Lieu and Waxman: Half of SaMoHi Not "College Ready"

Half of Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District students are not “college ready,” according to Ashley Archibald. The Prop 30 taxpayer dollars apparently have not brought down class sizes, brought back more teachers, or even brought up our sagging public education system. Then again, voters should have expected as much from the state legislature: more of the same “rosy projections” with thorny results. Also, the ever-present teachers unions still frustrate reform at ever chance they get. School choice and a voucher program will make our students “college ready”.

Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Santa Monica) has been clamoring about the potential calamities that will crush this earth, unless the federal government executes immediate action to curb “climate change” (or is it “global warming”? “ozone depletion?”) What’s the point of researching “climate change”if no one can read or write?

State Senator Ted Lieu (D-Santa Monica) recently received the“Senator of the Year” Award from the League of Humane Voters for his legislative efforts on behalf of animals. Students are still forced to attend the school in the same zipcode as their home address. Students and parents still must suffer under incompetent and immoral teachers. School districts and administrators still do not have the power nor authority to discipline and ultimately remove such failing educators. When will Lieu issue humane laws for the humans, like school choice or vouchers?

Our representatives have done nothing for our failing schools. When will our leaders lead on granting every student the opportunity to be“college ready”?

End the Cult of Waxman the Taxman

I do not understand it.

How can people like this guy?

He said "We're not broke!" not once, but twice in open committee.

He said "I'm sorry Solyndra happened!" yet voted against  the "No More Solyndras" Act.

He said: "I don't know" about his own cap and trade bill, the GM auto bailouts, and steroids in baseball.

He has ignored the plight of homeless veterans for decades.

He has voted against lowering taxes for working Americans.

Yet people "love Henry Waxman"!

There is only one answer I can think of:

The cult of "Waxman the Taxman" has brain-washed people.

How does the cult work?

You vote for "Waxman the Taxman", and you get "free stuff".

One resident in Santa Monica told me how much he loved Congressman Waxman.

When I  pressed him to explain why, he was hesitant at first. Then he shared that  he gets "free health care."

"Free health care" does not exist, because someone is paying for it. Such a notion of "free anything" belies a break from reality. The fact that this gentleman could not explain why he liked Congressman Waxman was quite disturbing, as well.

I still remember the voter whom I spoke with in Venice, a guy who assumed that Congressman Waxman "fights for the little guy." When I told him about  "We're not broke!" and his record of voting against tax cuts, he was open to learning more about the Congressman.

Then there is former Mayor Henry Duclos, who claimed that Congressman Waxman "fights for us, and wins!"

What or who is Waxman fighting for? That we have fewer doctors in California? That we have higher premiums because of Obama-WaxmanCare? That American families will be burdened with record tax increases because of a law which forces people to purchase health care in a market which has grown more strained?

It's time to end the cult of Waxman the Taxman. People need to know the truth about this man, that he does not respect nor represent the best interests of his constituents, or the country, or even the Constitution of the United States.

Hear the Choppers? Hear the Sound of Bankruptcy?

Congressman Waxman is chopping away at climate change, and now he has passed legislation about the noise pollution from low-handing helicopters -- choppers.

The noise is one thing -- the distractions of low-flying anything should be enough to frustrate anyone.

The noise of gavels slamming on a dais, or empty prattle about Obama-WaxmanCare extending coverage and care, when it has done precisely the opposite, still dominate the airwaves coming out of Congressman Henry Waxman's office.

Interestingly enough, California's two US Senators, and Congressman Adam Schiff, issues an editorial describing their efforts to limit noise pollution in the Los Angeles area from noise pollution.

Congressman Henry Waxman did not join the editorial with his signature.

Perhaps he likes the helicopter noise, which distracts Santa Monica Bay voters from hearing and seeing the wasted opportunities and the wasted dollars lost on legislation which stops people from smoking on airplanes, but which has done nothing to balance our nation's budget or stop the spending spree.

The American People still hear the chronic "cha-ching" of  trillion dollar annual deficits.

What would Waxman like to do about them?

"Call Democrats"

I hammered this strategy over and over with the Bloomfield Campaign:


"When are you guys going to call Democrats?"

I assumed that most moderate Democrats would be thrilled to choose an Independent over Henry Waxman, a corporate liberal who spends more time chasing cameras and grilling witnesses on insignificant issues instead of sticking up for the "little guy."

"Call Democrats" I kept saying.

"We are not going to call Democrats" was the answer I got one day.

I wish Bill had visited Democratic clubs in the Santa  Monica Bay, as well.

It would have been a show of good faith on his part to demonstrate once again that he is a complete independent, not a Republican, not a Democrat, and certainly not affiliated with any other party.

Democrats are people, too.

The older generation of Democrats is more conservative than Republicans give them credit for.

I did contact a number of Democrats in the Malibu/North Santa Monica Bay region, and some of them gave this reason for voting for Bloomfield:

"Waxman has been in office for thirty-eight years! Enough!"

