Category Archives: California

Posted on by

reagan library debate showcases romney, perry fight

Simi Valley, CA – Former First Lady Nancy Reagan and The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library played host to eight GOP Presidential candidates Wednesday night in Simi Valley, California. It was Texas Governor Rick Perry’s first debate after announcing he would run for President and many Republican activists were eager to see how he would perform. The early debate centered on Mitt Romney and Rick Perry who jabbed at each other’s records as Governors. Perry, who leads in national polls, tried to criticize Romney for implementing Romneycare, the Massachusetts healthcare insurance reform law that many conservatives think is too similar to Obama’s healthcare reform initiative. But Romney forcefully defended his record and turned the conversation to jobs and his private sector experience to turn the economy around.

Perry went after Romney’s accomplishments on creating jobs. “He (Romney) had one of the lowest job creation rates in the country,” Perry said. “As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in the last three months in Texas than he created in four years in Massachusetts.” Romney quickly shot back noting that Texas has no state income tax, a Republican supreme court and a Republican legislature. “George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, Governor,” Romney said.

While Rick Perry didn’t make any gaffes, he didn’t impressive the hundreds of Republican activists who came to watch either. Perry survived.

“I was really waiting for Perry,” said one long time Republican fundraiser who flew in from New York. “He came in very confident, kind of cocky, and finished deflated. I think he is realizing this is going to be a long and hard road to the nomination.”

Jon Huntsman, Jr. out-performed himself from the last debate and gave his campaign a much needed boost. Huntsman, whose previous debate performance was roundly criticized as weak, surprised many activists by displaying never before seen confidence. Huntsman easily spoke of economic issues and the American spirit and seemed comfortable this time. But Michelle Bachmann struggled to get noticed. Fresh off the announcement that campaign guru Ed Rollins would be stepping down from running the Bachmann campaign’s day to day operations, Bachmann surprised the crowd when she criticized President Obama for supporting NATO’s Libya mission.

“Bachmann started to sound more like Ron Paul,” one California Republican said. The question and answer on Libya was one of the only foreign policy questions and answers of the night.

NBC News, which co-hosted the debate with POLITICO, was roundly criticized by bloggers and pundits for the moment in the debate where they invited a Telemundo reporter onto the stage to ask a question about immigration. Mary Katherine Ham of the Daily Caller tweeted, “NBC: “Thank you, Anchor w Hispanic Surname. We are now finished with the immigration portion of this debate. You may leave.” And Matthew Hurt of Arlington, Virginia tweeted, “Connie Chung will be on later to ask a question about China. #reagandebate #subtleracism”

Newt Gingrich demonstrated why he was elected Speaker of the House in 1994 by uniting the Republican presidential candidates against a common enemy – President Obama. Gingrich also got the applause line of the night from those in the debate hall when he proclaimed that English should be the official language of the United States. Gingrich also went after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke saying, “I think he’s been the most inflationary, dangerous and power-centered chairman of the Fed in the history of the Fed.”

But at the end of the evening it was clear that the Republican nomination for President is between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. Unless someone else enters the race.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

san francisco mayor lee’s assault on california’s innovation

California has long been the preeminent home for dreamers, seducing the world’s most talented and successful movie stars, musicians, writers, techies, developers and deal makers.  California is the place the talented and driven go to turn dreams into reality.  Their personal success has, in turn, fueled government’s economic engines for decades, pushing California from the country’s dusty western outpost into the eighth largest economy in the world.  But some politicians are seeking quick fixes for the decades of their out of control spending habits by extorting some of the world’s most innovative companies.  San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors reached a 20 year low this past week when proposed a new tax scheme to raise revenue from innovative entrepreneurs.  What an anti-American idea; this isn’t Russia.  Mayor Lee should end his thoughtless campaign to drive jobs from San Francisco and start prioritizing spending from the revenue he has.  San Francisco doesn’t have a revenue problem, they have a leadership problem. 

