Restore The GOP

2016 Republican Party of San Diego County Central Committee Endorsements

Here are my endorsements for the Republican Party of San Diego County Central Committee, for the June 2016 ballot.  This is a four-year term and the members make up the governing body of the local party organization.  My criteria for endorsement are pretty simple:

1- I eliminate anyone with a potential conflict of interest in the endorsements process.
2- I favor incumbents who have a good voting record.
3- I endorse a few "first timers" who are established GOP volunteers and use good judgement.

My first 'condition" has caused me to eliminate some really good people from the process, a few of which are close friends.  It's not personal.  I think those elected officials are already serving the Republican effort in San Diego well.  I seek to expand the effort by bringing more volunteers into the governing process.  Note that I did NOT file for election.  I intend to remain active as a fundraiser for the local effort and don't want that bias on the Committee.  In short, I am practicing what I preach.  I'll have plenty of influence with the Committee but my vote would be biased.

71st Assembly District (East County):

Eric Andersen
Frank Hilliker
Jim Kelly

All three are incumbents, each a volunteer, and I don't know enough about the rest of the field to offer an endorsement.

75th Assembly District (Northeast County)

Joe Bologna
Delores Chavez Harmes
Clare Plotner
Debbie Lenson
Regina Roberts

Lee DeMeo is a movement conservative but he serves on two regional boards, one of which presents a conflict with the RPSDC meetings.    Debbie Lenson is a new member to the Committee and is a hard working conservative.  Regina Roberts is a dedicated activist for the Second Amendment and important leader in the Republican Party.

76th Assembly District

Tia Ballard
John Buell
Gary Felien
Sandy Waecker
Dan Hughes
Judy Rees

All good choices.

77th Assembly District

Jeannie Foulkrod
Elliott Schroeder
Lynette Williams
Tony Krvaric
Richard Rider
Carl DeMaio

Krvaric is a superb chairman and, while he may not run for re-election for Chairman, he needs to be on the Committee.  Foulkrod is the current Secretary and a long-time volunteer.  Williams is one of the most dedicated  volunteers we have.  Schroeder and Rider are first-time candidates but were heavily involved in the Republican Liberty Caucus.  Richard Rider is a warrior for Liberty.  Carl DeMaio is a great choice.  If he ever runs for office, he should resign his Central Committee position; I have no doubt that he would do that

78th Assembly District

Taylor Bloom
Monica Fay
Waskah Whelan
Julio DeGuzman
Dan Holstein

I served on and chaired this District for two years.  Incumbents Fay, DeGuzman, and Holstein are independent thinkers with years of experience; they should be re-elected.  Whelan was the County Chair of the Republican Women's Federated and Taylor Bloom is a rising and important voice in the County.  Jean Roesch is a long time committee member but missed a lot of meetings; she would be a good sixth vote

79th Assembly District-- I can only endorse Martha Doiron; I don't know nor recommend the other candidates.

Why Republicans Need To Reverse Course on the "Security State"

One of the great gifts Senator Barry Goldwater gave the Republican Party was a restoration of the limited government movement.  His foreign policy views on containing the Soviet Union, as appropriate as they were for the time, opened the door for the neoconservative influence within the Republican Party. 

President Reagan, as strong a President as he was, couldn't achieve many of the reduction cuts he envisioned because of the neoconservatives in his Adminsitration.  Without a full-blown essay contrastting the original conservative school vs the neoconservative school, let me point out that neoconservatives don't share our views on the inherent danger of a growing federal government.  Neoconservatives are compromisers when it comes to the welfare and security state--they believe that a growing government is acceptable if you "just get the right guys to lead us"

Today, I hope to explain why original conservatives blanch when neoconservatives make those compromises for the security state and demonstrate how its creeping influence is turning against our conservative principles.

Case in Point:  The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA).