Sadly, he won reelection, but by the slimmest margin of his political career.

Here's to reaching out to more Democrats, telling them that the CA GOP has a better agenda than anything that the Democratic Party Machine can offer.

Twitter/WaxmanClimate? How about Twitter/WaxmanWatch?

Congressman Waxman is twitting away his time in office with letters about climate change.

Now he has started another Twitter account, this time tweeting away about the impending doom that will fall on the earth of the government does not do something about "climate change".

At one point, it was "ozone depletion. Then it became "global warming". Now Waxman is talking about "climate change"

Is this man a serious legislator, or what?

Does he have any business running for office, or even running an office?

As if!

Perhaps someone should start another feed: Twitter/WaxmanWatch. . .

Waxman Writes Letters: Ineffective and Inconsequential

During the debate, 13 Democratic members spoke in favor of the amendments, while the Republican members sat silently in the Committee room and rarely engaged in the debate. Rep. Waxman said, “Mr. Rush and I wrote Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield 21 times last Congress to request hearings with climate change scientists. Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield never responded to those letters. Today, the Republicans did not respond to the arguments of Democratic members. Unfortunately, the Republicans can’t make climate change go away by pretending it doesn’t exist.”

Enough with the Letter Writing. . .

Congressman Waxman wrote 21 times requesting hearings on climate change during the last Congress.

He loves to legislate, he loves to write letters, but I wish that he loved paying attention to matters which actually matter.

How many letters did he write about the stunning and unintended consequences for Obama-WaxmanCare? Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa ought to subpoena him about the ill-effects of the law, including the massive shortage of doctors in the state of California.

How many letters has Congressman Waxman written regarding the ill-treatment of homeless veterans in the Los Angeles area? How many times did he bother to contact the leaders of the Brentwood VA, or even to get a reasonable tally on the number of homeless in the LA-Santa Monica area?

Legislators are supposed to defend the Constitution and represent us, not pursue flowery, arcane issues which resist definition, which have no bearing on the well-being or future of this country.

Congressman Henry Waxman, when are you going to do more than just write letters about climate change? When are you going to meet with colleagues to discuss debt and deficit reduction? The growing number of departments in the federal government is the real cause for alarm, not the nebulous causes and consequences of climate change, previously referred to a "global warming" or some other more ponderous and "disconcerting" title.

Waxman Hammers Cantor: Can't Own His Own Failures

At the Hermosa Beach Playhouse on Jan 30, Congressman Henry Waxman trotted out one of  his favorite talking points about the Brentwood VA.

He blamed the Republicans, specifically House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA).

According to Waxman, the House Majority leader wanted to sell off the land, use it for debt reduction.

Surprisingly enough, The Wall Street Journal confirms Cantor's proposal.

However, the same piece confirms that both Democrats and Republicans supported Cantor's suggestion, with little opposition to follow.

Waxman has made his career indicting everyone but himself for the massive failure of our veterans to receive the care owed to them at the Brentwood VA. He hammers one talking point at every chance, yet his career in office, from 1975 to the present day, deserves more vetting.

Let's take a look at what he was doing in the 1970s:

Nothing.

How about the 1980s?

Running a political machine along the Westside, perhaps, but not much else.

Then come the 1990s.

Hearings into Tobacco use. Of course, nothing about

In his best-selling book "The Waxman Report" -- not once does Congressman Waxman mention his work with the veterans of Los Angeles.

Waxman loves to hammer Cantor for attempting to sell the VA land. At least he wanted to do something with it. What did he do for over three decades? Nothing.

Once again, Waxman refuses to own his own failures. This guy has no business being in office.

"Republicans Deny Science?" Waxman Denies Reality!

“I am disappointed that the primary energy committee has come to this point of denying the science,” said Rep. Waxman. “House Republicans have buried their heads in the sand. I hope they will realize how out of step they are with the science, the public, and the business community. We have a moral duty to act to prevent the worst impacts of climate change affecting our children and future generations.” Waxman's Website

I cannot believe that Congressman Waxman continues to trot out this tired treacle.

"Did I say that?"

The same Congressman who claims "We're not broke!" not once but twice in open committee.

who voted against cutting taxes for middle and working class voters.

Who claimed to have no knowledge about the steroid laws in this country, yet insisted on running oversight hearings on drug abuse in professional baseball.

The same Congressman who admitted "I don't know" about his own Cap and Trade bill.

The same Congressman who believes that his signature law, Obama-WaxmanCare, is serving constituents, when hospitals are struggling to survive, premiums are going up, access is going down, there are fewer doctors in California, and the laws has added another layer of unnecessary taxes on the American people.

While he goes on and on about Republicans denying science, Congressman Waxman is denying reality.

Some Unheard (or Unheeded) Effects of Obama-WaxmanCare

Congressman Henry Waxman derided the Republican House Majority because they attempted to repeal the law a record 30 times.

"As if they had nothing better to do."