The city’s payroll tax – a rarity for Silicon Valley and other major tech industry hubs – punishes pre-IPO companies with excessive taxes for keeping their offices in San Francisco.  Companies like Twitter that haven’t yet gone public are being punished if they don’t move to the city’s new business development zone dubbed “hooker central” by some.  If they move to the low end, they get a high end tax break.  Unlike San Diego who redeveloped a 16 block decaying section of the city to attract new businesses, San Francisco wants privates companies to move to the blighted area before they do the work.  Looking at topographical maps of crime in San Francisco leads one to question why the public needs a Mayor and Board at all if they just tell private companies to do the hard work of redevelopment. 

Twitter and other pre-IPO tech companies have three unattractive options:  1) pay exorbitant taxes and stay in their offices; 2) force their employees and clients to travel to undesirable and unsafe new offices; or 3) flee the city limits.  To be fair to Lee, the payroll tax has been on the books since 2004 but it hasn’t been enforced until now.  It’s a travesty that an unelected official like Lee would be allowed to destroy growing businesses in San Francisco.  Twitter, perhaps suffering a bit of Stockholm Syndrome, has taken the high ground in the media, staying quiet, avoiding critical comments, and agreeing to stay if the incentive laid out by Lee is approved.

Unsurprisingly, the response by businesses to schemes like these is to simply flee California.  Hitched to their U-Hauls are much-needed tax revenue, jobs, prestige and a myriad of other benefits for the state.  The list of companies abandoning the state is staggering:  Computer Sciences Corp., DaVita, Hilton, Nissan North America, Northrup Grumman, the list goes on.  And for those innovative tech companies staying put, expansion plans are being made outside of California.  Apple built a $1 billion facility in North Carolina – a lovely place but not the hotbed of innovation like California.  eBay’s new operations center is in Utah.  Even the Automobile Club of Southern California uses its AAA Texas employees to do the work for the state.

Developing these creative tax traps – which would make Inception director Christopher Nolan jealous – requires enabling and support from the highest levels of the state’s political system.  Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein provide cover for Lee, his Supervisor friends and Lee’s counterpart in Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.  Politicians are shamelessly taking entrepreneurs hostage because they can’t come up with innovative solutions on their own.  They bleed every penny they can out of local businesses, and when a company skips out-of-state for reasonable tax laws, they find a new one to bully.  Lee’s characterization of this scheme as an “incentive” is laughable – it only incents politicians to chase naive ideas.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

jane harman should resign already

Today’s Washington Post calls out Jane Harman for missing 43 votes this year alone.  While Jane gives no excuse for why she isn’t showing up, she continues to collect her government salary and pension anyway.  Jane announced she is leaving Congress after 33 days of her 2 year commitment but said she would serve until March 1st.  Now word comes she isn’t even serving during this transition period.

Jane’s friend Kitty Felde, from the local NPR affiliate KPCC, has poked fun at people who are trying to get Millionaire Harman to pay for the special election she has created.  Harman, afterall, is worth millions of dollars and her husband owns Newsweek.  Kitty lives in Washington, DC and so we’re not surprised she doesn’t get the outrage we are feeling in the South Bay over being taken advantage of by a millionaire who resigned after telling us she would serve 2 years. Kitty and the rest of the LA media should find out if Jane is spending time at her new job while collecting taxpayer dollars.  In fact, the Woodrow Wilson Center should come clean and tell us when they started negotiating with Jane for their top job.  Additionally, the Woodrow Wilson Center should let us know if Jane has been showing up in their offices over the last few weeeks while collecting her Congressional salary.

When the Washington Post notices your absence, shouldn’t the LA media?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022408074..html

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

sign the petition to tell millionaire jane harman to pay for the special election she created

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/janeharman

Former Representative Jane Harman was the second-wealthiest member of the United States Congress, with a fortune estimated at nearly $300 million. And yet she served only 33 days of a 730 day commitment after winning re-election in November 2010.

Now, California voters will be forced to foot the bill for a special election – at a price tag in the millions of dollars. She hasn’t been upfront about when she started looking for a new job and it seems unlikely she didn’t know she’d be leaving Congress before the election.

Why should Californians pay for her cavalier attitude towards public service?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

multi millionaire jane harman should pay for the special election she is creating

The idea that Jane Harman is quitting Congress because she is a frustrated moderate is absurd.  Harman is worth an estimated $300 million and so she thinks she can dine and dash at taxpayers’ expense.  She has been missing in action from our 36th district for years.  She didn’t hold a single public forum before the government healthcare vote despite her constituents’ pleadings and protests.  She has consistently ignored the people of the South Bay and is only seen when there is an election at hand.  Harman has been aloof and disconnected for years.   

