Religion, Politics, Culture: Defined & Explained
§ Website Viewing
Places to visit.
- 1970's Jesus Music
- AM & FM Radio via Web
- Black Irish Band
- Cosumnes Republican Assembly
- Covenant Presbyterian Church
- Drudge Report
- Israel & Mid-East
- Marine Aquarist Roundtable (MARS)
- Paedo Baptism
- Reef Central MARS Forum
- Reformed Episcopal Church
- Right On Daily
- SciFi Channel News
- Walter Martin InfoNet
- Windows Phone Blog
- World Net Daily
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Adobe Acrobat Error 0:104 Fixed
Here’s what I learned at work today.
PC Configuration and Problem Symptoms
PC with Acrobat and Acrobat Reader both installed; Acrobat older version than Reader. In my case Acrobat 9 and Reader 11.
Employee has PDF form that is supposed to be filled-out automatically in web browser. In my instance it was a deposit form from State Treasurer website. When trying to generate deposit slip with numbers from the website, employee gets this error message:
There is a problem with Adobe Acrobat/Reader.
It is running, please exit and try again. (0:104)
It took three hours but the fix is easy. It is in two parts.
1. Registry Edit
a.Run Regedit as Admin
b.Navigate to HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Software\Adobe\Acrobat\Exe
d.From “C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Acrobat 9.0\Acrobat\Adobe.exe” to “C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Reader11.0\Reader\AdoRD32.exe”
2. Acrobat Reader
a.Open Acrobat Reader
b.Go to Edit > Preferences > Security (Enhanced)
c.Click on Host button
d.Enter website address where form data is coming from (copy and paste from web browser)
Step 1 changes default only for opening documents in web browser from Acrobat to Acrobat Reader. You do not need to change file associations in Control Panel. Step 2 should get rid of security prompt when opening PDF populated with data in the web browser othwise you may need to refresh the page.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Obama betray America again; this time in Biblical proportions
This headline on Fox News today, “U.S. Navy admiral says he’s open to idea of giving Chinese Navy tour of carrier” illustrates what is wrong with our nation on so many levels.
King Solomon said, “There is nothing new under the sun”
This action by the admiral reminds me of something that is reported in the Bible over 2,500 years ago. Take a look at this passage from 2 Kings 20: 13 – 19
And Hezekiah hearkened unto them, and shewed them all the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not.
Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee?
And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country, even from Babylon.
And he said , What have they seen in thine house?
And Hezekiah answered, All the things that are in mine house have they seen : there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them.
And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD. Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget , shall they take away ; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.
Then said Hezekiah unto Isaiah, Good is the word of the LORD which thou hast spoken. And he said, Is it not good, if peace and truth be in my days?
Remember that this act of betraying his people was done by one of the few “good” kings of Israel. Just image our end when such betrayal is perpetrated by an evil ruler like Obama. Oh, some skeptics might think it unfair to hang the admiral’s actions on Obama but I can assure you there is no way this carrier tour happens without Presidential approval.
Friday, July 04, 2014
CRA: Elephant Without Memory II
Here is an update.
As I mentioned in my last blog, some local CRA chapters are enjoying the “hunting license” granted to them by the State Board thanks to the precedent set by granting the Santa Clarita chapter the power to purge undesirable members; i.e. those folks that are concurrently members in the Conservative Republicans of California organization.
Word is that the president of the Anaheim RA has rejected 22 members or applicants for new membership based on the Santa Clarita decision. Please note that Anaheim never even amended their bylaws, their president just made a unilateral decision. The Anaheim president conveniently takes this action just weeks before officer elections. He needs to be sure he keeps his job as president; perhaps his new title should be Fuhrer or Czar.
Lest you think this purge is limited to CRC members and other malcontents in southern California. Word is that the head of the San Joaquin RA is weighing his options to remove angry Libertarians from his midst. You may know these angry Libertarians better by their self-identification as Tea Party members.
These purges are in direct contradiction to other parts of local and statewide bylaws but now that the Board let the proverbial genie out of the bottle who will put a stop to this idiocy?