It's funny and infuriating that Congressman Waxman would indict anyone in Congress for wasting time. After all, he spent thirty-eight years grilling tobacco CEOs and investigating steroid abuse in baseball, or threatening CEOs who were prepared to take a massive write-off following the passage of Obama-WaxmanCare.

The Supreme Court Upheld Obama-WaxmanCare. . .

He was pursuing such inane policies while homeless veterans were suffering on the streets of Los Angeles. The land ended up under private lease for decades, yet the Congressman did nothing about it. Then there was the Subway to the Sea, which went nowhere fast because of Waxman's pulling strings for rich, Westside residents.

Back to Obama-WaxmanCare, the Congressman trumpeted the "much good" which the law promises to voters.

The Los Angeles Times just reported that there is a shortage of doctors in the state of California, likely due to the misguided and ill-conceived Obama-WaxmanCare law. One friend shared with me that the law forced him to change doctors four times in one month. Those practitioners chose retirement over handling the massive expanse of regulations from the law.

Another community leader shared with me that doctors have to fill out certain prescriptions every month, or face a severe fine. God help the patient who visits that doctor at the end of the month.

As a TAX -- which is taxing businesses, schools,
doctors, just about everybody.

A podiatrist has also  mentioned that Obama-WaxmanCare is crushing his ability to get any work done.

Obama-WaxmanCare demands access, yet demand can only go as far as supply will support. Fewer doctors means less access, no matter what the federal government mandates. Forcing people to purchase insurance, when most people cannot even find a job, is both cruel and unusual in Congress' scope to regulate and tax individuals into purchasing something.

Congressman Waxman, you must repeal and replace your "signature" legislation. Doctors are retiring, patients are waiting, and this country is hemorrhaging with more debt because of it. The Obama-WaxmanCare tax is hurting everyone. How is this "leading the fight"?

We Need Fewer Bad Laws, Not More Good Ones

Henry Waxman authored a bunch of laws.

Always Writing Laws.

"I love to legislate" is his mantra.

This country does not need more laws, but fewer laws and more respect at the local level.

The California legislature authors an average of six hundred laws every year.

Is all that legislating really necessary?

Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, noted that the government should prevent bad laws, not just pass good laws. Lao-Tze wrote that the more laws are written, the more criminals there will be. In the United States, lawsuits abound because of the abundance of laws which micromanage everything from how to store a gun in one's car to microchipping one's pets, to ordering that everyone must purchase health insurance, or else.

Congressman Henry Waxman, or any other member of Congress, for that  matter, should not pride himself on the number of laws that he writes, but rather limit the number of laws written in the first place.

The Framers of the Constitution were likely more concerned about ambitious people like Congressman Waxman than more brutish or even war-like types like President Andrew Jackson.

While Jackson was ready to draw his pistol if someone wanted to fight or sleight his wife, Congressman Waxman wants to draw out his pen and write more laws to regulate, legislate, and frustrate our daily lives.

Congressman Waxman authored legislation which requires the Tobacco industry to put warning labels on their cigarette packages.

He also drafted laws which would prevent Tobacco companies from using advertisement to target young people/

Yes, he also drafted legislation to prevent people from smoking on airplanes.

Frankly, consumer demand would have forced these changes. Enough airline patrons could have signalled to American Airlines, or any conglomerate, and tell them that they would take their business elsewhere, unless they banned smoking on their airplanes.

These things do not take an act of Congress.

Waxman "led the fight" on AIDS research, but what does a member of Congress have to offer that individual researchers and health professionals cannot offer?

His investment in promoting AIDS awareness highlights a latent arrogant assumption among legislators, such as Congressman Henry Waxman. Just because they have passed a law, they readily assume that they have "done something" about a problem, when in fact they have merely authorized the President or administrative agencies to do more bureaucratic shuffling, while expanding the legal codices for trial lawyers to file more lawsuits.

How about repealing a few?

We need fewer laws in this country, not more laws, whether good or bad. Human beings do not need "Big Government" looking over their shoulder, provided that they have many things which are greater, better, more stable, more able to lead and guide their way in this world.

Congressman Waxman loves to legislate.  I wish that he loved to repeal laws, too.

Henry Waxman and Maxine Waters: End the War on Drugs

Maxine Waters: Worse than Waxman?

If there is one member of Congress I find more disagreeable than Henry Waxman, it would be Maxine Waters. She plays the race card at every turn. She makes the most slanderous and outrageous accusations, yet no one holds her accountable. Once she claimed that President Ronald Reagan started the war on drugs to poison inner city youth, yet no one challenged her to shut her mouth. She threatened corporate CEOs, telling them that federal government would “take them all over”. And no one can forget her empty invective: “The Tea Party can go straight to hell.”