She quit Congress because the Democrats were no longer in control and millionaires don’t like to toil away in the minority.  Why would she run for a new term if she really had no intention of finishing it?  What changed so abruptly?  Lee Hamilton announced May 3, 2010 that he would be leaving the Woodrow Wilson Center job that Harman is now taking.  Harman and the Woodrow Wilson Center should come clean on exactly when their conversation started.  If it is found that Harman was already making inquiries to take the Center’s top job before her November election then she owes the voters an apology.  Harman resigning a few weeks in to a two year term is offensive to the voters.  In fact, Harman served all of 33 days of her 730 day commitment before announcing her departure – that’s a cost to taxpayers of $126,575.34 of wasted time when you figure her annual office budget is $1.4 million. 

Sadly, we are not surprised by her lack of respect for us – it’s been a pattern.  Millionaire politicians think they can do what they want without facing the consequences of their actions.  Unfortunately, Los Angeles taxpayers also have to foot the million dollar special election bill to pay for Harman’s selfishness.  Harman should pay for the election to fill her vacancy with her personal fortune and reimburse the taxpayers for her ego-centric decision.  After all, Harman can afford it; Los Angeles taxpayers already have a huge budget deficit.

The person who replaces Harman should be someone with real world experience, not some re-cycled politician with tired ideas seeking higher office and creating more special elections.  Janice Hahn and Debra Bowen are career politicians that have been so unimpressive that it would be a mistake for voters to send them to Washington.  Hahn helped create the financial mess that Los Angeles finds itself in and Bowen hasn’t produced the changes at the DMV she promised.  Why send uninspiring bureaucrats to do the same thing in Congress?  We’ve seen what they deliver and we should say, “No thanks.” 

Isn’t there someone in the South Bay that knows how to balance a budget and make the necessary tough decisions that we expect of our representatives?  Is there someone in the 36th District that could bring new ideas to Washington without maneuvering for their next gig?  How about we find someone that will also come back home to the South Bay after serving and live under the same laws that they helped create?  Thomas Jefferson is asking for someone to stand up – and the voters are asking the same ‘ole politicians to sit down.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

barbara boxer has spent 28 years in washington representing radical ideas

United States Senator Barbara Boxer — she insists on being called by the full title — not only doesn’t work with Republicans in Washington, she doesn’t work very well with members of her own Democratic Party.  Unlike our other U.S. Senator, Diane Feinstein, Boxer consistently advocates for radical views and fringe issues.  Boxer is antagonistic towards California’s business community, votes exactly the way the unions instruct her, rarely meets with people and groups she disagrees with and is known for her grand ego and mean-spirited temper.  Boxer has spent 28 years in Washington and is considered by many to be the consummate self-serving politician insulated from everyday people.  If you think Washington, DC, is broken, Barbara Boxer’s radical tenure is one of the main reasons. 

Boxer has for years blocked oil drilling on land and in shallow waters.  It was Boxer who helped lead the effort to push oil drilling into deep waters — so far out that it was next to impossible to stop wells from leaking or do necessary repairs in the ocean.  But for Boxer, as long as her radical environmentalist friends couldn’t actually see the drills then she was ok with drilling.  Boxer’s policy wasn’t based on philosophical beliefs or actual concerns for the environment; she just wanted it out of sight.  Sadly, we saw the repercussions of Boxer’s radical drilling views during the BP Gulf Coast oil disaster when even the government couldn’t make the necessary repairs to the oil rig because of the depth of the ocean waters it was in. 

Boxer has also not just been pro-choice but has worked to make abortions federally funded.  Boxer has advocated the use of tax dollars to support women who want their abortions paid for by others.  Boxer hasn’t just wanted healthcare reform to better serve those that get sick and can’t pay for healthcare, she has advocated and worked hard for a public option to replace our current system.  Boxer has pushed for a federally run healthcare system similar to how the federal government runs the post office — federal control with local service centers.  Boxer also continues to believe in an economic plan that is based around more federal spending and higher taxes to pay for the spending.  Boxer is advocating for even more stimulus money than the $900 billion already spent by the Obama Administration. 

