the current non-DUI related impounds. The article quotes Fullerton attorney Martin J. Mayer of the law firm Jones & Mayer, who has warned law enforcement agencies statewide that this could become a big legal problem.

Second, many contend that DUI checkpoints are a violation of the fourth amendment – the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Checkpoints stop dozens of innocent drivers in order to catch a single DUI offender. Unfortunately courts have ruled that protecting citizens from drunk drivers gives the state a compelling interest to ignore the 4th amendment.

But what happens when the courts find out that DUI checkpoints aren’t really about stopping drunk drivers, but rather impounding vehicles for cash?

Each thirty day impound generates $1,000 to $4,000 in tow and storage charges

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in Fullerton. The curious timing of the California Watch story, Fullerton PD’s impound lot proposal and the ramped-up DUI checkpoints does make one wonder if there is more to this story.