Point of fact, it was Richard Nixon who started the War on Drugs (shame on that immoderate moderate, some might say – then again, he wanted to speak up for the “Silent Majority”). For all of Waters’ race-berating against the “Gipper”, Ronald Reagan won a landslide of support from his Presidential races in 1980 and 1984. Point of order, the federal government has no legal, nor moral authority to take over major businesses (Sorry, Maxine: No “Nationa. . . er “Taking over” for you). Point of decorum, the TEA Party is a multicultural movement which sought to bring the federal government back within its proper, constitutional scope. Without them, the Republican Party, and the country, would have been worse off, in a budget deficit and national debt inferno from which we would never escape.

As for Congressman Waxman, there is more than enough to make the case for removing him from office. From ignoring the well-being of our veterans for decades, to pursuing inane green interests at the expense of our federal government’s budget and our nation’s economy, he has never found a bloated interest of the left that he never liked, except for tax cuts for working class and middle class Americans. He has declared “We’re not broke!” while this country still faces a multi-trillion dollar national debt. He admitted “I’m sorry Solyndra happened”, yet he insists that global warming is an issue which the federal can and must do something about. To this day, he stands by doing nothing for the retired teachers and police officers of Indiana, (whose pensions were pilfered to save General Motors), yet he also admitted “I don’t know” about his own cap and trade bill, steroid laws, and the same GM bankruptcy and bailout.

Undoing the War on Drugs. .
Something for Big Pharma, perhaps. . .

This past week, Congresswoman Waters viewed a documentary on the War on Drugs for some of her constituents, which she described as an assault on minorities (for once, she’s right, but not right in the right way politically on anything else). Other interests (more and more of Main Street) have rightly deemed a the “War on Drugs” a government funded assault on our liberties, livelihoods, and privacy, all at taxpayers’ expense. Republican Richard Nixon started this terrible program, but if a Democratic President were willing to stop it, at least he would be a making a step in the right direction.

So, I have near polar opposition to Congressional members Waters and Waxman. In the local press, I learned that Congresswoman Waters and I agree on one thing: we both want to end the War on Drugs. By the way, so does conservative-libertarian radio host Larry Elder, “National Review” Founder William F. Buckley, and even retired Republican Congressman David Dreier of San Dimas (who is good friends with Congressman Waxman, even if they are from opposing parties).

Wouldn’t it be great if Congresswoman Waters and Congressman Henry Waxman stood together on the floor of the House of Representatives and advanced a bill defunding the Drug Enforcement Agency? Better yet, Waxman and Waters should partner with libertarian leaning Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) in the US Senate, who wants to defederalize the enforcement of controlled substances. “Defederalize” merely means getting the federal government out of prosecuting drug related crimes, and thus Colorado, Washington, and any other state can declassify any drug they want.

"The DEA can go straignt to hell!

Congressman Waxman complains about the growing number of panga boats washing up along the Palos Verdes Coast (he forget about the eleven felons who washed up along El Segundo Beach, too). As for the incarceration of minorities and the growing gang problems in our inner cities, which Waters is worried about, nothing would bring down the crime and corruption than ending the War on Drugs, decriminalizing the substances, and thus robbing drug cartels and inner city crime syndicates of a significant source of revenue.

Imagine Maxine Waters screaming: “I think the DEA should go straight to hell!” Congressman Waxman would not have to say “I’m sorry” for not doing something about the waste of tax dollars. Maybe he can chant “We’re not broke!” once he and his liberal colleagues begin decommissioning these outrageous bureaucracies which do more harm than good. Without a doubt, Big Pharma, one of Waxman’s key donors, would be pleased, since they could take the opportunity to appropriate, regulate, and distribute the controlled substances in a controlled fashion, and make a little money, too.

Henry Waxman and Maxine Waters: working together to end the DEA – that would be something worth celebrating.

"You Have to Accept Me!"

I was talking with one gay activist, a strong supporter of Congressman Henry Waxman.

He told me that he was gay since he was nine years old.

I found that assertion incredible, since adolescence takes place in the teens for most people. Anything earlier than that is usually the result of unexpected trauma or sexual abuse.

He then told me that tolerance was not good enough. He demanded that everyone in this country accept him, and give him the right to marry.

I believe that marriage is a private matter, always was, always will be.

The federal government had no right to get involved in the sacrament, yet sacrament, of marriage.

If two men and two women want to label their coupling a "marriage", that is between them.

I can respect a person's individual choices: tolerance.

I do not have to like or support their choices: acceptance

I do not believe that people are born gay. The evidence from diverse sources all points to the truth that sexuality in general is a choice, in that the sexual partner (or partners) which men and women choose remains thus a choice.

Conservative columnist Dennis Prager pointed out to me that women go to prison and engage in sexual relationships with other female prisoners. When they get out of prison, they marry and have children.

I have heard many stories of men and women who lived the "gay lifestyle", then existed that behavior to get married and have children.

Even LA Weekly had a cover story called "Gay Happiness", and the conclusion, at least from one letter commentary, suggests that gay people are not all that "gay".For most men especially, the gay life is all about getting together with a strange man, sleeping with, then moving on.

Not a very fulfilling life.

Still, the young man said to me, and advocates to the rest of the political community: "You have to accept me."