Californians who expect politicians to work with others to find solutions to our problems must not support Boxer for re-election.  And moderate and independent voters who believe we must stop the bickering in Washington and end partisan roadblocks must recognize that Boxer is abig part of the problem.  The San Francisco Chronicle, the most liberal newspaper in the state and Boxer’s hometown newspaper, said it best when it decided NOT to endorse Boxer for re-election.  The editorial read:

“The incumbent, Democrat Barbara Boxer, has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation. … Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots. … (Californians) deserve a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts. … Boxer’s campaign, playing to resentment over (Carly) Fiorina’s wealth, is not only an example of the personalized pettiness that has infected too much of modern politics, it is also a clear sign of desperation.”

It is time to change Washington and that means making sure the bitter and partisan Barbara Boxer is not there representing the largest of the United States.  Each state gets only two people to represent it in Congress. Boxer has done nothing to suggest she’ll serve the people of California any better in the next six years than she has in the last 18, which is not at all.   Californians should step out and be the first to send the message that Washington politicians must stop being bitter partisans and start working together.  Defeating Boxer will send that message.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

female CEO’s to the rescue in california

Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina didn’t think it would be so easy. Both women fought hard and campaigned like champions. Both Women had Republican challengers that ran aggressive campaigns against them. But both Carly and Meg won big. And both races were over shortly after 9 PM.

Meg Whitman seemed to have a scary primary race developing when Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner ran a series of immigration ads in the last few weeks that made the race tense and close. Meg quickly responded with tough ads of her own to correct her record. More importantly, she never lost her cool. Meg proved she was a tough leader that knows how to fight. She showed California voters that she can handle the rough and tumble world of politics. Poizner’s aggressive campaign ultimately made Meg a better candidate. While she may have started as a soft spoken CEO, Poizner forced Meg into finishing as a sturdy leader that is focused in her message and comfortable in her abilities.

Carly Fiorina also had a tough primary battle. While Tom Campbell had little money, his message hit Carly hard. But Carly responded with both brilliant campaign ads and old fashion retail politics. Carly worked hard to criss-cross the state and campaign vigorously. She seemed to enjoy one on one conversations with everyday Californians in a way many pundits didn’t think possible. Carly knows the issues and is surprisingly and genuinely personable. Carly, too, is a better candidate because of Tom Campbell.

For Meg, Jerry Brown is the perfect opponent. And for Carly, running against Barbara Boxer presents voters with drastically different choices. Brown is all talk with very little to show for his decades of political activity. The last time Jerry Brown was Governor, he left the state with record unemployment and a budget deficit of more than $1 billion. Meg is soft spoken with a lifetime of business success. While voters across the country are tired of career politicians like Brown and Boxer, Californians in particular are wary of self-serving politicians that have left the state near fiscal collapse. Barbara Boxer, who is known as mean-spirited and difficult to get along with, is the poster-child for out-of-touch politicians with stale ideas. Boxer has many detractors who are energized to throw her out of office but few vocal supporters outside of the traditional union members that support all democrats. Carly, on the other hand, is smart, new to the scene and optimistic.

While east coasters erroneously think California voters are overwhelmingly liberal, Golden State residents are consistently anti-tax and fiercely independent. Californians are progressive and willing to try creative solutions to problems. Unlike other risk-adverse states, California tries everything out. How else can you explain a state that elected Hollywood icon Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 8, the anti-gay state-wide ballot initiative? Solidly liberal states would never have voted for Arnold and Prop 8. The current political climate for incumbents, combined with California’s penchant for continuous improvement and inventive ideas, spells trouble for old guards like Brown and Boxer.

This November, California voters have a clear choice – Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer who are uber-liberal career politicians with a history of support from special interests or Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, female Chief Executive Officers with decades of business experience and new ideas to try and turn around California’s dwindling future.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

is jane harman next?

Voters across the country are holding out-of-touch politicians accountable for their years of egocentric decisions and callous indifference to constituents. Southern California Democrat Jane Harman exemplifies the politician that voters are tired of. Harman’s career in Congress may very well end in California’s primary election on June 8th.

