Tuesday, May 29, 2007

CM PRESS # 150

George H. W. Bush/George W. Bush/George P. Bush.


John Derbyshire, National Review Online, May 25, 2007


The Census Bureau estimated yesterday that from July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2006, the nation’s minority population grew to 100.7 million from 98.3 million … Nearly half the children under age 5 are Hispanic, black or Asian … 80 percent of Americans over age 60 are non-Hispanic whites, compared with only 60 percent among those in their 20s and 30s, and 58 percent among people younger than 20….


It is not news that white Anglo (i.e. white non-Hispanic—I am using “Anglo” just as a linguistic marker) Americans are heading for minority status. Bill Clinton was exulting over the prospect a decade ago. Interesting to see the numbers in detail, though, and the state-by-state disparities.

Four states and the District of Columbia are “majority-minority.” Hawaii led the nation with a population that was 75 percent minority in 2006, followed by the District of Columbia (68 percent), New Mexico (57 percent), California (57 percent), and Texas (52 percent).


[Demographer Dr. Mark] Mather said the three most homogeneous states—Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia—spent the highest proportion of their gross state product on public education.

This reinforces a number of findings from recent years suggesting that people are much more willing to be taxed for the benefit of people like themselves than for the benefit of the Other. Old people already grumble about paying taxes to support extravagant educational establishments. As the racial generation gap opens up, with the oldsters being noticeably more white and Anglo than the kids being educated, the grumbling will escalate into action—most likely, the simple action of yet further residential segregation, the old and white-Anglo living here, the young and dark Hispanic living there.

Though, of course, the unwillingness to be taxed to support the Other cuts both ways. How will a majority nonwhite young workforce feel about paying out income and Social Security taxes for the sustenance of old, white Anglos? I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I, at least, have looked forward glumly to my last days, most likely spent stuck, incapable, in some cruddy nursing home with a bunch of other helpless white geezers, my daily needs in the hands of resentful black and brown orderlies whose educations featured long catalogs of the wrongs done to Them by Us.

Back of all that is the question: As white Anglos decline into a minority, will we see the rise of white-Anglo race consciousness? The common understanding at present is that open expressions of race consciousness are taboo for white-Anglo Americans, but just fine for everyone else. A leading black presidential candidate subtitles his best-selling biography “A Story of Race and Inheritance”; the main lobbying organization for Hispanics carries the proud title “National Council of the Race”; and so on. This word is, however, not available to white-Anglo Americans in reference to themselves, and white-Anglo Americans are indoctrinated from childhood to believe, or to pretend to believe, that race is an empty category.


It is quite possible that Americans alive today will live to see the nation become majority Hispanic. Did anyone ever think this would happen, prior to a few short years ago? Well into the 1960s, Mexico was an inconsequential place, a joke place, while the other Central American nations simply did not register at all. You went to Acapulco for an exotic vacation, got a nasty case of Montezuma’s revenge, and came home with some colorful handicraft trinkets to put on your mantel shelf. That aside, you never thought about Central America from one year’s end to the next. The highest level that Mexicans rose to in the American imagination was the vaguely sentimental portrayals in the works of southwestern writers like Willa Cather.


Now there are 110 million Mexicans to the U.S.’s 300 million, with corresponding numbers of Hispanics further south. If you count the 20 or 30 million Mexicans actually living here, legally or illegally, the Mexican-American ratio must actually be about one to two. Unfortunately Mexico’s great late-20th-century population boom was boomier, and longer-lasting, than that nation’s economic boom, which fizzled out around 1980. Not only were mid-20th-century Central American populations numerically insignificant until recently; the economic gap between their sleepy, stagnant economies and our vibrant one was less then that it is today, after several more decades of sleepy stagnation on their part, vibrancy on ours.

And so white-Anglo America slips into minority status. Probably we never wanted it to happen. Probably, if asked around 1970 whether it ought to happen, most of us would have said no. The topic never rose to the status of a major political issue among the mass of Americans, though. The coming presidential election will be the first in my lifetime to have immigration as a major theme.


If there is any large general historical lesson to be taken from all this, it is that a population as prosperous, secure, well-employed, and well-entertained as the white Anglos of late 20th-century America, and as confident of its own cultural superiority, cannot be made to care much about matters of ethnic identity, and may altogether lose the habit of thinking in such terms.

Whether this ethnic insouciance will survive the coming great demographic changes, I don’t know. Things have gone so far now that there is very little we can do but wait and see.

Original Article

CM PRESS # 149


May 29, 2007--The Daily Pilot is running a letter today from a guy in Newport Beach who is saying that Councilmembers Gary Monahan, Allan Mansoor and Eric Bever shouldn't close the job center.

Ah, Daily Pilot, Mr. Monahan is no longer on the Council and the job center was closed long ago.
# # #
UPDATE--9:57 a.m. 5/29/07--The Daily Pilot has now removed the letter discussed above from the internet version of the DP, but it's still in the dead tree editions of course.
# # #

Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Monday, May 28, 2007

CM PRESS # 148


May 28, 2007--We constantly hear that the Costa Mesa Police Department is understaffed. If true, then what are we to make of these statistics from page Local 4 in the OC REGISTER today?

Ratios of cops per 1,000 residents in Orange County cities with more than 100,000 residents:

Costa Mesa: 1.43
Orange 1.17
Anaheim 1.16
Fullerton: 1.14
Huntington Beach: 1.14
Santa Ana: 1.12
Brea/Yorba Linda 1.01
Garden Grove: 0.97
Irvine: 0.91

In other words, Costa Mesa has more cops per 1,000 residents than any other comparably sized city in the county.

You will also note that Irvine, which consistently comes in as one of the safest cities in the U.S., has the lowest ratio of cops to residents.

So why is Costa Mesa's crime rate so high? The answer is that our city has been turned into an unofficial illegal alien sanctuary by years and years of libs running this city.

