This post brought to you by Aaron F. Park, Proprietor, Charlie Brown's house of Pain...

"This has gone on long enough. Elected officials are guardians of the public trust, and must be above any perception of wrongdoing." Charlie Brown, 4/11/06

Democrat Charlie Brown was quick to point the finger at Republicans he claimed were engaged in unethical behavior. But partisan Democrat Brown remains silent as evidence mounts that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi directed almost $100,000 from her Political Action Committee to her husband's business. Pelosi has also contributed $12,000 to Brown's campaign for congress.

"As we saw in his refusal to return tainted campaign cash to Democrat Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel, Brown talks a good game about ethics but fails to utter one word criticizing Democrat big wigs when they are ethically challenged," McClintock for Congress Communications Director Bill George said. Brown has held on to $11,500 in tainted campaign cash sent to him by Rangel. "Charlie says he's independent, but while other Democrats call for reform Brown ducks the issue and keeps the cash," George said.

Congressman and Democratic Senate candidate, Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado called on Rangel to step down as Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee in light of his three ethics investigations for questionable practices.  Iowa Rep. Dave Loebsack gave up his $5,000 in Rangel contributions. Newspaper editorial boards all across the country have called on Rangel to resign and for Democratic candidates to give back his contributions. "Charlie Brown should join Udall's call for Rangel to resign. Charlie should return the money he's received from his fundraising accounts. And he could make a few pithy quotes about Pelosi's ethics in shoveling money to her husband," George said. "As Charlie said, 'this has gone on long enough.'"

(Cue up Guns and Roses in the background)

This post brought to you by Aaron F. Park - proprietor, Charlie Brown's house of pain.

Listen to spot here

FT: Hi, I'm Fred Thompson.

I'd like to talk to you today about our fiscal crisis and who we can trust to keep the Washington politicians honest.

Tom McClintock is a nationally recognized budget expert and the voice of fiscal sanity in our Legislature.

Time and time again I've heard people say, "If we had only listened to Tom McClintock we wouldn't be in this mess."

Well, I wish we had listened. Years ago.

Because believe me, I've seen firsthand how Washington can turn a budget surplus into a deficit. The financial crisis our nation faces is complicated, and I don't think anybody got all the answers.

But I'll tell you one thing. I'll feel a lot more confident with Tom McClintock working on it, rather than some amateur.

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all agree when it comes to watching the budget and fighting for the taxpayer, Tom McClintock is the one we can trust.

TM: I'm Tom McClintock and I approve this message.

Announcer: Paid for by McClintock for Congress

QUICK - Charlie, call Wesley Clark... QUICK!!!

Blogger's Note - I am wondering when the Marijuana farmers are going to endorse Montgomery...

Also - Montgomery finally agreed to some debates. These should be fun, bring the kids. She continues to duck Jim Ruffalo from the AJ as of the time of the posting of this blog.

Round 1: Friday October 3rd at 7:00 pm
Hosted by the Foresthill Chamber of Commerce
Foresthill Memorial Hall
24601 Harrison Street, Foresthill

And now the eagerly awaited press release:

Immediate Release                                          Contact: Bruce Kranz, 1-530-906-1018

NorCal Cops Like Kranz

COLFAX-CA. Sheriff Ed Bonner and the Deputy Sheriff's Association of Placer County have found Supervisor Bruce Kranz to be a friend of law enforcement. And now an organization representing 35,000 police officers and Deputy Sheriff's throughout northern California also has endorsed Kranz's reelection as District 5 Supervisor in Placer County.

Donald Atkinson, President of the Northern Alliance of Law Enforcement, wrote a letter from his office in South Lake Tahoe saying, "We stand beside our fellow officers of the Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association in their commitment to ensuring your election to office." Atkinson said, he was "pleased and honored to provide you with our whole-hearted and enthusiastic endorsement...Our endorsement comes after careful consideration of your personal qualifications and your proven support of local public safety."

Sheriff Ed Bonner has said, "There is no greater champion for public safety in Placer County," than Bruce Kranz. Retired California Highway Patrol commissioner Art Anderson who says that in 34 years in law enforcement, he hasn¹t seen a more dedicated supervisor. "He doesn¹t just talk the talk, he walks the walk."

Kranz has made public safety his first priority working on a new helicopter, improved communications, Meth drug abuse prevention, catastrophic wildfires, keeping CHP stations open and making public safety first in the county budget.