What is clear to district voters is that Harman’s silly and childish public fight with Speaker Nancy Pelosi has neutered her ability to be effective in introducing or passing legislation. Its clear Harman won’t work with Republicans and can’t work with her own party’s leadership. She has single-handedly alienated most everyone she needs to be an effective voice for the people in her coastline Los Angeles district. Harman’s self-proclaimed expertise on national security issues has also become a thorny issue for the conservatives who think she isn’t tough enough and the liberals who think she is too tough. Harman is proof that if you are everything to everyone then you’re a soul-less politician without a base. Harman’s television commercials comically mention no issues but instead show pictures of the district with upbeat music playing while her name is splashed on the screen – a constant reminder to voters that we don’t know who she is or what she stands for after 8 terms in Congress. But voters have tired of being ignored by the multi-millionaire Congresswoman who failed to hold any legitimate town hall meetings on Obama’s healthcare plan even though voters in the district were calling for them. Harman, the richest Democrat in Congress, just ignored the requests and petitions from voters and kept a low profile during the debate. Harman likes to pay attention to the voters closer to her elections.

But California’s unique election process offers voters the chance to classify themselves as “Declined to state” instead of choosing between Republican or Democrat. Harman’s district, which runs from San Pedro to Venice, has one of the highest concentrations of voters classified as “declined to state” in all of California. The independent and unaffiliated voters of the district will decide who represents Los Angeles’ coastal communities in Washington, DC for the next Congress. And the timing couldn’t be more perfect for Harman to lose her seat in the primary election of June 8th. Email chains and community buzz have Democrats and Republicans joining together to dump Harman in the primary by voting for Marcy Winograd. For Democrats, Winograd is a grassroots liberal more connected to the traditional base and willing to listen to the activists of the party. For Republicans, Winograd presents an obvious and stark contrast to their conservative principles of lower taxes and personal responsibility.

Winograd’s tough grassroots campaign has forced Harman to ignore the healthcare debate and call for higher taxes and defense spending cuts despite the fact that her district is home to some of the Nation’s most respected defense contractors. Winograd has effectively outed Harman’s liberal policies at a time when voters are concerned with the traditional tax and spend tactics of this Congress.

Waiting for Winograd or Harman after June 8th, is Mattie Fein. Fein is the best hope for Republicans to take back the district and a rising star in Republican politics. Fein is smart, humble, funny and wildly experienced. She is a mother who speaks comfortably about job creation in the casual beach community of Venice as well as national security policy in the halls of Congress.

Fein will blunt Harman’s self-proclaimed expertise on intelligence and national security issues by challenging Harman’s quixotic ideas of dealing with terrorists. And Fein’s approachability and personality are more in tune with the beach culture of the district than Harman’s limousine liberal attitude.

Without even trying Harman has actually succeeded in uniting the parties together – they are now united to defeat her.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

jerry brown’s “investigations” are campaign stops

It must be campaign season. How else do you explain Jerry Brown’s recent fascination with investigations and allegations announced with lots of media in tow and advantageously timed to benefit traditional Democratic constituencies and issues? There is no doubt that the Brown campaign committee and political advisors are strategically planning the roll-out of official attorney general “investigations” to maximize public attention and perception. But what is most troubling about Jerry Brown’s use of the Attorney General’s office to campaign for his return to the governor’s mansion is that his cavalier press conferences, media interviews and announced investigations are only chasing Democratic political issues while ignoring real public safety concerns. Brown has turned the Attorney General’s Office into a political machine with subpoena power — and Republicans and their allies are the target.

In the month of April alone, Brown has launched investigations to embarrass Sarah Palin, aggressively promote union membership, clear ACORN of criminal activities, play catch-up on the Wall Street scandal by trumping up charges against Wall Street giant Moody’s, go after an oil company politically active in defeating California’s new green house gas emissions law, and grab headlines on issues ranging from home foreclosures to former child star Corey Haim’s death. In just one month, Brown has shown that his race for governor starts by using his legal office to help traditional Democratic allies beat back their opponents. The tactics Jerry Brown is using and the public position he is abusing leaves the public with no other choice but to ask Brown to give up his position as the top law enforcement official in California if he is to run an honest campaign for governor.