The CRA President—John Briscoe—condoned the committee vote to allow such arbitrary decision making. He was on the conference call when the vote was taken. As you may recall, the committee recommended to the State Board that the Santa Clarita bylaws change be permitted by a four to one vote.
Where was our beloved parliamentarian when all this was going on? Answer: present and very silent.
Like Barbara Alby, Celeste Greg and others I have witnessed in my years in and around CRA, playing by the rules is not a sure bet. Any way to put your thumb on the scales is fair game. They only know power politics. Too bad all these self-identified Christians never read their Bible. I challenge you to look up all the biblical verses on fair scales and measurements. The Bible says “God hates” those that purposely stack the deck in their favor to gain advantage over others. CRA thinks they are God’s gift to the Republican Party and the State of California and yet their actions dishonor their Lord.
CRA has made a terrible decision and most of their leadership is oblivious to the implications of their vote. Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun. The irony that the draconian bylaws written by Markham Robinson and Ed Hernandez for Yolo County RA back in the 1990’s are now the rules of the whole statewide organization is too rich to ignore. Another irony is that both had Tom Hudson’s blessing.
CRA needs to hold an emergency vote to stay their previous decision until it can be discussed at their next Board meeting. Failure to do so will just be one more reason for conservative folks to register as Decline-to State.
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
CRA: The Elephant Without a Memory
Last Saturday, the California Republican Assembly put on a display of incongruity so amazing, I’m struggling with how to describe the hypocrisy and irony that made the meeting such a disaster.
The train wreck of expediency over principle concerns the Conservative Republicans of California group founded by Karen England, Steve Frank and others ejected from CRA. Please understand that CRC is basically a paper organization with fewer than five active chapters in a state of almost 40 million residents. Think of the United States versus Granada in a military conflict. (Oh we did that once already.) How a group with no members in the room can cause such an irrational and emotional response in a CRA Board meeting was amazing to witness.
The first place CRC raised its hydra like head was when Aaron Park made a motion to unilaterally forgive Mark Pruner and another political operative—Mark Spannagel—from the remainder of their five and ten year banishments from CRA. Aaron’s reason was to get in good with some elected officials like Doug Lamalfa. It was argued that this unilateral act of charity would be a way of putting the unpleasantness of the mass membership purge of 2011 behind CRA and show that the group—under the leadership of John Briscoe—is interested in looking forward. It was admitted during debate that neither Pruner nor Spannagel had asked for forgiveness of past misdeeds or expressed any interest to again be involved with CRA. When the motion came to a vote, it failed by a wide margin.
Then CRC was brought up again under the report presented by Carl Brickey. It seems the Santa Clarita RA had a bylaw amendment that needed Board approval. Below is the text of their revision of membership.
Section 2. Qualifications. Regular membership of the Assembly shall be limited to those American citizens of good moral character who: 1) are registered to vote as members of the Republican Party; 2) are otherwise eligible to be CRA members, 3) do not belong to another CRA unit and 4) do not belong to the organization currently known as the Conservative Republicans of California at a state or local level.
(Bold items are changes to existing language)
When Brickey presented this item of the report, not a single person in the room asked why the committee recommendation was four to one to approve and not unanimous like all the other items before his committee.
I got up and said that both CRA and CRC are chartered by the California Republican Party and thus we have no right to tell another equally chartered group they were not welcomed in CRA. I said this is wrong and we literally have no right to approve a bylaw that is contrary to our charter. How we feel about CRC is not this issue. In effect, I argued principle—as I always do.
Others—including the Park brothers—saw no problem with this bylaw change. These are the same guys that 45 minutes before we arguing for forgiveness of Pruner and Spannagel in order to put the past behind us and now they are OK with banning CRC members? Others of the CRA brain trust said that this was a local issue and if that’s what this local chapter wants then they are OK with this amendment because the CRA Statewide Board is not making this the policy of CRA as a whole. OK so why was the Statewide Board voting on this then? The amendment was approved with three NO votes including mine.