The NDAA did violence to the Constitution.  I understand the concept of, in times of war, liberties may have to be traded for security and, if the right people are in charge, we have nothing to worry about.  What original conservatives recognize is that laws are very hard to undo and regime change is inevitable.

The NDAA suspended habeas corpus.  It's domestic terrorist provisions allow for an American citizen to be detained indefinitely, without an executed warrant signed by an independent judge.  This is no problem is the "right people" are in office but, as original conservatives recognize, Man is fallible.  Power, in the hands of Men, corrupts.

Look at the case of Nancy Genovese.  Genovese was detained, had her charges ginned up to domestic terrorism (because the police discovered an unloaded rifle in her trunk during an illegal search), was denied counsel, and arraigned with excessive bail.  She was further drugged and  mishandled, and had a large amount of cash stolen from her. 

What was her crime?  She took a picture of a military helocioper for her  tea party group's "Support Our Troops" website.  Now you might wonder (a) why did she have a rifle and (b) what was she doing with all of that cash?  My answer to both of those questions are:  because she can.

The point is that the NDAA denies Americans their basic rights.  Terrorism charges can be brought based upn a preponderance of evidence rather than discovery of the facts as they are.  nancy Genovese is "one of the good guys" and yet, the cops and FBI took great delight in calling her a teabagger.

And I don't think the cops are the bad guys here either.  The laws are such that it rewards them to be overly suspicious, punishes them if they make routine judgement calls during police work, and encourages them to escalate each situation rather than to assess threats.

This is where original conservatives depart from the pervasive neoconservative wing (now a majority in the Republican Party).  We think our Constitution matters.  We think you do muchmore harm than good when you compromise the principles of individual liberties for security.  We recognized that no government can ever make you completely economically secure or completely safe.  The federal governments job is FIRST to secure our natural rights and that should never be compromised for economic security or the notion of physical safety.

Yesterday, a federal judge blocked the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA which is a victory for Liberty.  But the case wasn't inititated by elected officials, looking to defend the Constitution.  The case was brought by patriot activists, compelled to take legal action against the government for the violence the elected officials did to our Constitution.

Freshman Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) is leading the legislative fight against this bad law.  He joined with Adam Smith (D-WA) to propose an amendment to NDAA which forbids the indefinitie detention provision.  Prior to this court ruling, I had little hope it might pass.  Today, since public opnion with undoubtedly be swayed by the judge's decision, these Congressman will find it to be politically profitable to support the amendment.

Our Republican Congress overwhelmingly votes for these laws (PATRIOT Act, CISPA, NDAA) not because the threat is pervasive but because they risk vilification if something bad were to happen within our borders.  There is an incentive, in Congressional culture , and most alarmingly within the Republican Party culture, to "play it safe" and destroy liberty for what the State believes is security.

Thats not security, it's a cop out.  If our individual liberties are trampled upon, America is no more...and the terrorists will have won.  Our opportunity to be the party of prudence and reason is incredible; we just need a few good Republicans to lead the way.

 

When Country Club Republicans Reject New Republicans; Republican Candidates Lose

Why would an incumbent Republican Central Committee member, want to alienate a group of conservative activists, who registered 450 new Republicans last Friday night (and 15-20 new Republicans weekly)?

To wit, courtesy of the incumbent:

You need to face up to the realities the rest of us have had to face about what is most important about this election. There are no illusions about Romney here - I haven't heard one Romney supporter say they ARE A ROMNEY SUPPORTER - only that he is about A B O!

We do not have any candidates at the top yet that can be considered a REAL candidate that represents us. WE all will have to work to get those people up into the high levels of government whether as Governors - Senators, or House Reps - in order to field a viable candidate for President. We will NEVER be able to do that if we lose THIS election!

As for the insinuation that Ron Paul supporters somehow have cornered the market on "honor and politeness" I take offense. There is that arrogant/groupie delusion of grandeur that offends EVERYONE when it comes to dealing with Ron Paul supporters. Step off the pedestal - GET REAL - and stop wasting time that you, your country and your fellow citizens are rapidly running out of to DO SOMETHING TO STOP THIS TRAIN WRECK!