It's only been since the improvers came on the scene about seven years ago that Costa Mesa has started turning back toward being the great city that it should be.

If the improvers can keep electing good people to the City Council so that they're in the majority, Costa Mesa will continue to improve, our crime rate will fall, our schools will start getting better, our homes will appreciate, and our quality of life will increase.

On the other hand, if the evil-doers start getting their people back in control of the City Council you can expect Costa Mesa to begin going more and more the way of Santa Ana.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Friday, May 25, 2007

CM PRESS # 147


It appears that the "new" Daily Pilot is pretty much the same as the old Daily Pilot.

On page A5 today there's a news report about a man being assaulted and shot on South Coast Drive Thursday.
The victim got a good look at his attackers and gave a description to the CMPD, which put the description in its press release picked up by the Daily Pilot.

Funny thing. The Daily Pilot "forgot" to print a description of the attackers.

Wonder why? Could it be because they are described as "Latino"?
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

CM PRESS # 146


The Darwin Award is a tongue-in-cheek "honor" given to stupid people who have removed themselves from the gene pool.

From the off-the-mark comments I've seen from some people who try to tell others what they think I think and what they think I write about, I have a feeling that we may have a future Darwin Award winner or two in Orange County. Hopefully, they haven't reproduced.

Anyway, I usually use the CM PRESS to write about local issues, but here's one of my recent national columns that seems to have some bigots and haters drooling their usual hate speech
and engaging in serial name calling as they either can't understand what they're reading or intentionally try to mischaracterize it.

If you're not too bored with what follows and if you want to read more of my musings about why we're here, what's it all mean and similar things, you can get my books at brick and mortar bookstores or on Amazon or you can google me and get hundreds of my free essays that are all over the place. Or, if you're a member of MENSA you can find some of my stuff in their publications.

A reporter once asked me what it is that I write about. My answer then and now is that I write about existence.

Specifically, in my national columns and in my books, I usually deal with the big questions of existence, often as they relate to us in the here and now. I do it with a combination of fiction and non-fiction and I interweave scientific facts and recent scientific discoveries and current events into what I write. Along the way, I often take on the sacred cows of our present Dark Age--a very necessary thing to do in any age.

One of my best known quotes is: "Everything is simple; it's only the explanation that is complex," and that holds with existence and my writings about it.

One of the worst fears of a writer isn't that people won't like what he writes, but that no one will read it.

Thanks to the haters, my work is getting free publicity. Of course, I don't know how many readers bother to read their drivel.

Yes, dear friends, in a sense, it's a Brer Rabbit moment.

See what you think. Should we not write and talk about things as I do in the column below or should we, on the other hand, honestly and robustly talk about such things? Is it hate to discuss scientific facts? Do you see any Don Imus type comments?

---column follows-------------------

by H. Millard (c) 2007
Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Here's a clarification I want to make with how I'm using the word genocide in this column. I'm using it to mean the destruction by any means of a genetic group. In my use of the term, criminal acts are not required. Gen=genes + cide=death. Death of genes.

Flooding the U.S. with non-European genes, coupled with the massive "anti-racism" conditioning of our age, leaves European Americans vulnerable and open to committing their own bedroom genocide.

Before going on, let me be very clear. I speak for myself. I'm not a member of any anti-immigration group and I expect many people, maybe even most, in these groups will disagree with me. So be it. We still have a little freedom of speech left in this country (but how long it will last is anyone's guess), and I choose to use a little of my free speech to tell others about the continuing extinction of European genes that is happening right before our eyes.

You can be excused if you're one of the slow boiled frogs who can't see the genocide. It hasn't come with marching boots and gas chambers, but with walking shoes and smiles.

But genocide it is.

And, the present amnesty and open borders scheme being hailed by George Bush and some in congress is really just another chapter in the move to destroy distinctions between different peoples, nations, and religions and blend them all together into a bland and conformist Stepfordized world. Once again, I call that genocide.

You may say it is compassionate or modern or practical what George Bush and the other blenders are doing, but that's a very short view of history. In the long run it may mean the destruction of the U.S. as we know it and the extinction of all distinct peoples. The first to become extinct will probably be White people--we are the recessive people on this planet.

To understand why I call what's going on genocide, we have to understand a few basic concepts that most people seem to ignore.

First, we have to understand that race is a reality. Race is to humans as breed is to dogs.''Race" is not a bad word. People come in races just as dogs come in breeds. The different races and different breeds have genetic differences from others of their respective species. Different races and different breeds also have different strengths and different weaknesses from others in their species. Greyhounds do run faster than poodles, for example. Different races of people do build different types of societies.

Second, evolution is all about differences. Current scientific thinking holds that all humans probably evolved from pre-humans living in Africa . Similarly, all dogs--from Chihuahuas to Great Danes, and everything in between, sprang from wolves.

Now, as humans moved out of Africa, they adapted and changed as they lived under different conditions. In this regard, nature is automatically accommodating and constantly causes minor changes--mutations--to occur that may allow living things, including humans, the ability to survive in new environments.

Some of these changes spread through a population precisely because they do help people survive in certain conditions where it might not be possible or might be more difficult without these changes.

In fact, it has been estimated that nature makes about one "mistake" for every 10 million bases of DNA that are copied. That may not sound like many mistakes--mutations, again--but when you realize that each human carries about 3 billion bases, you can see that there are lots of changes going on all the time.

These little mutations may not continue to exist in the population if there is no survival benefit from them. But, if there is a survival benefit--such as white skin to let in more sun to produce a proper amount of Vitamin D to prevent rickets in cold and cloudy environments--they may become the norm in that environment.

That's exactly what happened. Humans who moved to Europe adapted and developed white skin and many also became blond and blue eyed and acquired a whole host of differences from those who remained in Africa or who moved to other lands. As the centuries passed, more and more differences crept in, not only in the things we can easily see, but also in the way people were and what they valued and the types of societies they built.