This raises so many questions.
• First, the fact that this came before the Board means that the Statewide CRA organization has made it the policy that any chapter can reject members based on other affiliations that members may have. These words come to mind, “Have you now or ever been in the past a communist?”
• Second, CRA has no access or right to access CRC membership lists so how do they know who is a member of that group? Ironically, CRC is based on the very same principals as CRA just different leadership.
• Third, under the current Bylaws of CRA, this rule does not affect current CRA members, only those wishing to join in the future. Thus, this sell-out of principle—if applied in accordance with the rest of the CRA Bylaws—will do nothing to help eject the eight members in Santa Clarita that are a thorn in their side. Santa Clarita has over 150 members and can’t abide a few angry folks?
• Fourth, any members of Santa Clarita that are ejected have the right under the Statewide Bylaws to appeal the decision to the State Board.
Later in the meeting, Aaron Park made a pitch that CRA should consider Director’s and Officer’s Liability Insurance. This was just the cherry on top. Park votes to create a litigious situation for the CRA Board and then offers to sell them insurance in case anybody takes them to court for acting stupidly.
CRA deserved to be sued in 2011 and they deserve it today for this stupid and ill-advised vote.
OH, and just to prove they really did open Pandora’s Box, by Monday, CRA leadership had been contacted by several other chapters wanting exclusionary language added to their Bylaws to trim the unwanted from their ranks.
Way to grow CRA… sorry fellows but I expected more.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Doug Ose Shifts Abortion Views
Saturday, I got the opportunity to asked former congressman and current congressional candidate Doug Ose a serious campaign question. The answer, while somewhat evasive, was still important.
While attending Second Amendment Saturday, organizer and regional CRA vice-president, Carl Brickey, arranged for a pro-forma endorsement vote for two competitive congressional districts. The endorsement was just to ratify the results of the election a few weeks ago.
First, San Joaquin candidate, Tony Amador was endorsed. Tony let us know that he was not happy that he did not get endorsed for the June election. I’ll take credit for that since I spoke most vociferously against his perpetual candidacy every two years at the last endorsement vote.
Next was Doug Ose. In his last foray into Congress, Ose was adamantly “pro-choice” and a darling in the eyes of Planned Parenthood. He also was part of the liberal Republican group claiming to be a “Main Street Republican.” Ose has also claimed to be a proud supporter of business. His rehetoric has been fiscally conservative and socially liberal. In his current incarnation as a candidate, he has claimed to be a “conservative.”
Given these facts, I asked him what I thought was an important question. It came out something like this:
“In the past, you have a record of being pro-choice. As part of Obamacare, the government is mandating that all businesses must provide abortion services even when they object to this as being contrary to their beliefs, do you agree with this?”
Ose responded that “I would repeal all of Obamacare.”
Then I said, “I mean like Hobby Lobby.”
He then said, “The Court hasn’t ruled on that yet. As I said, I will repeal Obamacare.” Then he added, “Actually, I’m pro-life once the baby reaches viability.”
Wow! Ose has moved on the issue! Maybe not where we think he should be but at least he is not defending legal abortion thru all nine months of the pregnancy.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
A Sterling Week for Race Relations
Donald Sterling is in the news this week for private comments made regarding his feeling about some folks that are a different race. The conversation was recorded without his permission. The release of the recording is a violation of California law but nobody cares.
The race baiters and self-appointed PC police in and out of the media have condemned Sterling and pressured the NBA to ban him for life. As the owner of an NBA team, Sterling has the right to run his business but cannot do so in person? Really?
Why is it that words are so offensive but actions are excused? Professional athletes have murdered, raped, robbed, attacked fans, and done other acts and these folks aren’t banned for life. Yeah, Pete Rose placed a few bets on games and was banned but he is the rare exception. Michael Vick, O.J. Simpson, Tiger Woods, Ron Artest, Barry Bonds, Oscar Pistorius risked civil punishment but their sports didn’t rush to judgment and ban them for life—at least not that I can recall.