I cannot accept a person based on conduct which harms his body. I do not accept anyone because they smoke, or even if they do not smoke. I cannot accept a person because of what he does or does not do, nor what he says or what he does  not say.

Rights have nothing to do with us at all.

Furthermore, when someone charges that I "must" accept him or her, then it's no longer "acceptance", but tyranny.

Regarding homosexual conduct -- tolerance is acceptable. Acceptance is intolerable and impossible. Not just for me, but in the natural order of things.

The cause and consequences of homosexuality is a much needed element in this debate.

There is no credible evidence which suggests that people are born gay. It is a choice of behavior, and thus it is both cruel and disturbing to teach people that they are "born that way."

Homosexual conduct damages the body, mind, and spirit of a person. Doctors, epidemiologists, and even psychological reports and historical commentaries can attest to the deviance, dysfunction, and danger inherent in the "gay lifestyle".

If a man or a woman chooses such a manner of behavior, that is his or her choice. The federal government should not be involved in managing the private choices of individual persons. One element of a free society must permit tolerance of conduct -- but not acceptance.

To force private institutions, like the Boy Scouts or any spiritual community, to "accept" homosexuality as a right -- that is wrong.

I hope that the leaders of the Boy Scouts make the decision to resist lifting their ban on "homosexual conduct" in their organization. (for the record, homosexuality is not an identity -- radio commentator Tammy Bruce, an open lesbian by choice who voted for Reagan both times, attests to this truth.

Congressman Waxman: Time to "Occupy Brentwood"

Chapel near Brentwood VA

In the February 7^th, 2013 edition of The Beach Reporter, the paper reported that Congressman Henry Waxman “mingled with South Bay Democratic Club Members”. After a twenty-minute speech about the fractious culture of Washington politics, from the fiscal cliff, to the sequester, the debt ceiling, and resolutions to fund the government, Waxman paraded his resume and promoted the unique, fanciful liberal interest of “climate change”.

Responding to my question about the business "climate" following the taxes from
Obama-WaxmanCare, and the poor climate for our homeless veterans, Waxman went back to his rote responses of blaming Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, whom he loosely charged with attempting to sell the property for debt reduction.

After 38 years of Congressman Waxman’s refusal to do anything, the federal government might as well have sold off the land, since it was not being used for its intended purpose: providing our veterans a place for recuperation, restoration and renewal. Now that Congressman Waxman faces future challenges from a fellow Democrat in the new 33^rd Congressional district, or a well-prepared independent or flexible Republican candidate, and now that he represents a district which no longer has a majority Democratic constituency, he has to mind the interests of all voters. He must abide by a spirit of bipartisanship, or wave ‘bye-bye’ to his overly long tenure in office.

One of the most glaring, and disturbing, lines from The Beach Reporter noted the following:

However, he [Waxman] said that he has been unable to build a proper facility for them due to uncertainty about the land where the VA is located.

The VA has been located in Waxman’s Congressional district since the day he won the office in 1974.

After his speech and the question and answer period, I spoke with Congressman Waxman with some affability. “That wasn’t so bad, was it?” Then I told him that he should set up his office at the Brentwood VA. “Call it ‘Occupy Brentwood’”.

Congressman Waxman has already opened a new office in Manhattan Beach. For the time being, though, he ought to consider also setting up shop at the Veterans campus. What better way to get the attention of voters in the region and to demand faster construction on the property? He ought to rescind the private contracts which are currently operating on the land, as well. Get rid of the dog park, and park every veteran on the property who has no home of his own.

How long would it take to get a private contractor to prepare make-shift properties on the land while the full construction of the property continues apace? Instead of railing about the waste and fraud during the Bush administration, Congressman Waxman should redirect time and funds toward supplying food, shelter, clothing, and proper medical care for our veterans. During all the wrangling over Obama-WaxmanCare, the Congressman had the opportunity and the authority to implement subsidies to the Department of Veterans Administration. Walter Reed Veterans Hospital already weathered withering reports about the dilapidated conditions of its facilities along with poor medical practices, including the repeated use of unclean colonoscopy catheters.

While living and working at the Brentwood VA, Waxman would experience daily the consequences for his lack of oversight over the facility. Instead of providing for our veterans, he was pursuing steroid abuse in baseball. Instead of providing a calm and clean environment for our returning troops, he was attempting to implement Cap and Trade. Instead of going after the ruthless privatization of the Brentwood VA, he was grilling tobacco executives, whom everyone knew were going to lie under oath about the damaging consequences of smoking. I’m glad that I do not have to smell smoke on an airplane, but I would much rather a veteran feel the warmth of a safe room and receive the proper care and comfort which the federal government owes him.

Waxman: Move in to the VA
or Move out of Office

While Congressman Waxman is staging “Occupy Brentwood”, he could solicit a private contractor to operate the Brentwood VA. If the federal government, including the majority leaders in Congress, refuses to respect the plight of our once fighting and now retiring armed forces, then Washington has no business running the facility in the first place. The veterans fought for our country, not our government, anyway. Congressman Waxman, who has not fought in the armed forces for even one day in his life , has not stood up for or even stood by our veterans, until now.