And, speaking of white skin, recent research seems to indicate that a mutation in just one amino acid in gene SLC245A found on Chromosome 15 is why White people are white.

As it so happens, when you change one gene just a little, there is often a cascade of other changes that occur as a result. For example, you don't just get white skin--you get all sorts of other things along with it. Some may be positive and some negative. In the latter category is a higher risk of skin cancer caused by the sun. It's like the old, "if you want the bull, you have to take the horns" statement.

Given the ignorant temper of our times, it's probably necessary to add at this point that awareness of human differences does not equal hate and it does not equal a belief in a general superiority of one group over another. There are just differences and they should be looked at and studied as coolly and scientifically as we look at differences between different breeds of dogs.

Once a group of people has such differences, it may wish to retain those differences.
People in the group may like themselves just the way they are and not want to be changed. The usual way people state this is to say that they want their children to look like them. That is their natural right as human beings. Now, in order to remain the way they are, means that they have to retain and pass on the genetic traits that they possess.

Here comes the real problem with flooding European gene pools with non-European genes.

Many of the traits that are found in European descended peoples are recessive. This means that it takes two copies of a gene for these traits to be present for the trait to be expressed. That's why I wrote, above, that Whites are the recessive people. It takes more effort to make us. In simplest terms, if you have blue eyes, blond hair and white skin, your best bet in having children with those traits is to mate with others who also have these traits. In this regard you may have read news stories this past year about how some scientists are saying that blond hair may become extinct. Why? Because of an influx of non-blond genes into the gene pool. Put another way, we could say that nature's default is to non-White characteristics.

Generally speaking, many of the darker features: eyes, skin, hair are dominant. This means they only need one copy of a gene to be present in order to be expressed. So, if a blue eyed person and a dark eyed person have children, most of the children will have dark eyes. Again, blue eyes require blue eyed genes from both mother and father while dark eyes only require one parent to contribute dark eyed genes.

Genes are carried by chromosomes. Humans have 46 chromosomes. We get 23 from our father and 23 from our mother at the moment of conception.
Because, as we noted above, most uniquely European-American traits are recessive, we need to have two parents with European genes in order to have our genotype (our internal blueprint) and phenotype (our outward appearance) continue and not become extinct. Thus, we need 23 European chromosomes from the father and we need 23 European chromosomes from the mother.

Now, it does get more complicated than that and there are thousands of genes on those chromosomes, but this is the basic idea.

If you live in a country where there are many people with the genetic traits you want to preserve, your probability of mating with someone with those traits is higher than if you live in a country where there are few others with those traits. It's just common sense.

Thirdly, the U.S. was a new Europe for most of its first hundred and fifty or so years of existence. Forget that sop about it being a "melting pot." That term was coined when different European "nationalities" (not races) were coming here. In the U.S., the English married their Irish and French and German and Swedish and other European cousins. They then became a plain wrap European on the American shores.
They were still genetically like their cousins in Europe.

Take any European-American and plop him down in any European nation and he'd pretty much fit in and not be seen as an outsider. Of course, the same thing holds true with African-Americans and Africa and Chinese-Americans and China as well as with other groups. In other words, we are our genes. That is the source of our essential selves, not the country in which we live. Nationalities are artificial. Genes are authentic. That's the point of this essay. Genes matter and genes are us. With different genes, we are, literally, not ourselves.

With a nation full of different genes, the U.S. will become less and less like a new Europe and more and more like other parts of the world as European-Americans mate with the ever more available non-Europeans.

European-Americans have been browbeaten into submission in this country with the term "racism" and similar words. We have mostly learned to shut up and not be ourselves lest we be called racists; which is usually defined to mean racial hatred.

My guess is that most European-Americans don't hate anyone because of their race or anything else, and generally we get along fine with all peoples. We cooperate with everyone in areas where we have common interests and we treat others as we want to be treated.

Still, no matter how much goodness is in our hearts, we fear that if we talk about our own people--European-Americans--or openly and honestly discuss race and genes, we will be put in the same column with those who might attack others because of their race.

Frankly, this must have been the way it was during the Witch hysteria in Salem, Mass. Anyone who spoke out against the injustice being done to some people was, in turn, also labeled a Witch, so people just shut up.

So, today, we self-censor ourselves. We shut up. And, in shutting up, we harm ourselves and those to come after us. We become like whipped dogs and we become less than we can be and should be. We are no longer fully functioning human beings with the intellectual and emotional freedom to let our minds go where they will. We become neutered. We become aracial eunuchs. Everyone else can have a race or ethnicity, but not us. We have to be "above" nature.

I'm saying this has to end. We must take back our right to be and we must take back our right to self-identity and self-determination and I also believe that this is directly related to controlling our borders and deciding who to let in and who not to let in.

On Thursday, key Republican and Democrat senators announced an agreement with the White House on an amnesty bill that will continue the invasion of the U.S. by millions and millions of non-Europeans who will dump trillions and trillions of their genes in the gene pool which may eventually cause the extinction of European-Americans. Call it bedroom genocide. That's what it is. And, it will probably come one or two traits at a time. Fewer blonds. Fewer blue eyes. Darker skin. And then on and on and on. Soon, there will be no more Europeans in the U.S.

Of course, things are never as simple as they sometimes are written on paper. There are also moves among some non-European peoples to regain their own genetic heritages that have been watered down by the influx of European genes into their gene pools. We see this in Hawaii where many native Hawaiians are trying--but, they don't call it this--to distill out the European genes from their people. We also see it with various American Indian tribes. And, there are some Black groups who want to remain black and not be watered down by White genes.

Some of these peoples understand what many European-Americans are afraid to say: Genes matter. Without American Indian genes, for example, one is not an American Indian no matter how often one dresses up as an American Indian. It is the same with all other peoples. All peoples begin and end with genes.

The psychotic blending zeitgeist of our age demands that all peoples, all religions and all nations be blended together. This is anti-evolutionary, anti-life, and genocidal. People are not fungible. They are all different and they have a right to remain different.