John Rocker, Jimmy “The Greek’ Snyder, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Sterling, Don Imus and a host of others have paid a price for their words. Men like these have lost businesses, paid fines and lost jobs and been castigated by the liberal media for statements that were declared racist. Snyder was canned for making a comment on a well-documented historical fact that some slave owners bred slaves to be good manual laborers. Limbaugh has lost sponsors on more than one occasion for stating his feelings on the news of the day. He also was not allowed to be part of an ownership group seeking to purchase an NFL team. Rocker said some folks in New York are freaks. I still haven’t heard what Sterling said that have everyone so up in arms.
I think people have the right to say what they want—whether I agree with them or not. The people mentioned above are all white; nonetheless, my problem is with the hypocrisy that Blacks or Hispanics or people in other groups somehow cannot be racists. Why is the myth perpetrated that only whites are or can be racist. Why can’t Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan be called racists also? Why do they get a pass?
Lest you think I’m reducing this to Black v White, what about California’s SCA-5? It pits Chinese and Asian Americans against the Hispanics. The “Latino” folks in the state capitol want to re-introduce race (and other categories) of discrimination into the California Constitution and barely a word of this ever appeared in the mainstream media.
I just wish the hypocrisy would cease. MLK was right when he referred to an America “where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” I think every year we are further from this ideal.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Amazon.com Music Cloud Album Confusion
I have been using the Amazon Cloud for music but it has shortcomings that apparently they don’t have any interest in fixing.
• The most obvious is that you can’t edit or reject the album cover that they wish to assign to your music. (See below for examples).
• Secondly, I can find no easy way to distinguish between music sources. Which songs did I buy from them and which did I upload myself?
• Lastly, whatever happened to matching music and letting me get a digital copy that would replace and LP that I ripped myself?
This English “boy band” was a big seller in Europe but this ripped CD clearly has the wrong cover.
Johnny Depp’s short lived singing career is mistaken for The Carpenters! Does Amazon think he looks more like Karen or Richard?
Rod Stewart is two or three decades after the folks listed on this album cover.
Sweet Comfort Band is not Foreigner. Again, this CD purchased in Canada somehow misses the mark.
While the Cornerstone article on Mike Warnke mentions his partying after shows, I don’t think Word ever had this as a draft cover for his comedy LPs.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Red Robin: Faulty Family Fare
I took the family to the local Red Robin restaurant yesterday for dinner. It is the first time in over a year that we have visited them. The experience was unsatisfactory.
We waited twenty minutes for a table—which is not that unusual—even when several tables were not in use. Our waitress was not very good. We never did get napkins or silverware brought to our table—even after food was served. I had to get up and walk over to the food prep area and get them from another employee. Later I had to go back to get mustard for the wife. The food was noticeable smaller portions than it used to be and was not prepared the same way. No attempt was made to garnish the plates or show pride in the food. Also, the “bottomless French fries” weren’t very bottomless when they never brought them out right away and kept the basket full. (Our teenager eats French fries by the handful.) Our $55 outing (for four) was disappointing. Pizza would have been cheaper.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
CNN’s Don Lemon Believes Millennium Movie Plot Happened
Holy Netflix Batman!!
Here’s proof CNN is crazier than MSNBC
Millennium is a movie released in 1989.
Here is the plot synopsis: An NTSB investigator seeking the cause of an airline disaster meets a warrior woman from 1000 years in the future.
Yeah, future babe travel thru a wormhole and steals bodies off a doomed commercial jetliner to save the human race in her time.
Tonight I found this story.
CNN’s Don Lemon: ‘Is It Preposterous’ to Think a Black Hole Caused Flight 370 to Go Missing?
CNN’s Don Lemon has been entertaining all sorts of theories about the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, including the chance something “supernatural” happened, but on Wednesday night, he actually asked panelists about the possibility a black hole was involved.