Like every politician, Congressman Waxman must be concerned with getting reelected. His relocation to Brentwood would send the message loud and clear that he is through playing games, through playing for the cameras, through pandering to rich elitists and left-wing extremists along the Westside. He can "prove his stripes" that he cares. He can make his case to the voters as well as the veterans, and he can even staunch his faltering support with the disillusioned independents.

Congressman Waxman: It’s time for you to “Occupy Brentwood”. You owe them at least that. Do not leave until every homeless veteran in the LA area has an opportunity to “Occupy Brentwood” for themselves.

Another Mistake of Bloomfield's (Which I am Sure He and Others Will Rectify)

"How will you compete North of Dockweiler?"

 I asked Bill Bloomfield at the Pacific Harbor Republicans Meeting, which took place in June, 2012.

Manhattan Beach millionaire Bill Bloomfield had just won the number two spot in the June primary, which qualified him to challenge Waxman during in the general election.

He won top votes in the Beach Cities, which was to be expected, since he is a South Bay resident.

"How will you compete North of Dockweiler?"

The territory North of Dockweiler Beach in the 33rd Congressional District includes Santa Monica, Venice, and LA's Westside. These regions are decidedly Democratic, but with significant "Decline to State" elements, as well.

Bloomfield's answer:

"I am going to tell them the exact same thing that I am sharing with all of you."

He then outlined the issues of hyperpartisanship, massive debt, and the power of special interests which are breaking Washington apart.

Within me, I sensed that this argument was a bit fatuous as well as presumptuous.

No constituency in a Congressional District wants to be lumped in with the exact same interests as other sections. Venice is not just Democratic, but outright leftists, where partisans claim that Congressman Waxman is "too right wing", too corporate.

"The People's Republic of Santa Monica" also has a distinct vibe, nothing like the South Bay, and certainly nothing like the elite Malibu/Pacific Palisades area.

The next contender for the 33rd Congressional District must frame not only central themes for the campaign and for the district, but specific outreach targeting the individual needs of every region, each constituency in the district.

When will someone champion the extension of the Subway to the Sea, through Beverly Hills all the way to Santa Monica? The Entertainment and Real Estate industries need lower taxes and more protection for intellectual property. More people should be aware of the private medical profession in the area, including Cedars-Sinai Hospital. As for real estate, homeowners are facing a capital gains tax because of Obama-WaxmanCare, yet no one has pressed the Congressman on the costs of his signature health care law.

Westwood is home to UCLA and UC students struggling to see a viable future for themselves despite rising tuition and lowering job opportunities. The federal government's massive intervention into the student loan industry will only make a big problem bigger, as rising tuition fueled by easy credit is creating another economic bubble. This artificial expansion of credit threatens universitied, already overdrawn with debt, along with students who graduate with less marketable skills into a more hostile job market.

Brentwood has not onlywealthy actors and former governors, but also homeless and ailing veterans. The land remains unused and inhospitable. Veterans still have a better chance of getting a good burial plot instead of a hospital bed at this time. The negligence of homeless veterans should never have occurred during Waxman's tenure, and the issue very likely would have derailed his election changes altogether, but for the low voter turnout of conservatives and Republicans in 2012.

Malibu is having a terrible time with sand erosion. What will the next Congressman do to restore the receding shoreline along the Northern Santa Monica Bay? Pacific Palisades may be struggling with the same problem. What about the threat of wildfires in the region, too?

As for Santa Monica, the city has a significant homeless population, a number of which are veterans returning from Middle Eastern conflicts which have lasted far too long. As for the post offices

Venice has a higher incidence of left-wing radicalism, perhaps, but the youth vote is growing leery and weary of the older, established liberalism which spends money today, which will bankrupt future generations. Republican Ron Paul attracted a wide and youthful following. A future Independent or Republican candidate who announces libertarian views in line with a strong national policy could reinvigorate the youth vote away from Waxman. There's the Venice Post Office, too, which at least has found a private interest to maintain the building in the region.

The Beach Cities have a different set of interests. El Segundo is home to the LA Air Force Base and the Aerospace industry. Waxman's corporate interests may segue his influence toward limiting the impact of sequester cuts on the industry, yet a committed limited government advocate would also move for streamlining contracts and cutting red tape for the Aerospace and other engineering firms in the area. Why has Congressman Waxman not yet reached out to SpaceX in the nearby Hawthorne area?

Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach have  a strong environmental vibe. Clean water and clean air should not clean out anyone's wallet, however, no matter how wealthy a community may be.

In Redondo Beach, the AES Power Plant will be decommissioned. Energy policy remains a stranded issue in Washington. Waxman wants to protect our coastlines,  but cars and the need for fuel have not gone away, nor should they any time soon. West Torrance has its own water facilities, too, and enviroment, energy, and health issues all coalesce. Torrance also has a thriving business dynamic, one which Congress could learn from. The city stepped out of the way, permitting new businesses to thrive. Hawthorne Blvd. used to be boarded up with empty businesses, but new car dealerships are returning.