George Bush and those who think like him are destroying distinct peoples, distinct nations and distinct religions. In the U.S. they're doing this by swamping the European gene pool with non-European genes. Why isn't this called genocide?

# # #

You can get my following books from Amazon. com:




# # #

Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

CM PRESS # 145


In # 143 we gave you the telephone numbers of all U.S. Senators so you could call them and tell them what you think about Bush's screwy amnesty scheme.

The job isn't done.

So, here's a link to a list of all Senators with their email addresses:


Even if you've already contacted them, do it again. And, again. And, again.... Let them all know your feelings and be sure to pass this list on to everyone you know in every state possible.

This is the way WE march. This is the way WE protest. This is the way WE demonstrate.
WE are citizens.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Monday, May 21, 2007

CM PRESS # 144


(You'll be reading about this in the mainstream press tomorrow)

MAY 21, 2007--In a report issued today, the OC Grand Jury has given a nod of approval to Sheriff Mike Carona's plan to check the immigration status of everyone who is booked into the Sheriff's Department jails.

In addition, the Grand Jury is recommending that cities with their own jails either train their own officers to check on immigration status or contract with ICE to do this at their jails. Below are excerpts from the Grand Jury's report. To read the full report go here: http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/ice_report_final.pdf 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY

----------Excerpts of Grand Jury report start below(The CM PRESS has separated longer paragraphs for readability and has added emphases)-----------------------------------




On October 17, 2006, the Orange County (OC) Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department (OCSD).


In December, 2006, 14 OCSD deputies became working partners with the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, a division of the DHS.

These deputies were given four weeks of ICE training and sworn-in by ICE officials to assume many of the duties of the larger federal agency. Following the training, the OCSD deputies received an additional two weeks of hands-on training at an ICE facility. The cost of training was paid by DHS; however, OCSD was required to pay the overtime cost for replacing the OCSD deputies during the training.


OC cities with a population of over 100,000 residents are considered large cities. According to ICE management, of these large cities there is currently one full time ICE agent assigned to the Costa Mesa City Jail and one part time ICE agent assigned to the Anaheim City Jail. All OC Large City Jails have access to ICE agents via telephone, e-mail and a future video conferencing system. It is at the discretion of the city and police management as to how often and when ICE agents are contacted.


Costa Mesa ICE Agent

The Costa Mesa City Jail has one full time federal ICE agent. As at OC IRC, people who are booked at this police facility are asked where they were born. If they say they were born outside of the U.S.A., or if it is determined that they were born outside of the U.S.A., their file is given to an ICE agent.

If an ICE agent is required and not personally available, he is reachable by phone.
In December, 2006 and January, 2007, the Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) booked 870 individuals in the jail of whom 107 individuals were detained for immigration violations. Of these 107 individuals there were 44 felony, 57 misdemeanor, and 3 infraction charges.

Also, a person’s ICE status is noted in a police record available to the general public at the front desk of the CMPD station.
Presently, a determination of a person’s immigration status is only performed by ICE agents. CMPD management is making a concentrated effort to ensure that citizens do not feel they are being detained by police to check their immigration status. CMPD management believes this working arrangement with ICE is effective for the city.

When asked about the OCSD plan of training deputies to act as ICE agents, CMPD management noted that freeing time for this training in Costa Mesa would not be feasible because of cost and unavailability of personnel.

--------------End of excerpts from Grand Jury report--------------------------------

Some activists contacted by the CM PRESS do not agree with the CMPD position shown in blue above and believe that not only should the CMPD have an ICE agent in our jail as we have now, but that the CMPD should probably have at least two of of our regular police officers cross-trained by ICE as added insurance that dangerous illegal alien felons will be removed from our streets and be deported.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

CM PRESS # 143



Tell your Senators to vote against the Immigration Bill (or “vote no on cloture”) on Monday, May 21st (TODAY!). (This will kill the Immigration Bill by allowing Senators to filibuster it.)

Time’s running out. Do it now!!

Contact info for Senators can be found here:


This links to an online form to contact Senators:


You can go to this web site:


Click on “fax Congress free.”

Fill in some info and they’ll send an anti-immigration fax to your House Rep. and Senators.

It's easy.

And here’s some public info on Senators’ phone numbers:

Switchboard: 202-224-3121

US SENATORS - use toll free number 866.340.9281

Akaka, Daniel K.- (D – HI) (202) 224-6361
Alexander, Lamar- (R – TN) (202) 224-4944
Allard, Wayne- (R – CO) (202) 224-5941
Baucus, Max- (D – MT) (202) 224-2651
Bayh, Evan- (D – IN) (202) 224-5623
Bennett, Robert F.- (R – UT) (202) 224-5444
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D – DE) (202) 224-5042
Bingaman, Jeff- (D – NM) (202) 224-5521
Bond, Christopher S.- (R – MO) (202) 224-5721
Boxer, Barbara- (D – CA) (202) 224-3553
Brown, Sherrod- (D – OH) (202) 224-2315
Brownback, Sam- (R – KS) (202) 224-6521
Bunning, Jim- (R – KY) (202) 224-4343
Burr, Richard- (R – NC) (202) 224-3154
Byrd, Robert C.- (D – WV) (202) 224-3954
Cantwell, Maria- (D – WA) (202) 224-3441
Cardin, Benjamin L.- (D – MD) (202) 224-4524
Carper, Thomas R.- (D – DE) (202) 224-2441
Casey, Robert P., Jr.- (D – PA) (202) 224-6324
Chambliss, Saxby- (R – GA) (202) 224-3521
Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D – NY) (202) 224-4451
Coburn, Tom- (R – OK) (202) 224-5754
Cochran, Thad- (R – MS) (202) 224-5054
Coleman, Norm- (R – MN) (202) 224-5641
Collins, Susan M.- (R – ME) (202) 224-2523
Conrad, Kent- (D – ND) (202) 224-2043
Corker, Bob- (R – TN) (202) 224-3344
Cornyn, John- (R – TX) (202) 224-2934
Craig, Larry E.- (R – ID) (202) 224-2752
Crapo, Mike- (R – ID) (202) 224-6142
DeMint, Jim- (R – SC) (202) 224-6121
Dodd, Christopher J.- (D – CT) (202) 224-2823
Dole, Elizabeth- (R – NC) (202) 224-6342
Domenici, Pete V.- (R – NM) (202) 224-6621
Dorgan, Byron L.- (D – ND) (202) 224-2551
Durbin, Richard – (D – IL (202) 224-2152
Ensign, John- (R – NV) (202) 224-6244
Enzi, Michael B.- (R – WY) (202) 224-3424
Feingold, Russell D.- (D – WI) (202) 224-5323
Feinstein, Dianne- (D – CA) (202) 224-3841
Graham, Lindsey- (R – SC) (202) 224-5972
Grassley, Chuck- (R – IA) (202) 224-3744
Gregg, Judd- (R – NH) (202) 224-3324
Hagel, Chuck- (R – NE) (202) 224-4224
Harkin, Tom- (D – IA) (202) 224-3254
Hatch, Orrin G.- (R – UT) (202) 224-5251
Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R – TX) (202) 224-5922
Inhofe, James M.- (R – OK) (202) 224-4721
Inouye, Daniel K.- (D – HI) (202) 224-3934
Isakson, Johnny- (R – GA) (202) 224-3643
Johnson, Tim- (D – SD) (202) 224-5842
Kennedy, Edward M.- (D – MA) (202) 224-4543
Kerry, John F.- (D – MA) (202) 224-2742
Klobuchar, Amy- (D – MN) (202) 224-3244
Kohl, Herb- (D – WI) (202) 224-5653
Kyl, Jon- (R – AZ) (202) 224-4521
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D – LA) (202) 224-5824
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D – NJ) (202) 224-3224
Leahy, Patrick J.- (D – VT) (202) 224-4242
Levin, Carl- (D – MI) (202) 224-6221
Lieberman, Joseph I.- (ID – CT) (202) 224-4041
Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D – AR) (202) 224-4843
Lott, Trent- (R – MS) (202) 224-6253
Lugar, Richard G.- (R – IN) (202) 224-4814
Martinez, Mel- (R – FL) (202) 224-3041
McCain, John- (R – AZ) (202) 224-2235
McCaskill, Claire- (D – MO) (202) 224-6154
McConnell, Mitch- (R – KY) (202) 224-2541
Menendez, Robert- (D – NJ) (202) 224-4744
Mikulski, Barbara A.- (D – MD) (202) 224-4654
Murkowski, Lisa- (R – AK) (202) 224-6665
Murray, Patty- (D – WA) (202) 224-2621
Nelson, Bill- (D – FL) (202) 224-5274
Nelson, E. Benjamin- (D – NE) (202) 224-6551
Obama, Barack- (D – IL) (202) 224-2854
Pryor, Mark L.- (D – AR) (202) 224-2353
Reed, Jack- (D – RI) (202) 224-4642
Reid, Harry- (D – NV) (202) 224-3542
Roberts, Pat- (R – KS) (202) 224-4774
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D – WV) (202) 224-6472
Salazar, Ken- (D – CO) (202) 224-5852
Sanders, Bernard- (I – VT) (202) 224-5141
Schumer, Charles E.- (D – NY) (202) 224-6542
Sessions, Jeff- (R – AL) (202) 224-4124
Shelby, Richard C.- (R – AL) (202) 224-5744
Smith, Gordon H.- (R – OR) (202) 224-3753
Snowe, Olympia J.- (R – ME) (202) 224-5344
Specter, Arlen- (R – PA) (202) 224-4254
Stabenow, Debbie- (D – MI) (202) 224-4822
Stevens, Ted- (R – AK) (202) 224-3004
Sununu, John E.- (R – NH) (202) 224-2841
Tester, Jon- (D – MT) (202) 224-2644
Thomas, Craig- (R – WY) (202) 224-6441
Thune, John- (R – SD) (202) 224-2321
Vitter, David- (R – LA) (202) 224-4623
Voinovich, George V.- (R – OH) (202) 224-3353
Warner, John- (R – VA) (202) 224-2023
Webb, Jim- (D – VA) (202) 224-4024
Whitehouse, Sheldon- (D – RI) (202) 224-2921
Wyden, Ron- (D – OR) (202) 224-5244

Toll Free Congressional switchboard: 1-800-862-5530

# # #

Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

CM PRESS # 142


President Bush is trying to shove his amnesty scheme for illegal aliens (yes, it is an amnesty) and his open border policies down our throats.

We believe his plans will be disastrous for the future of the U.S. and our quality of life.

There have been similar short views of history in the past.

For example, in 1803, earlier versions of short sighted Bushniks argued against buying the Louisiana Territory, but President Jefferson took the long view of history and the U.S. did buy that territory.

If those earlier versions of the Bushniks had prevailed with their short view of history and had Jefferson lost the argument, we'd have a United States today that would be missing the present states of:
Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and large parts of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico and Texas.

If Bush and his posse of Bushniks succeed with this amnesty and their open border schemes, we'll be missing all 50 states, as we now know them.


Senator Feinstein:


Senator Boxer:


Senator McCain:


Congressman Rohrabacher:


President Bush


Here's a site where you can learn more and also get more ideas of where to send your message:


Wednesday, May 16, 2007

CM PRESS # 141


HAZLETON, PA. --5/16/07--Mayor Lou Barletta, whose strong anti-illegal immigration stance catapulted him to national fame last year, not only won the GOP nomination for Mayor in next November's election on Tuesday, but he also won the Democrat nomination on a write in campaign.

Are you listening Costa Mesa politicians? The CM PRESS believes that this issue is just as important to voters in Costa Mesa as it is to voters in Hazeleton.