Well, there you go!  The problem is that constitutional Republicans are TOO passionate, about registering Republicans, whom can vote for endorsed local Republican candidates.  Of course, this is illogical thinking at best and an exhibition of insecurity at worst.  I've been involved in center-right political activism since I was in college and have found it best to build coalitions rather than to scare away enthisiastic new Republicans.

I'll admit that new activists can be overly enthusiastic in their advocacy but I'd rather have 500 people, voting for Comprehensive Pension Reform and conservative judges, than sitting the election out.  The incumbent's orthodoxy seems to be challenging her ability to work with Republican of all walks of life.  We used to call people like this "country club Republicans" in the Reagan years and we took great delight outhustling them.

The Republican Party has always been a big tent of ideas.  We welcomed the Goldwater conservatives, the Reagan Democrats, the evangelicals, the tea party activists, and we'll certainly profit from the influx of constitutionalists, whom Congressman Paul attracts.

Now...if we can just get the country club Republicans to stop obstructing us, we just might win some elections in California!

Electing Constitutional Judges: Jim Miller, Jr. For Seat 25

The most important job a Central Committee member can do is to promote good candidates.  I started doing that this election cycle.

Perhaps the most important jobs in our Republic is the Superior Court Judge.  This often overlooked ballot category affects all County resident at one time or another.  Superior Court judges rule in much more than criminal law.  Judges rule on civil matters (contracts, disputes, torts. etc),  family law  (divorce) and juvenile law (both criminal and welfare).

Jim Miller, Jr. is the only candidate, for Seat 25, who has experience in all areas of the law.  He is the head of a law firm, has experience as a private mediator and arbitrator, served as a Judge Pro-Tem, and is a recognized NFL agent.

Most importantly, Jim always refers to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land and articulates that he will look first to it, to guide his decisions.  Electing constitutional judges is the most important thing we can do to restore the Republic.

Last night, my wife and I co-hosted a fundraiser for Jim in Oceanside, with Rhonda Deniston .  Rhonda invited AZ State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of the existing Arizona immigration law.  Senator Pearce spoke about the challenges made to that law and voiced his support for constitutional judges like Jim.

While Oceanside is technically outside of the 78th Assembly District, a Superior Court judge is a county-wide position.  Strong Central Committee members will recruit, promote, raise campaign funds for, and volunteer for good candidiates like Jim,  I'm not waiting to get elected to Central Committee to start that process.  If you decide to elect me to serve you in that capacity, expect more judges like Jim Miller, Jr.

Senator Pearce and my family.

Jim Miller Jr. and Senator Russell Pearce

Liberty-Candidates.org Endorsement Questionnaire

I submitted a questionnaire to Liberty-Candidates.org.  Liberty-Candidates.org describes its mission as:

Liberty-Candidates.org is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization formed to assist voters in finding candidates who will uphold the standards of Liberty in coming elections.

Our goal is to prevent any more RINOs and/or Teo-Cons from being in charge of our money and our freedoms!  Our mission is in sync with Campaign for Liberty from whence the Liberty Candidate questions evolved:

• Individual Liberty
• Sound Money
• Free Market
• Constitutional Government
• Non-interventionist Foreign Policy

Vetted candidiates, running for office in California, are here:

My answers to the questions are italicized:

I) The U.S. Financial System:

1. What is your view of the monetary system in the U.S. today?

Our monetary system has been ruined by fiat currency.  An activist Federal Reserve Bank, operating way beyond its mandate, prints money, stealing money from poor and middle-class people to prop up a failed financial system.  The result will be a currency collapse and/or runaway inflation.