Lemon brought this up along with other “conspiracy theories” people have been floating on Twitter, including people noting the eerie parallels to Lost and The Twilight Zone, and wondered, “is it preposterous” to consider a black hole as a possibility?
Mary Schiavo, a former Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation, said, “A small black hole would suck in our entire universe, so we know it’s not that.”
Here’s another theory I’ll just throw out there: what about the plane entered a wormhole into another dimension? I don’t know if that’s how the science works, though.
Monday, March 17, 2014
CRA Board Dishes Out Blarney to Tom McClintock
The governing Board of the California Republican Assembly met on Saturday just because it was tradition to have a Board meeting concurrent with the convention of the California Republican Party. The tradition—which traces itself to the heyday of Barbara Alby—used to be for the purpose of plotting voting strategy for the Sunday morning General Session of CRP. Now however, CRA has too few troops to command at the CRP gathering and nothing of significance is allowed to get to the floor for a vote (since CRP is a top-down group run by its Board); thus holding this meeting just two weeks after the CRA Annual Convention had no real purpose.
On Saturday, just to fill time, a few candidates were allowed to speak to the CRA Board and a few more were hastily endorsed with no serious vetting. In between a few committee reports and assignments were dealt with—nothing that couldn’t be done by conference call or a few emails. Then, after over an hour of nonsense, the big event—Congressional District 4 finally was brought before the body.
In the agenda, it was listed as “Resolutions.” A resolution was introduced to thank Tom McClintock for voting right. Chairman John Briscoe felt this was reasonable and assured us that he had talked to Tom McClintock on three occasions about the CD-4 situation. Even though this resolution was clearly a slap at the CRA chapters within the McClintock district, it was passed overwhelmingly by the Board.
Then the CD-4 endorsement vote was brought up. The thinking seemed to be like this…”we papered over the mistake made by the local endorsing convention for slighting the Congressman by passing our resolution, and we didn’t actually undercut the local groups because we stopped short of using the words “support” or “endorse” in the resolution, and now we need to put this mess behind us.” Any effort to call a second endorsing convention in this race was killed. Several reasons were given but the one that mattered was the likelihood that a second endorsing convention would also yield no endorsement, thus bringing further disgrace on the CRA.
I find it disturbing that the CRA Board was so willing to undercut the decision of local chapters and still proclaim itself a grassroots organization. The four chapters involved were treated dismissively. Worst of all, a congressman that has done nothing to build the party in or around his district, comes away from the whole thing as untouchable. Power triumphs over principle once again.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Missing 777 Mystery
While it sounds like something from a Tom Clancy novel, Malaysia Airlines flight 370, a fully loaded Boeing 777 has been missing for about a week.
It is clear by now that it left the designated flight path.
No ransom claims have been issued.
No debris has been found.
No black boxes or transponders have broadcasted.
So what happened?
I think the passengers and crew are likely dead. But what of the aircraft itself? Is someone weaponizing it? I think the proper identification of the hijackers is crucial to identifying likely targets. What happens next could make 9/11 look like a picnic.
Is my idea a conspiracy or just a caution? I think we will know soon.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Tom Hudson: Buyer’s Remorse Over CD-4
Tom Hudson has “buyer’s remorse” (or a bad case of jelly spine) after the local endorsing convention that he helped organize failed to deliver an endorsement for Tom McClintock. The endorsing convention was held in conjunction with the annual convention of the California Republican Assembly in Buena Park.
The organizers of the Buena Park convention were the Placer County Republican Assembly. Yeah, I know Placer County is at least 350 miles away from the convention site but I’m just the messenger. Anyway, the Placer folks (including Hudson) wanted as many local endorsing conventions held at the convention as they could schedule. These votes were scheduled on the morning of Saturday March 1st; the first full day of the annual convention.
Some people like me went ballistic and said they wanted local endorsing conventions held in or near the district. Those that felt like me argued that candidates, delegates, rank & file CRA members and the public should be invited. It was a way to endorse candidates in an open and transparent process. In addition, the filing period was still open at the time the annual convention was held.