So, Costa Mesa City Council, why are you still giving our tax money to charity businesses that are reverse laundering that clean citizen money and making it dirty by giving it to illegal aliens in Costa Mesa?

---Why, City Council, are you still subsidizing illegal aliens?

---Why are you still printing City brochures in Spanish?

---Why aren't you having the CMPD give you a push-pin map or its equivalent that will clearly show that our high crime rates are coming from the illegal alien infested slums of Mission-Mendoza, Fillmore-Coolidge, Shalimar and a few others?

---Why isn't the City buying up and tearing down some slum buildings and putting in small parks?

---Why aren't you having the CMPD report to you on which charities the illegals they arrest have been using?

---Why aren't you making sure that some of the overtly political and liberal cops who tried to defeat Mr. Mansoor and Ms. Leece in the last election are not reverse-profiling and letting suspected illegal aliens go unless they commit major crimes?

Most of our serious problems in Costa Mesa have a connection with the libs having turned this city into an illegal alien sanctuary.

Deconstruct the sanctuary and the slums and make Costa Mesa as nice as our coastal neighboring cities.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

CM PRESS # 140

(Is it good or bad for improvement?)

At last night's (5/14) no-Planning Commission meeting, new Costa Mesa resident and new no-Planning Commissioner Jim Righeimer encouraged Costa Mesans to attend a lecture on real property being put on by the Ayn Rand Institute tomorrow night (Wed. 5/16) in Costa Mesa.

Now, we at the CM PRESS are fiercely individualistic and freedom loving (read our books if you doubt it), but we believe that there is also a social contract that requires us to act not only in our personal best interests, but to also consider the rights and reasonable wishes of others who might be impacted by what we do on our real property. You've heard this before in other contexts. It's the Golden Rule.

The CM PRESS doesn't want Costa Mesa to become too nit-picky a city, but we think that neighbors do have a right to weigh in on the building of a major structure that will put their own property in a permanent twilight with no breezes and no view.

We're also long time believers in the notion that Costa Mesa should and can be as nice a place as our coastal neighboring cities, but that this will take a proper vision and real planning to make it a reality; not a philosophy that lets every property owner do whatever he or she wants on his or her property with no regard to its effects on others or on the city as a whole.

Those who want the maximum amount of freedom to do what they want on their property, might be better advised to find some land out in the middle of the desert away from others. Of course, they may have to give up some of the conveniences of living in a built out city--things like indoor plumbing, etc.

Here's a link to Rand's book The Virtue of Selfishness in which Rand discusses part of her philosophy in her own words: http://www.objectivismstore.com/pc-23-3-virtue-of-selfishness.aspx

In the closing sentence in Rand's Atlas Shrugged, Rand's character John Galt presents the credo of objectivists: "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

In the appendix to Atlas Shrugged, Rand wrote "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Below is a link to the Wikipedia entry about Rand. There are also further links at Wikipedia about some well known individuals who, according to the Wikipedia entry, Rand is considered to have influenced; including such seemingly different individuals as Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and Church of Satan founder Anton LaVey.


While alive, Rand received some criticism for her comments, or alleged comments, about what some felt was Rand's stance toward Christianity.

Time magazine reported in 1960 that Rand, in a speech at Yale University, said "The cross is the symbol of torture; I prefer the dollar sign, the symbol of free trade, therefore of the free mind."

While the quote apparently isn't found in the published text of the speech, Rand later sent a letter to the editor of Time correcting some of what the magazine reported she had said, but she didn't correct the above quote.

However, later that year in an interview appearing in Playboy magazine, Rand denied that she had preferred the dollar sign to the cross, but she continued "Now you want me to speak about the cross. What is correct is that I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn't that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. [...] And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture."


No-Planning Commissioner Jim Righeimer (see # 139)--the same Jim Righeimer who urged Costa Mesans to attend the Ayn Rand Institute lecture on real property--wrote in his column in the Daily Pilot on 5/12/07 that it is not a homeowner's responsibility "to protect a neighbor's view, sunlight or ocean breeze, or to make his or her house compatible with your 1972 'Brady Bunch special.'" http://www.dailypilot.com/

In other words, if we understand Righeimer's comments correctly, he seems to be saying that your next door neighbor can pretty much do what he or she wants with his or her property, no matter what you think.

Now, Righeimer is entitled to his opinions and his philosophy, but the problem here is that he's an unelected official on the no-Planning Commission and he's voting for things in your neighborhood at every meeting.

You say you bought your home because it was sunny? Tough. You liked those ocean breezes? Too bad. You moved into your neighborhood because it had a certain feel? Sorry. It's every man and woman for him or herself, apparently.

It gets worse. Councilmember Eric Bever wrote in a Daily Pilot blog on 5/13: "I also agree with Righeimer's property-rights positions. " http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2007/05/15/blogs_and_columns/rigonomics/dpt-rigonomics12.txt

So, dear readers. What do you think? Does your neighbor have a right to do whatever he or she wants with no regard to what you want? Apparently, Righeimer and Bever think so.

You might let the City Council and the no-Planning Commission know what you think about this before you lose the ambiance that you thought you were buying when you bought your home.

# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Monday, May 14, 2007

CM PRESS # 139

(Here's a photo of the actual home used for the exterior shots for the Brady Bunch TV series)

In his latest column in the Daily Pilot (5/12/07), new Costa Mesa resident and new no-Planning Commissioner Jim Righeimer writes that it is not a homeowner's responsibility to "protect a neighbor's view, sunlight or ocean breeze, or to make his or her house compatible with your 1972 'Brady Bunch' special."

In other words, if your neighbor wants to build a massive building next door to your home so that your home becomes a dark and dank dungeon fit only for a mushroom farm, it's okay with Righeimer.

Anyone with such a simplistic view of property rights shouldn't be on the no-Planning Commission.