Northern Alliance of Law Enforcement represents the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Tribal Police Officers Association, Davis Police Officers' Association, El Dorado County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Elk Grove Police Officers' Association, Folsom Police Officers Association, Modesto Police Officers Association, Monterey County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Nevada County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Placer County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Rocklin Police Officers' Association, Roseville Police Officers Association, Sacramento County Alliance of Law Enforcement (SCALE), Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Sacramento County Probation Association, Sacramento Police Officers Association, San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs Association, Stanislaus County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Stockton Police Officers Association, West Sacramento Police Officers Association.

Friends of Bruce Kranz • P.O. Box 352 • Meadow Vista, CA  95722

Blogger's Endnote: This is why Montgomery's campaign is DOA, look what the Sheriff's wrote: "Kranz has made public safety his first priority working on a new helicopter, improved communications, Meth drug abuse prevention, catastrophic wildfires, keeping CHP stations open and making public safety first in the county budget."

Jennifer Montgomery is not qualified to be a supervisor...

The Poll was done between 9/22 and 9/24 with a margin for error of 5%

McClintock - Favorable / Unfavorable 43 to 31

Brown - 35 to 37 (something about the effigy)

Both Brown and McClintock draw 72% of their own party's voters

Independent Voters prefer Brown 48-37 over McClintock

Have a look at the McClintock Press Release for more information.

Ooooh! That's got to hurt...

Oh, but wait, there is more pain for Charlie --- Charlie Brown's trying to sell himself as a conservative has been a definitive failure.  On the attribution of "conservative" McClintock leads 66% to 9%.  On the attribution of "liberal" respondents identified Brown by a margin of 60% to 7%.  Regarding the attribution of "winning the war in Iraq" Tom leads 58% to 29%.  And on the anti-tax attribution McClintock leads 56% to 18%. 

Where are all those "Blue Dogs" for Brown??

This comes courtesy of the Sierra Sun:

Sierra Sun
September 30, 2008

My Turn: Conservation Plan: The Devil is in the details -- again!

Bruce Kranz
Placer County Fifth District Supervisor,

Fearing the taking away of property rights in the name of conservation, last year I reluctantly voted to send the Placer County Conservation Plan, back to a city-county task force to answer questions that citizens and I raised.

A year later the county staff inexplicably increased the number of parcels negatively impacted in my district from 295 to 1040. Then the staff added to the dangers of catastrophic wildfires by creating 300- to 660-foot conservation zones in streams.

By notifying property owners and fighting back, this last week, I again reluctantly voted for the plan process to continue on condition the 5th District parcels were removed from the plan. In addition, at my insistence the process will now include the recommendations of CalFire. Staff and members of the Board of the Supervisors also have promised to improve transparency and seek public input.

So what is the problem? As a California State Parks superintendent for 33 years, I created and protected open space. As a county supervisor, I have supported open space at Waddle Ranch in Tahoe area and Hidden Falls Regional Park. However, most of the 5th district is already public land protected by environmental law. Over 75 percent of Placer County is under government ownership.

The Angora Fire in South Lake Tahoe quickly spread through a fuel-heavy stream zone acting as a wick. The Angora Fire raged up a canyon loaded with dead, dying, diseased and dense brush and trees. Over 250 families lost their homes and businesses. Recently, the Gladding fire near Lincoln was initially fueled on conservation land off Doty Ravine. An overlay of a CalFire map of the Gladding fire upon a Placer County parcel map shows the Gladding fires, starting at Gladding Road and Merrit Lane, swept through parcel 020-162-022 owned by the Placer Land Trust and overgrown with Medusa and tarweed with no firebreaks. It continued through blackberries in conserved wetlands owners believed they could not touch. This is why I insisted that CalFire participate in the county's conservation plan process.

The county lacks adequate data and solid science, to prove the existence of the environmental resources on all the parcels designated purple, reserved. Many of the purple painted, reserve, parcels have no vernal pools, no salmon, no blue oaks, and likely none of 34 species. Additional parcels painted blue are twixt and between in a netherland of transitional parcels with uncertain future property use and value.

I believe citizens have a right to know when a government decision may negatively impact their life, liberty or property. County bureaucrats did not notify property owners of meetings on the county conservation plan. At my own initiative, I notified owners in my district, 295 properties in 2007 and 1040 this time. Some property owners were outraged, some in tears and near everyone happy to have been notified.

County planners still assert there will be no impact on property values. We know this is false. The 2007 report said, "the [conservation plan] reserve area (i.e., the 'purple area') would be managed in perpetuity as habitat for the covered species." Clear enough? I believe future rights are threatened to make a living, build new homes and businesses, or give an inheritance to loved ones.