Lastly, the club I belong to had not voted to select any delegates for an endorsing convention—only delegates for the statewide convention. We planned to select endorsing convention delegates at the first meeting after the convention (which we did.) Traditionally, delegates to the annual convention have a large economic cost to attend while endorsing delegates can carpool to the event since it is held closer to home. In addition, the announcement for the endorsing conventions in Buena Park also said that participants had to pay the registration fee of $40 in order to vote. I also protested this as being a “pole tax”.
I went so far as to tell the folks from Placer that neither I nor any people from my club would participate in an endorsement vote for any contested election in an area where we had jurisdiction. Buena Park was simply too far and too soon to hold such a vote.
Those that protested were able to pull endorsements in their area off of the endorsement schedule. Most races in Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties were removed within days of the February 14th call for endorsement conventions.
Hudson gave his full throated support for endorsement votes at the Buena Park convention. I know he was aware of concerns raised by people like me. Then at the Buena Park convention, he was present at many of the endorsement votes that were held on Saturday morning. Before, during and for the rest of the convention, Hudson was OK with the process and its results; then on Monday—his first day back to his job with the State—he has a change of heart.!?
Clearly someone contacted him and pressured him for reconsideration. Hudson decided that what’s in the past—that he agreed with at the time—was suddenly invalid and he had called for a new endorsing convention to redo the vote. This call was revoked by CRA President John Briscoe.
So on March 11th, Hudson sent an email blast to the CRA Board. To me this was the key sentence:
It is my position that there has not been a valid CRA local endorsing convention in the Fourth Congressional District and we need to hold one right away so that we can endorse Tom McClintock for Congress.
Please note, he does not say this is now a contested race and I think we should take another look at CD-4 but he says the purpose is “so we can endorse Tom McClintock.” Why? Both Republicans in the race are conservative.
Hudson is the parliamentarian of the CRA Board and he often uses this position to obfuscate issues with voluminous amounts of nonsense that sound good at the time but upon further analysis are distorts or outright fabrications to get him to the outcome that he desires.
Besides the famous incident that I chronicled on this blog with him and the Yolo County Republican Assembly many years ago, the most recent example was ironically on the last day of the Buena Park convention. Hudson argued for a good ten minutes that local RA chapters were not required to maintain minutes of their meetings. He stated this was not required under the CRA’s Statewide Bylaws or under Robert’s Rules of Order. OK so why is Secretary a required officer?
After insulting our intelligence at the CRA meeting with that whopper, he has the stones to claim the Buena Park endorsement isn’t valid because he didn’t have minutes from that endorsing convention!
Talk about talking out of both sides!!
This might become a major focus of the CRA Board meeting on Saturday in Burlingame. What a colossal waste of time if that happens. Tom, your side (whatever that is) lost, get over it and move on.
I have more I could say about this but I will keep my powder dry…for now.
Friday, March 07, 2014
Tom McClintock Draws Republican Opponent
Art Moore to go toe-to-toe with McClintock.
Big winners the infamous Park Brothers-George & Aaron
Loser Igor Birman
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Tom McClintock Snubbed By CRA
Another piece of news out of the CRA convention was that Congressman Tom McClintock was denied an endorsement for re-election.
McClintock has a reputation for being an arch-conservative but he seems to never find time in his busy schedule to help anyone else in his Party get elected. Just ask Dan Lungren, Peter Tateishi, Jack Sieglock, and any other Republicans that have run in and around his district in recent years. Even when his chief of staff decides to run for office, McClintock can offer only symbolic support.
Furthermore, I have been told that his representative in the Placer County Republican Party (Central Committee) is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage—truly a reflection of his publicly stated views and values…NOT.
McClintock may be many things but the word “leader” is not one that he deserves. The people that he tends to surround himself with are reportedly difficult and do not always share conservative values. He also doesn’t play nicely with conservatives that live in his district. (During most of his time in office, McClintock has lived outside his district in Elk Grove.)