In Palos Verdes, panga boats are landing outside the surveillance of the US Coast Guard. Congressmembers Janice Hahn and Henry Waxman has written letters complaining about the lack of security in the region. A proper immigration reform, one which curtails the welfare state and opens the borders and streamlines naturalization, would solve this problem very easily. Defederalizing the drug laws would grant more flexibility to the states to decriminalize or at least depenalize the drug possession and trafficking, thus crippling the drug cartels in Mexico, and putting an end to the fearsome drug wars and massive immigration from South of the Border, most of which seeks political asylum as well as economic opportunity.

Let's not forget Harbor City and San Pedro, smaller constituencies perhaps, yet they lie in wealthy or at least established regions of the country. The two regions lie very close to the 110 Freeway and rely on the cargo traffic coming through the Port of Los Angeles. The ILWU has fractured profit and efficiency in the region once in the past year, as the clerks went on strike. 2014 will bring more challenges to the Port of Los Angeles, as the ILWU Local 13 Longshoremen will be fighting for a new contract. The Clerks went on strike for eight days in 2012. Who knows what the longshoremen will contemplate or initiate in two years. Punta Colonet, anyone?

"All politics is local", former Democratic House Speaker "Tip" O'Neill quipped. The 33rd Congressional District is one of the most widespread districts in the state of California, where the political interests are wide-ranging as well as intimate, remote as well as close, local and international.

The next Congressional contenders for the district must honor that every region requires more diligent attention than ending hyperpartisanship, lowering the national debt, and putting an end to the the special interest politicking in Washington.

Henry Waxman: Leading the Fight for Whom?

"I'm so glad I don't have to smell smoke on an airplane!" one constituent shared with me. A friend of a fried of Henry Waxman shared with me his respect for the Congressman going after Big Tobacco in 1994.

I could not agree with these sentiment any more than I already have. I like clean air, and I do not like smoking.

Unfortunately, too many people love Congressman Waxman for what he did decades ago.

As former Hermosa Beach Mayor Duclos shared on January 30 in a townhall meeting, he has fought fights and won for "everyone", but those fights were decades ago. Whether those fights were for "everyone", or just the dedicated few liberal elitists who are convinced that government should spend small business tax dollars on wasteful government programs, remains another story altogether.

His 2012 campaign slogan was "Leading the Fight". Whose fight is he leading?

He wasn't leading the fight for Hispanic voters, or anyone else, on the Eastside of Los Angeles since he blocked the Subway to the Sea for decades.

He has not been leading the fight for our youth, since he supports trillion dollar deficits which future generations will have to pay.

He does not fight for doctors or other medical professionals, since Obama-WaxmanCare is driving up premiums while limiting access for future and even current health insurance recipients. The same law has levied heavier taxes on medical devices, businesses, and individuals.

How many employees will have a harder time getting health insurance once they learn that their employers will no longer carry them because ObamaCare has made it too costly?

Waxman has not been leading the fight for our veterans. How many of them have given their lives, given their health, fighting for this country, and thousands of them remain homeless on the street? He has written letters, but he has done little else to badger his colleagues or the president to do more. Has he even broached the subject of getting our troops out of Afghanistan? President Obama has set down 2014 as a withdrawal date. It should be 2013, right now, and sooner than that.

For 38  years, Congressman Waxman did nothing for our troops. Now that he has a less certain future representing the new 33rd Congressional district, he has to pay attention, or he may pay with losing his seat in Congress.

Other Thoughts About Waxman in Hermosa Beach

When I attended the Hermosa Beach townhall meeting, the dominant issue was "climate change".

People are worried about the green of the grass, but they should be more concerned about the green that Washington is losing. They should be worried about the green with envy that their children and grandchildren will feel when they look back on the life and opportunities which their ancestors had, which they squandered on "global warming" and climate change.

I also noticed that the vast majority of people at the Hermosa Beach townhall meeting were a bunch of old, white, rich people. The classic retort of the Democratic Party has described the Republican Party as the association  old elitists who look down on minorities. Apparently, they are more accurately describing themselves.

All of this talk about "climate change" has little to offer men and women trying to raise their families, find good jobs, and pursue the happiness which the Declaration of Independence glorified so tellingly.

What would that group of "Old White People" like to tell manual laborers in the third world, should all of those global initiatives force companies to shut down in Asia? Why should the "white guilt"of Santa Monica Bay retirees force residents of the developing world to suffer in abysmal conditions because they cannot find work or take advantage of technological innovations.

I cannot believe that any voting constituency would spend so much time on "climate change alarmism" when the science has revealed nothing more than the fact that the temperature is rising.
There have been tsunamis. There have been tornadoes. There have been wildfires. There have been cold snaps, and there have also been recorded freezing temperatures, too.