1. What corrective actions could we take right now to improve the economy?

Audit the Federal Reserve Bank.  Repeal legal tender laws.  Permit competing currencies.  Reduce spending to target funding only the legitimate federal government functions, outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Comstitution

1. Do you agree with the actions the Federal Reserve has taken to solve the financial crisis? If not, what could the Fed have done differently?

The Federal Reserve Bank could have acted as a "safe haven" for failed bank assets and auctioned off deposits, loan assets, and other assets to healthy financial institutions.  The Fed could have facilitated the speedy creation of new banks (to buy the surviving assets) by "fast-tracking" charters for newly-formed institutions.

1. Should the Federal Reserve be audited fully, no secrets, or does it need to keep some information under wraps?

A full audit is necessary with an eye towards shutting the Fed down.

II) Foreign Policy:

1. What is your opinion on current US foreign policy?

Our current foreign policy is an overreach and may be exposing us to new and unknown dangers.  We spend too much money abroad, have far too many foreign military installations, and are distorting the peace cause through our foreign aid.

1. How should we fight a “war on terror”?

We should be clear about our goals.  Eradicating terror is almost impossible but we can identify and target groups or individuals, who want to attack this nation, through the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal.  We can be clear with our allies about the size, scope, and expectations of our military actions in their lands, execute those plans with the the goal of limiting Amwerican lives, and come home rather than to try to nation-build.

1. Should the U.S. occupy other countries? If not, would you push to close all bases? Are there any you would keep open?

I'm never comfortable with the word "occupy" inasmuch as this country has never acted like an imperial conquerer.  Still, however noble our intentions, our continued presence in foreign lands have the unintended consequence of "choosing sides" with one group of foreigners, to the detriment of others in that foreign land.  I would be more comfortable with a worldwide naval presence, in all seven seas, and with a reach all over the globe.  I would seek to close the majority of our foreign basesexcept for certain strategic naval bases.

1. Should the U.S. maintain its standing army?

I think a professional military service is essential to a strong national defense in today's world.  Still, I think active-duty personnel could be reduced to essential patrol functions with an expanded National Guard and Ready Reserve.

1. Is the Patriot Act necessary to protect America? If not, would you vote to repeal it?

Absolutely not.  Warrantless searches are completely illegal and invasive.  I would seek to repeal the PATRIOT Act completely but might want to see an expanded judiciary, to examine and authorize the increased demand for previous PATRIOT Act activities.  Gathering information on American citizens should be only done with indisputable evidence, reviewed by an independent judge, that the citizen is engaged in subversive activities.

III) Personal Liberty:

1. What information may the U.S. government legally gather about its citizens? When would it be necessary to overstep those boundaries?

If an independent judge, is presented with evidence of reasonable suspicion of treason against the United States, and issues an appropriate warrant, the US Government should seek to gather as much evidence as possible to protect lawful citizens against the actions of the traitor.  When enough evidence is gathered, to try that traitor, an arrest should be made and the traitor should be charged.

Absent a properly executed warrant, the US Government should contain its infromation gathering to the limits of the constitution; the census of how many adults and children live in each household.

1. What limits, if any, should be placed on the U.S. government’s ability to search its citizens without a warrant?

I am a strict originalist and as such believe that the 4th Amendment is inviolable.  However, if a peace officer has clear and present knowledge, that  a crime is being committed, and another citizen's life or liberty is in danger, that peace officer should act upon that knowledge to protect against  the aggression towards that citizen.  These actions should be the rare exception rather than the rule.  Acting without a duly signed warrant should place an onerous burden of proof, through cross examination, on that peace officer to justify the extraordinary action.

1. Ought the U.S. government be allowed to protect its citizens’ health by outlawing foods it considers unsafe, or to force medicate (i.e., fluoridation) or force vaccinate citizens?

I believe that we own are own bodies.  Our rights come from God and we are made in His image and likeness We are responsible to ourselves and Him only about what we ingest.  Free citizens should be able to make their own health and nutrition decisions with the understand that with their rights comes responibilities.  Stated differently, the government is forbidden to make such determinations.