The truth is that people on both sides of the property line have rights. When we buy homes, we don't just buy them for what's inside our property lines. We buy them for the neighborhood--for those things that exist outside our property lines.

And, we're usually especially interested in what buildings are right next to the one we are considering buying. A home is more than just shelter. When we buy a home, we buy a life style and we buy the right to the quiet enjoyment of our property without having it impacted by neighbors who selfishly disregard our rights and make it uncomfortable for us to continue living in our home.

When we buy a home in a neighborhood, we have a reasonable expectation that the character of the neighborhood will remain fairly constant, i.e. that it will remain more or less the way it was when we bought our home and that our quality of life won't be destroyed by those who make radical changes to the neighborhood.

Now, notwithstanding what we've just written above, we must also be allowed to improve our homes. We must be able to make them larger and more modern. But, as we do so, we must be respectful of the rights of others. Our changes must "fit" the neighborhood.

And, that's where the real battle lies: what fits and what doesn't fit a particular neighborhood?

A couple of years ago, the CM PRESS heard some people on the no-Planning Commission and on the City Council rail against the "mansionization" of Costa Mesa.

We argued against their position and in favor of mansions and even said that we could use some mansions in our city. Our position is still the same. We're all for bigger and more expensive homes to compete with the homes to our south that are stealing our upwardly mobile citizens away from Costa Mesa.

However, we are for balance, appropriateness, and respect for others and their rights. These are things that we think are missing in Righeimer's one dimensional view of property rights as expressed in his column.

If a homeowner has a small home that is outdated, we're all for letting him or her making it larger and more modern. In fact, we've argued for years that the City should encourage homeowners to make such changes. But, we also want to see those who do want to improve their homes respect their neighbors' reasonable expectations of not being adversely impacted by the changes.

The problem we have in Costa Mesa is that most of our home lots are very close to each other. We don't have large estates with empty land all around them. If we had the latter, we'd have no problem with someone building a massive home that blocks light and air on their own property, but in Costa Mesa that's not the case.

Here's the link to the Daily Pilot where you can find Righeimer's column: http://www.dailypilot.com/
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

CM PRESS # 138

A LAP DOG IS NOT A GOOD CHOICE TO PROTECT CITIZENS' MONEY (We again try to straighten out the Daily Pilot and Katrina Foley)

Editor Daily Pilot:

Re: "New system for distributing grants pleases most but not all," by Alicia Robinson, Pilot, 5/12/07, front page

In your article about grants to the non-profits, Councilwoman Katrina Foley said "Due to some agendas by some members in the past, the process had been skewed."


Some of the non-profits just didn't want to answer questions about why their non-profit businesses are giving big salaries and benefits to the non-profit leaders, why some of the non-profits appear to be discriminating against White citizens, why they give our money to illegal aliens, why they can't show any results after all the years of receiving our money, and why many of the problems that they're supposed to be solving are just getting worse (gangs, and poor student scores, for example).

And, Ms. Foley, the "agendas" were attempts to stop racial/ethnic discrimination, make sure that citizens' money was being spent in the best ways possible, and to have the non-profits demonstrate that their efforts were working.

Also, Ms. Foley, it should come as no surprise to many readers that some of your liberal non-profit pals who receive money year after year after year joined with you and others in trying to defeat Mr. Mansoor and Ms. Leece in the last election. Talk about agendas!

Here are a few facts:

1. This money that is given to the non-profits belongs to the citizens.

2. The 3R committee that makes recommendations on the dispersal of the funds has a fiduciary responsibility to make sure the money is spent in the proper ways and for the benefit of the citizens of this city. Some (but not all) members of the 3R Committee seem to act more like lap dogs than junk yard dogs in protecting our money.

3. Many of the non-profits just expect a rubber stamp approval of their requests.

4. Some of the non-profit leaders make more than $ 200,000 per year. They have a vested interest in growing their charity businesses by bringing in more and more people to use their services. Illegal aliens often fill the bill very nicely.

Many of the non-profits do not look like Costa Mesa but appear, statistically, to racially/ethnically discriminate against White citizens. At least one non-profit shows that 100% of its "clients" are Hispanic, in a city that is only about 30% Hispanic. Several others show that more than 95% of their clients are Hispanic.

John F. Kennedy
nailed it when he said "Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races [colors, and national origins] contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial [color or national origin] discrimination."

Some of the non-profits violate this principal, so well stated by JFK, and seem to be engaging in practices that do, in fact, encourage, entrench, and subsidize such discrimination, yet the City Council keeps giving these non-profits our money year in and year out.

We have in our files (and we've repeatedly offered copies to the Pilot--but you didn't take us up on our offers), a copy of a
Federal Consent Decree against a non-profit in Costa Mesa that actually told a young teen White girl that she was the wrong color to use their services and that they only wanted to serve Latinas [including, presumably, illegal alien Latinas]. They then denied this girl services paid for by taxpaying U.S. citizens.

This particular non-profit apparently thought it was clever in the way it discriminated. It said that everyone of every race/ethnicity could submit applications for their services. The problem was that they wouldn't accept anyone except Latinas. They got caught because they sent an email telling the White girl that she was the wrong color. They apparently thought that would cause her to just go away silently. Big mistake.

A Federal Consent Decree is a very serious document. If an organization receiving public funds is shown to be discriminating (as was the case of the non-profit mentioned above) and refuses to sign the Consent Decree which has a list of steps the organization must take to end the discrimination, the next step is serious legal action and possible Civil Rights law suits.

# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Saturday, May 12, 2007

CM PRESS # 137


Jim Righeimer has his second column in the Daily Pilot today, and in our view this one is every bit as bad as his first one and just gives more evidence that this guy shouldn't be on the no-Planning Commission. Here's the link: http://www.dailypilot.com/

We're starting to think that Righeimer didn't actually read any books about the things he writes about--conservatism, libertarianism, the Constitution, government, etc.-- and may have just glanced at the dust jackets.