Brown has promoted his investigation of Sarah Palin’s speech at California State University Stanislaus nationwide in an attempt to raise campaign money from Democrats across the U.S. By using the Attorney General’s office to investigate the Democrat’s favorite villain, Brown has turned the AG’s office into his political fundraising operation. It just isn’t credible for Brown to suggest that Palin’s speech contract deserves the scrutiny of the top law enforcement agency in California – no matter what the details of the contract are. Brown’s hyperbolic and emotional rants on the issue just don’t pass the straight-face test.

Brown has also taken aim at a Texas based oil company that recently launched an initiative in California to stop a state greenhouse gas bill from taking effect in 2012. Valero is leading the challenge to AB 32, an anti-business bill passed in 2006 that will force California businesses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% with costly mandatory caps beginning in 2012. With environmentalists and union leaders aggressively supporting AB 32, Brown has gone after their opponent, Valero, who is trying to overturn the law by taking the controversial issue to the people through a statewide ballot initiative.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/03/valero-oil-firm.html

This month, Brown also launched various “investigations” of construction companies that union leaders love to hate. The California Labor Federation, a consortium of 1,200 unions, has been a loud vocal supporter of Brown’s campaign and Brown has happily returned the favor. This is no unbiased union doing the due diligence work of its union members. The union’s website uses the same verbiage as the Brown campaign and covers the same messages, including the exact same lame charges leveled against Brown’s opponent. The obvious quid-pro-quo support appears with Brown’s multiple “investigations” launched against construction companies who don’t support union rules, including two drywall contractors this month alone. The message is clear – either you help Democrats and their allies, or you face possible “investigations” from AG Brown.

http://www.calaborfed.org/index.php/site/page/california_labor_federation_endorses_jerry_brown_for_governor

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1898

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1889&&

Another recent target is Moody’s Corporation, the Wall Street rating agency. Why Moody’s? Look no further than Brown’s own press release, which reads: “Moody’s is one of the most profitable companies in the country. It had the highest profit margin of any company in the S&P 500 in the years leading up to 2008 – higher than Google or Microsoft…” In a lame — and late — attempt to seize headlines by grabbing a piece of the Wall Street scandal, Brown launches a political “investigation” of a Wall Street giant to support the latest Democratic talking points.

Brown’s cavalier language when talking about his recent “investigations” is so outrageous and laced with mis-information and unfounded charges that his characterizations are best left on the political stage. The over-the-top language should not be used by methodical and factual law enforcement officials. In an all-out final push to restore his political family’s glory and return to the Governor’s office, Brown has turned his current Attorney General’s office into an aggressive partisan shop where supporters’ favor is curried through subpoenas and innuendos. The business community is being bullied by Brown and his team through Chicago-style politics. If Jerry Brown wants to restore California to its golden days, then he should start by stepping down as attorney general and giving the citizens confidence that the highest law enforcement official in the state will not also be running for governor at the same time.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

yahoo and google in china

cbsnews.com richard grenell on yahoo

Jerry Yang Should Follow Sergey Brin’s Lead in China

Jerry Yang spent the first eight years of his life experiencing China firsthand. Born Yáng Zhìyuǎn in 1968 Taiwan, Yang and his family personally knew the limits of their freedom. But Yang’s father presumably wanted more for his son. While China offered limited opportunities for a child from a lower-middle class family, the U.S. presented limitless options. But the co-founder of Yahoo, and one of the most successful and well-known Chinese-Americans, has missed an opportunity to speak out on behalf of the people in the country of his birth. In fact, as one of the modern day creators of electronic communications, Yang has recently disappointed thousands of Chinese seeking greater freedoms by not pushing the multi-million dollar company he created to follow Google’s lead and make the Internet more accessible — without censorship — to the people of China.

Around the same time Yang immigrated to the United States, a young man from Moscow also came with his family to a freer society, this time from Communist Russia. Sergey Brin, whose family, too, experienced firsthand the limits of a controlling government and the new freedoms of living in America, arrived in the United States in 1979 at the age of 6. Yang, by then, was 11. No one knew in the late 1970’s that a young Chinese-American in California and a young Russian-American in Maryland would forever change how the world communicated. Brin grew up to cofound Google and directly compete with Yang’s Yahoo.