As a result of his “army of one” attitude and hostility toward conservatives, Placer CRA denied him the endorsement. Reportedly after the filing period closes, they will endorse him then since he will be the only Republican on the ballot.
Tom can give a good speech but he has little to show for his years of service. Like many, he is living off a reputation that he ceased to deserve many years ago. He is on the same path as Dan Lungren except he is not in a competitive district so he will be in Congress as long as he likes. I wish he would either lead or get out of the way.
Monday, March 03, 2014
Ling Ling Chang Stumbles on Life Issue
Over the week-end, I spent time at the annual convention of the California Republican Assembly.
The good news is that the convention was at Knott’s Berry Farm. The bad news is the park was closed due to weather. My family elected to “pay the mouse tax” as the Sith Lord calls a pilgrimage to Disney. My wife and two of the kids went to Downtown Disney to see The Lego Movie, eat lunch and shop. Meanwhile, daddy took a test for his on line accounting class and then went to the Saturday session of the convention.
Sunday saw my wife and kids get an early start and go to church while daddy attended the business meeting. Following this meeting was the first meeting of the newly elected Board. It is during the Board meeting that I saw something that was unusual and remarkable. I saw a candidate go from first to worst because of their position on abortion.
Under the CRA Bylaws, if there is no active club in a district—be it Assembly, Senate or Congressional—any endorsement in that race must be done by the State Board. One such race was the 55th Assembly District. In the race, three Republicans are actively campaigning: Ling Ling Chang, Phillip Chen and Steve Tye. Ling Ling had been working the group all week-end and even had a chance to speak during the Saturday Luncheon. Going into the endorsement proceedings she was the favorite. Phillip Chen was a distant second and the only question was could he get enough votes to prevent Ling Ling from receiving the require 2/3 vote needed for endorsement. Nobody had even heard of Steve Tye and I was surprised that he too was in the room.
Prior to the endorsement discussion I had met both Ling Ling and her husband. Both seemed like nice folks and I was planning to vote for her.
As the endorsement for AD 55 began, CRA President, John Briscoe started by introducing the man who was in charge of candidate surveys. Instead of going over all the questions, he said he would only go over the questions where the three candidates differed. Of these questions, the most glaring deficiency was that Ling Ling had left several life questions blank. This was a big yellow flag for the Board.
It was decided that candidates would go in alphabetical order (by last name) so Ling Ling was the first to address the group. She started by saying she was glad she was able to address the group and mentioned the prayer breakfast. After a few more comments, she then got to the blank questions on abortion. She stated that she was supportive of abortion for “the Reagan exceptions and the first few months”. Translation, she was for abortion in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother and during the first trimester. Then she was asked if she supported keeping the pro-life plank in the state party platform. Instead of saying yes, she said she would “support whatever the party wanted.”
First, I appreciate her honestly in answering the questions; but given her views why even try for our endorsement?
Phillip Chen then came up and said he was 100 percent prolife. He rolled-out his credentials that he was an evangelical Christian and loved God, country and family. Chen was then followed by Steve Tye who conducted himself well also.
After clarifying that No Endorsement would also be an allowable vote, the first of three ballots was conducted. On the first ballot, Ling Ling Chang got five votes, Tye got six, and Chen got about half. Many also voted not to endorse. As the person with the least number of votes, Ling Ling was then dropped from further consideration. Just like that, the perceived front runner was finished.
On the second ballot, Chen got 28, and the rest were divided between Tye and No Endorsement. On the third ballot, Chen got 29 votes because I changed from No Endorsement to Chen. This gave Phillip Chen the bare minimum needed for the CRA endorsement.
I was startled that my switch changed the proceedings from a deadlock to victory for Chen.
I did feel bad for Ling Ling. I felt she was just tone deaf to some issues that make conservatives passionate. (This opinion is due to the wording of a few other questions she answered in the candidate survey.) I am not saying that she had to agree with us or lie to get our endorsement, but she needed a more affirmative and confident answer. It could be that the issue hit too close to home and she did not want to speak about it publicly. If that’s the case, she needs our prayers.