Yes, the world has been getting  a little warmer, lately. Should everyone get scared and demand that government do something about it? No.

Should the federal government spend more money that the taxpayers cannot release to fight a non-problem which has alarmed a group of scientists and politically active globalists, when the greater number of people in this country, and throughout the world, no longer want to suffer in an economic climate which punishes people for doing for themselves instead of depending on government, which does nothing but serve itself with the money and ambitions of those who want to make the most out of life.

Waxman Watch: Hermosa Beach (Final Edit)

January 30, 2013: Congressman Henry Waxman gave a townhall meeting at the Hermosa Beach Playhouse. The South Bay Democratic clubs sponsored the event.  Would I be shut down in Hermosa Beach, just as Rabbi Yossi of the Jewish Community Center refused to let me speak two months ago? Despite the preliminary jitters, I decided to attend.  If those Democrats shut me down, I would have something to write about (and perhaps take them to court, too.)

Arriving twenty minutes early, I spoke right away with a Pacific Palisades resident. She and I had some views in common, except that she was a major fan of Congressman Waxman. “I’m so glad that I do not have to smell cigarette smoke on airplanes!” A Manhattan Beach-Gardena resident approached us, going on and on about the environment. We did agree on school choice, an issue which Republicans and Democrats should advance.

Diane Wallace, the President of the Beach Cities Democratic Club, wanted me to sign in as a member of the press. I suspected a hint of intimidation, but refused since I am unaffiliated with any media conglomerate. As a private citizen, I share what I believe, holding Congressman Waxman accountable, and if possible, getting some Democrats to care about pressing issues, to “think Republican”.

Congressman Waxman walked down the aisle, then he furtively glanced at me. "Hello, Congressman Waxman," I said. He was not thrilled to see me, but meekly waved at me. Before the visiting Congressman took the podium, former Hermosa Beach mayor Jeff Duclos introduced Waxman with "gushing" admiration (I wanted to gush something else following his fulsome praise). Duclos delineated Waxman's record of “fighting and winning for everyone”.  These Democrats practically worship Waxman. I wonder if their children or grandchildren will esteem him when they end up paying the huge national debt and fighting for rationed healthcare.

Waxman looked uncomfortable and shaky. I imagine that he was nervous because of me. The topic of "climate change" dominated the evening. Democrats were leaping out of their seats over this issue. The alarm which some people shared in that playhouse exposed to me how crucial this issue, and all other environmental issues, has become for the Democratic Party.

Waxman struck a slightly more conciliatory note, telling the audience that he wanted to work with Independents and Republicans. He has to because his districts is no longer majority Democratic. He then commented about the need for "adults" and "leadership" in Washington. Waxman has a history of interrupting colleagues, then claims “We’re not broke!”  in open committee, while also admitting “I don’t know” about the GM bailouts, steroids , and his own Cap and Trade bill. When will Waxman start acting like an adult?

When Congressman Waxman took questions from the audience, almost everyone asked about the environment. Wallace allowed me to ask questions, too. I pressed Waxman about the “business climate”, including the taxes in ObamaCare. I then asked about the poor “climate” which homeless veterans are enduring, for which he is responsible. I finally hammered him about Indiana’s retired teachers and police officers, whose pension funds were raided to fund the immorally financed auto bailouts.

Praising the GM bailouts, Waxman shrugged off the Indiana pension fund. He then blamed House Majority Leader Eric Cantor for trying to sell the Brentwood VA for debt reduction. Predictably, he left out his 38 years in office of doing nothing.

After the questions, the meeting offered me the chance to understand how Democrats think (or recycle suspicions from specious evidence).  Most of the Democrats advertised a striking ignorance about economics. Two El Segundo residents really believe in “climate change” as a threat, although they acknowledged that I knew more about the issue than they. Another actually claimed that government creates jobs. We carried on an extended discussion about gender, identity, and sexuality ---three issues which Democrats tend to conflate constantly and inconsistently.

Wallace ignorantly asserted: “But we already have school choice!” when I brought up that issue. Later, she mocked me: “I can’t believe you asked a question about Indiana!” Two other Democratic leaders shared their reasons for being Democrats: the social issues. When they claimed that Republicans refuse to compromise, I fired back:

“If someone offered to buy your house for one dollar, you would slam the door in his face. The Democrats are doing something similar, refusing to offer real cuts. There’s good and bad compromise.”

Then Congressman Waxman came up the middle aisle.

"See, that wasn't so bad,” I said, shaking his hand.

“Well, you tell me,” he shrugged, at a loss for words.

“I’m here to keep you accountable. You need to start doing your job. Why don’t you set up ‘Occupy Brentwood’ to force the federal government to finish building shelters for the homeless veterans? Or else an independent or Republican will take your place.”

When I reminded him about the Indiana pensions, Waxman grew uncomfortable, refusing to do anything about it.

As Waxman left the theater, I realized that I was impacted him.

Imagine that: The former Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, frightened of a private blogger!