But Brin, perhaps recalling his own youth or his parents’ stories of a controlling government, led Google to recently announce it would no longer allow the government of China to automatically censor Chinese Google searches. In an overdue but courageous move, Google has taken a stand against Communist China. Google stepped out and made a bold move in the country of Yang’s birth. And Yahoo didn’t follow.

Yang and Brin are millionaire competitors with more in common than just large bank accounts from search engines they created. They’ve both experienced the repression of dictatorial regimes. So it is perplexing, particularly to the Chinese people and to human rights activists, that Yahoo hasn’t followed Google’s lead. While Brin partnered with his chief executive to make a stand for freedom, Yang appears to be either silent or silenced in attempts to steer Yahoo’s current CEO, Carol Bartz, in the right direction.

The question being asked by many human rights activists is what will Yahoo do, if anything? There is no question that Google will surely lose customers and take a financial hit for standing up to the government censors in China. But will Yahoo take advantage of Google’s situation by aggressively marketing their products and services to the millions of Chinese worried about government interference in their lives? Will Yahoo increase their market share in China at the expense of Google’s brave human rights step?

There remains an incredible opportunity for Yahoo to follow Google and send a powerful one-two punch to the Chinese government. China understands economics more than most countries and is usually moved to increase freedoms when the Yuan is directly involved. Imagine if Yahoo followed Google’s lead and created a tidal wave of information that flowed over the tops of government censors in Beijing. Billions of people would be affected. Literally, billions.

For Yahoo and Yang there is much more at stake than just profits. Every once in awhile brave companies step out and act in ways that move customers and shareholders to also act in good faith. Altruism, especially involving basic freedoms, can be what share holder’s value most. Especially when their leaders know firsthand what it’s like to live without them.

Richard Grenell is a Yahoo shareholder and served as the United States Spokesman at the UN from 2001-2008.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

steve poizner shows guts and leadership

San Diego Union-Tribune editorial on Steve Poizner
by Richard Grenell
Poizner’s Iran Campaign Shows He Has Guts and Vision

Divestment from South Africa for its official policy of racial segregation started in California in 1977 when students began to organize and protest the fact that Stanford University was investing in companies doing business in South Africa. The United States Federal Government officially joined the divestment fight in 1986 and apartheid officially ended after a long battle when the South African elections were held in 1994. While divestment campaigns for social injustices have been highly controversial, there is no question that using all means necessary for national security concerns is not only prudent but crucial.

The truth is I’ve never met State Insurance Commissioner and candidate for Governor Steve Poizner, but I have spent 8 years working inside the UN’s Security Council looking for ways to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Poizner’s demand that 1300 California-licensed insurers give him information about indirect investments in Iran’s nuclear, oil, defense and banking sectors is a brilliant move that deserves public accolades. For anyone who supports peaceful and diplomatic solutions to dangerous problems, Poizner has demonstrated that he is that rare public leader that isn’t just talking about issues. While a military deterrence is critical to solve the Iranian nuclear issue, we all need to be using the tools at our disposal to help force a peaceful solution before military action is required. European politicians and bankers should join the fight and send a powerful and peaceful economic message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s perilous government.

Forcing California insurance companies that own stock in some multinational companies that operate in Iran to divest will undoubtedly have a direct impact on Ahmadinejad’s nuclear ambitions. Thousands of students and opposition leaders have been protesting in the streets of Tehran for months, complaining that Iran’s economy is suffering because the international community continues to isolate Iran over the government’s illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons. Poizner’s initiative supports those students by forcing more multinational companies to follow the UN sanctions demand and stop doing business with Ahmadinejad.

The Bush Administration passed several United Nations Security Council resolutions sanctioning the Government of Iran for its secret uranium enrichment. Iran’s recent announcement that it had successfully enriched uranium to 19.75% grade demonstrates that they have the technology and ambition to make a nuclear weapon. And this week, the slow-moving, state-the-obvious International Atomic Energy Agency announced that it fears Iran is working toward a nuclear warhead to go along with its undisclosed uranium enrichment activities.