1. What controls, if any, should be placed on the right to own a gun? Is there an effective way to keep guns out of the hands of madmen and criminals without encroaching on the rights of free, law-abiding citizens?

The 2nd Amendment is quite clear that the government can place no restrictions upon how we defend ourselves.  Felons abdicate that right and restrictions can be imposed upon them.  Restricting the mentally ill from self-defense is trickly because, if society restrcits that right, it assumes the responsibility to protect the mentally ill.  These restrictions should be done on a case-by-case basis with an eye towards the burden, those who can't defend themselves, might place upon society.

IV) Re. U.S. Sovereignty:

1. Is our involvement in and subjugation to global organizations, such as WHO (World Health Organization), NATO, the UN, etc., a benefit to U.S. citizens?

I don't think so.  I think any benefits we might derive are outweighed by any liabilities our membership imposes upon us.  Free citizens can decide to support those organizations individually if they choose but, our government should not cede sovereignty to any other group.

1. Would you work to repeal international agreements that purport to hold U.S. citizens and/or property under its jurisdiction, or do you think there might be times when benefits outweigh concessions?

I would work to repeal those agreements.  Our sovereignty is of utmost importance.

1. Are trade agreements with other nations, i.e., NAFTA, CAFTA, good for U.S. citizens?

Any encouragement of free trade is good.  The release of any restrictions, for ALL, citizens to freely trade, are good ideas.  Free trade agreements which grant favored status to some, while inhibiting others from trading, is not a good idea.

1. Should the U.S. give foreign aid to other countries? If yes, for what purposes would it be justified? If not all countries, which would you continue to support?

I would support an elimination of all foreign aid, to all nations.  Free citizens can donate their time or money to any nation unless it is engaged in war, or acts of war, against this country.

V) Re. State Sovereignty:

1. When does state law take precedent over federal law?

When the federal government operates outside of its contitutionally-authorized functions, state law should not only supercede an attempt by the federal government to arrogate power,  residents of that state are duty bound to resist that tyranny through a process called nullification.  If there is ambiguity about the federal government's authority, the 10th Amendment makes it quite clear that that authority resides with the States and People.

1. Would you stand up to the federal government and demand that it stay within the bounds of its enumerated powers and out of state business?

Absolutely and I seek to find candidiates who understand the concept of federalism and the nullification process.

1. Do federal officers have the right to arrest non-military citizens within the individual states for any crimes?

I think it's reasonable to expect a federal office to make an arrest within the states when: 

(1) probable cause exists to believe that a public offense, which poses an immediate to another citizens is being committed AND/OR  (2) when incidental to the performance of their federal duties as specified by a duly-sworn warrant by an independent judge.

VI) Illegal Immigration:

1. What do you see as the #1 problem with illegal immigration?

The welfare state is the biggest magnet for illegal immigration.  Eliminating or reducing the size and reach of the welfare state would solve most of our immigration problems.  Crime from illegal immigrants can't be ignored as a problem and just convictions should result in immediate deportation.  Serial offenses should result in lifelong incarceration.

1. What actions could we take to stop illegal immigrants from taking advantage of social services?

Eliminate the government run social services.  Absent that, if emergency services are given to illegal immigrants, deportation should be done as soon as possible.  Serial offenses should result in lifelong incarceration.

VII) Misc. Questions:

1. If you could make one amendment to the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?

Repeal the 17th Amendment.  Popular election of senators eliminated the States' representatives in Congress, encouraged a culture which "brings homes the bacon" rather than protecting individuals' rights, and reduced the power of state legislatures.

1. Would you vote to end government subsidies to private industry?

Immediately.  There is no legal nor moral authority for government to subsidize new businesses, bailout bad businesses, or pick winners over losers.