How else can we explain the fact that in his latest outing in the Pilot, Righeimer starts off with a jingoistic chest puffing statement that our "inalienable rights--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...separate us from every other country in the world."

Sounds good. But don't wave that flag just yet. He's wrong. Peoples of many, many other nations have the same rights. That's not what separates us from some other countries.

In fact, these rights--these inalienable rights--which are also often called the natural rights of man have been around for a couple of thousand years in various nations. In more modern times, John Locke famously wrote about them in 1600's England. Today, they're enumerated in the constitutions of many nations including...are you ready? Russia.

The thing which really separates the U.S. from many other nations is not those words written by Thomas Jefferson that were quoted by Righeimer, but by the Bill of Rights and especially the First Amendment. But even these are being whittled away today. However, we'll save further comments on this for another column when we choose to wax philosophical.

Once Righeimer gets it wrong to begin with, he then seems to veer off even more into a selfish Randian world view where you can do anything you want with your property and to hell with your neighbors. After all, says Righeimer, "When we buy property, we own from the center of the earth and outward, including the land underneath, and the air above." Perhaps. But, Righeimer seems to get "sovereignty" and "property ownership" mixed up.

And, what about the rights of those who live next to your property? Don't your neighbors also have the same rights as you? Don't they have the right to pursue their happiness by not allowing you to put in a pig farm, or a 50' tall wall blocking light to their property, or by building a shack on your property?

Now, you may feel that a "shack" is a building type that makes you really happy because of the no nonsense functional simplicity of the design or just simply because you think shacks are beautiful or for whatever other reason you may have, so should you be able to build one next to Righeimer's home?

Apparently it's okay with Righeimer. If we correctly understand what he's written in his column, he seems to indicate that people shouldn't have a say in the design of their neighbor's home [or shack]. In his own words: "Is it your decision to say what's compatible in your neighborhood? Do you really think you have the right to tell them [your neighbors] how to build and design their home?" [Note: He got it backwards. Usually you design your home first, then you build it. Oh, never mind.]

If Righeimer had read a little further in the Declaration of Independence, which is where he got "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," he would have read "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

In other words, governments are needed to make sure others don't take away your rights.

Even the most "do your own thing" municipal government, putting forth what most people would consider to be reasonable rules and regulations, will find that it has to take away some of your options as to what you can design or build on your property in order to keep you from negatively impacting your neighbors.

That loss of freedom is one of the prices we pay when we move into a city and choose not to live out in the middle of the desert or woods all by ourselves. Costa Mesa is not Walden Pond.

The real question in all this is just how intrusive should the government be? How much freedom in what we want to do with our real property are we willing to give up in order to live in a built-out city and reap the rewards of living there?

Many of us have selected Costa Mesa because we don't want to live in what we might call an overly manicured and antiseptic area like some cities to our south. We like a slightly quirky, even somewhat Bohemian city. At the same time, however, many of us don't want Costa Mesa to continue devolving into being a complete slum city. We're looking for a proper balance.

And, in our view, striking such a proper balance should be one of the goals of the Planning Commission; which the CM PRESS calls the "no-Planning Commission" because it so often seems to consider each and every item that comes before it as though it involves property that exists in a vacuum or is out in the middle of the desert with no other homes or businesses in sight.

Righeimer also worries, according to his column, that we might lose our inalienable rights to those who "think they have phony rights to a view, sunlight and compatible design."


In the first place, people don't usually think they have "phony" rights. They usually think they have genuine rights. [Oh, never mind again.]

In the second place, does Righeimer actually believe that we're going to lose our rights to" life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," if we're not allowed to put in a pig farm, a 50' tall wall or a shack in a neighborhood full of nice homes?

Even Howard Roark would have known better.

# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

Friday, May 11, 2007

CM PRESS # 136

May 9, 2007


La campaña Abrochar o Pagar intenta aumentar
la tasa de uso del cinturón de seguridad en el estado
Costa Mesa, Calif. – The Costa Mesa Police Department se está preparando
para lanzar la campaña estatal anual Abrochar o Pagar, la cual promueve el uso
del cinturón de seguridad, mediante un aumento de esfuerzos de las fuerzas de
seguridad pública de {region} para asegurar el cumplimiento de las leyes
estatales de pasajeros y conductores automovilísticos durante las tres semanas
de duración, del 14 de mayo al 3 de junio de 2007. Este período especial
dedicado a la aplicación de la ley, forma parte de las iniciativas anuales del
estado para


The above is part of a press release that is now appearing on the CMPD website (the ALTO sign is not part of the press release). Here's the link: http://www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/docs/pdpress/2007-05-09-seat-belt-spanish.pdf

The press release also appears in English--below the one in Spanish. Now, when did Costa Mesa become part of Mexico?

Why is Costa Mesa printing things in Spanish? Our coastal neighboring cities don't print things in Spanish, so why are we?

Are there some in local government who really want Costa Mesa to be more like Santa Ana?

Our traffic signs are still in English (but who knows for how long?) and when one drives in this country, one is expected to be able to read our traffic signs. So, again, why are we printing things in Spanish for drivers?

Also, in this regard, many citizens of Mesa North were upset with the City last year around the 4th of July when they saw that the City had erected "No Fireworks" signs in Spanish (as well as English) near Paularino Park.

By contrast, the No Fireworks signs that were erected by the City in parks in Mesa Verde and on the Eastside were ONLY in English.

The real world effect of having the signs in Spanish in Mesa North and not in some of the other neighborhoods was to tell everyone--citizens, home buyers, businesspeople--that they were entering an area with gangs and illegal aliens. Will the City do the same thing again this year?

We'll let you know.


If you want to let the City know your feelings about this, here's the link: http://www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/contact/email.htm
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

CM PRESS # 132

UPDATE:  FIRST 50 WHITE FAMILIES FROM SOUTH AFRICA MAY SOON BE RESETTLED IN RUSSIA Whites face genocide at the hands of Blacks in South Af...