While the Obama team nervously talks among themselves, they have missed the opportunity to make the Internet available to the thousands of student protesters inside Iran or to implement another round of harsh sanctions on Ahmadinejad that could push his government over the cliff and deliver the fatal blow to his presidency.

There may still be time to make sure Iran doesn’t acquire the nuclear weapons that they will surely use, but it will take quick and sustained action like divestment initiatives from political leaders around the world. The White House and European politicians should take note. An immediate combination of paralyzing UN sanctions, aggressive support for the struggling opposition inside Iran, firm pressure on Europeans to implement the current financial sanctions and a credible use of a military deterrence must all be realized – and soon. Poizner isn’t waiting for the Obama Administration to get its act together; he is doing what he can to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.

While many politicians are eager to jump on popular public social movements, few leaders think creatively enough to start a movement when there is no media attention. Steve Poizner is clearly a leader that is thinking strategically about the public’s safety and working to lead an important national security movement that has yet to garner the media’s attention.

While many politicians talk about what they WILL do if given the power of a political office, Poizner is showing us what he IS doing to help make California and the rest of the world safe and secure.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

pelosi ignores the gay marriage issue because there are no consequences

cbsnews.com/pelosi and grenell

So What Will Pelosi Do About DC Gay Marriage?

By Richard Grenell

Nancy Pelosi represents the gayest congressional district in the United States. She also happens to be the most powerful person, woman or man, in the House of Representatives. With one simple directive she can force 435 Members of Congress from across the United States to vote on any piece of legislation she wants. Healthcare legislation, immigration reform, tax increases or gay marriage are all issues that Speaker Nancy Pelosi can choose to have voted on by Congress. She could schedule a vote at 3 a.m. and members would be expected to appear. She alone gets to decide what the House of Representatives votes on and when it votes. But will Pelosi pass the DC gay marriage bill — one of her district’s most important issues — before the end of the year? What is she waiting for? She has the power to do it immediately and DC needs Congressional approval to move forward with equal rights for all citizens.

Nancy Pelosi also has a Democratic partner over in the Senate in Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has the same power in the Senate with the 100 members that Nancy Pelosi has in the House of Representatives. Together, Pelosi and Reid have a Democratic President in Barack Obama. It isn’t an overstatement to say that these three Democrats – Pelosi, Reid and Obama – can force any issue to a vote and make that issue a law. All Pelosi, Reid and Obama have to do is get their own party to go along with their ideas – no Republicans are needed to go along with the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda. Not one Republican is needed to enact new laws. None. Zero.

So why aren’t these three Democrats passing new laws and making changes? Where is the gay marriage law they promised when they were put in charge and the Republicans were run out of office?

The answer, of course, is and has always been that America is not ready for gay marriage. Nearly every public poll taken has shown that the electorate, albeit the public at large, is not ready. Pelosi, Reid and Obama are only reading public opinion surveys when they delay votes on gay issues. Even California, the most liberal state in the nation, wasn’t able to get the electorate to see the value of equal rights for all. But the Nation’s Capital has and now needs Pelosi’s support.

What is needed to pass gay marriage is not a Democratic majority – this past year has proven that to be true – but politicians and judges comfortable enough to ignore what the majority of the voters want and do what is uncomfortable, unpopular – and morally right. Equal rights should not be debatable and certainly should not be put to a vote of the people. Would we ask the electorate to vote on whether or not Catholics and Protestants should marry? Of course we would not. The Catholic Church or the local evangelical church should not be forced to bless the new union of a divorced woman if they don’t want to. But civil governments don’t make the same distinctions. While religious institutions should be able to pick and choose which unions they bless, civil governments should issue marriage licenses to all couples.

But the more that the gay leaders raise money for and give unconditional support to Democratic politicians, the more Democratic leaders are encouraged to take gay marriage voters for granted. Anyone who is still holding out for the Democrats to be the gayest political party is now part of the problem. The more gay marriage is made a political issue the longer gays will be treated as less than and unequal. Equal rights should not be a partisan political issue so why are all gay leaders in one political party?

Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have to pay attention to gays because there is no price to pay for ignoring them.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post