1. What should our government’s action be against Julian Assange, if any?

Nothing as it stands right now.  If Assange hacked into private or public property, or aided by way of funding the hackers, he should be tried and convicted of theft.

1. Do you know what Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and the Communitarian agenda is?

I am familiar with UN Agenda 21 and its attempts to relocate, through master zoning and land-use planning, citizens to urban areas and from rural lands, to control the population.

1. Do you support it? Why or why not?

I absolutely oppose Agenda 21.  This is a centralized planning scheme which violates the very American principle of private property rights.  The fact that it is being implemented, by local NGOs, at the behest of an international organization, amounnts to nothing less than treason.

 

Brian Brady Running for SDGOP Central Committee

Brian J Brady, husband, father, tea party activist, and small business owner announced his candidacy for the San Diego County Republican Central Committee, on February 15, 2012.  The Central Committee is the governing body of the San Diego County Republican Party and is tasked with recruiting and endorsing candidates, raising money for local races, registering voters, and working to keep Republicans as the majority party.

His right wing activism began soon after he registered to vote in his hometown of Cherry Hill, NJ. On his 18th birthday, Brady registered with the Selective Service Board then went to Township Hall to register to vote.  Maria Greenwald, mayor of Cherry Hill, was horrified when Mr. Brady registered Republican in the mostly Democratic township. 

"Oh no!  Your grandfater is probably rolling over in his grave" said the late Mrs Greenwald.  "Don't you know that the Democrats are the party of Irish-Catholics? "

At that point, Brady realized the Democrats were the party of special interests.  Racism and bigotry are the byproducts of collectivism.  Mrs. Greenwald, instead of seeing a bright, ambitious young man, simply saw another "Irish-Catholic" voter.  The politics of race and ethnicity were abhorrent to the young man so Brady smiled, told Greenwald that he was going to get President Reagan re-elected, and walked out of the Township Hall.

He was immediately approached by a bystander who invited him to the Camden County Republican Party meeting that month.  At the meeting, Brady committed to become a County committeeman.  He launched his campaign in his District, won at age 18 and 3 months, and the journey began.

As a young adult, Brian Brady was active in the Camelback Young Republlican Club in Maricopa County, AZ.  There, he was fortunate to meet his ideological mentor, the late Senator Barry Goldwater.  Brady read Goldwater's book, "Conscience of a Conservative", in college and the idea of limited government, constrained by the Constitution, spoke to him.  In Arizona, Brady worked to elect Senator Jon Kyl and Congressman Matt Salmon.

The Brady family moved to Solana Beach in 2003.  That year, Brady met Tony Krvaric, current Chairman of the SDGOP.  Krvaric encouraged Brady to become a Precinct Captain and supporter.  Brady walked precincts each election cycle to ensure that Solana Beach Republicans make it to the polls.  He also joined the SDGOP donor clubs and is currently a member of the Chairman's Circle.  Brady addressed the SDGOP twice: as a proxy for Presidential candidate Ron Paul and to promote the Promise to California Tax Payers.

Brian Brady attended his first tea party on Tax Day, 2009.  Soon thereafter, he volunteered to help Stop Taxing Us, the tax payer advocacy and tea party group,  to "Restore the GOP" to its conservative, limited government principles.  Stop Taxing Us hosts the Oceanside Tax Day tea party which was arguably the largest tax day demonstration in the country in 2011.  Brady developed the highly effective Taxpayer Promise at the end of last year.   A liberal columnist promptly called him a bully while over two dozen candidiates for elected office signed the Promise, to halt tax increases and taxpayers' contributions to public employee retirement plans.

Brady was a founding member of the San Diego Republican Liberty Caucus,  He is a supporter of Americans for Prosperity, the Reason Foundation, and Freedomworks. He is married with one daughter and lives in Solana Beach.  He is currently gathering signatures for his nomination petition and would be honored to have you sign it.  Contact Mr. Brady at 858-777-9751