County staff has never answered whether there will be revised restrictions on the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, which may impact agriculture. Taking private property, not to build roads, bridges, schools and parks -- but to preserve wildlife habitat and to endanger human habitat is wrong. Last year, staff told me 'trust us, it'll work out' and came back with a worse plan. The Sacramento Bee in 2007 said, "frankly we don't care whether any given landowner is happy with the outcome or not" and calls the plan "revolutionary."

Year after year county bureaucrats come back to spend other people's money for projects the taxpayers do not want. The taxpayers voted not to fund Placer Legacy with a sales tax increase in November 2000.

Stay alert to the conservation plan. Make your opinion known. I have worked hard to remove District 5 parcels and to keep people informed and involved as they choose.

-- Bruce Kranz is the Fifth District Supervisor for Placer County. He represents North Tahoe, portions of Tahoe's west shore, the Martis Valley and portions of Donner Summit.

Blogger's Notes - Yesterday's fireworks on air are still resonating. Regardless of whether you think Brown or McClintock won the "debate", a few things are clear. Brown is still trying to spin the effigy, Brown is still trying to spin his opposition to Drilling - telling McClintock to look up LUD-ITE (instead of lewd-ite) in the dictionary.

Brown is starting to feel the effects of his own words and actions as his campaign is entering its' final stages.

Who do you want in Congress in a time of serious financial crisis? McClintock, who understands budgets and financial terms or someone who can't pronounce Luddite? (let alone the comment about Coal Shale)

For Immediate Release Contact: Bill George
September 25, 2008
(916) 446-1246
Cell: (916) 899-9871

Wishy-Washy Charlie Brown Flounders in Radio Debate

Tom McClintock was a guest on the KTKZ Radio Capital Hour with Eric Houge when a surprise caller phoned in; Charlie Brown, McClintock's Democratic opponent in the Fourth Congressional District. Perhaps Charlie was motivated to call in because he had declined an opportunity earlier that day to debate McClintock at the El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce.

Was it the panicky tone of his trembling voice, the heavy breathing into the phone, or the non sequiturs and outright distortions that most distinguished Charlie Brown's shaky performance in his first "debate" with McClintock?

Note to Charlie; when debating don't start arguing with the host over what you did or did not do that night you wore a uniform to an anti-war demonstration where a U.S. soldier was hung in effigy. And don't try to lie about what you were wearing after the whole world watched video of you in your uniform standing with chanting anti-war demonstrators. Why would you possibly say "Look at the full picture of me I'm in blue jeans with a red shirt on," when the video shows you in your Air Force uniform jacket and hat? Why would you claim Doug Ose supports you when he has officially endorsed McClintock and criticized you for opposing the surge? And why would you say you support off-shore oil drilling when you've said time and time again "drilling is not the answer" and you oppose drilling off the California Coast and in ANWR?

While McClintock offered a scholarly perspective on the unfolding financial crisis, Brown remained silent when asked to share his views on this issue that everyone is talking about. After all, it takes time and creative writing to come up with another wishy-washy position paper.

Note to reporters: Click here to listen to the debate and to get a copy. (BG)

Paid for By McClintock for Congress
1700 Eureka Road, Suite 170 • Roseville, CA 95661 • (530) 613-1188
www.HelpTom.com

The significance of this is that the driving force behind this plan to take these parcels for the Placer County Conservation Plan is the Placer Land Trust. More on them, soon… suffice to say, Joanne Neft and a host of others on Team Montgomery are connected to the Placer Land Trust.

The Placer Land trust is an incompetent manager of Land. Just ask the three Homeowner’s whose homes burnt due to the mis-management of land owned by the Placer Land Trust. More on that later.

This Conservation Plan is being spearheaded by Robert Weygant. Doug Houston (recognize that name) is a lobbyist / officer with the Placer Land Trust. Doug Houston’s father Bob Houston ran in the primary against Bruce Kranz to avenge the termination of Doug’s contract with Placer County itself. The suggestion of connections between Montgomery and Weygant start to become clearer as this stuff comes out.

Could the fact that this vote is being agendized for 9/23/2008 right before the election be due to a strategy to give Montgomery an issue to attack Bruce with? (aka defending private property rights vs hugging trees)

This whole conundrum is starting to really make me scratch my head.

September 16th, 2008

Dear Parcel Owner within District 5, Proposed Placer County Conservation Plan Area:

For 295 of you, this is a follow up to a similar letter I sent you January 1ih of 2007. For the other 745 of you, this is your first notice, because additional parcels have been added to the Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP) area since 2007.

Your parcel(s) is within the proposed PCCP area. Currently we do not know what the impacts to your property will be. There is a possibility the impacts could be significant to taxpayers and property owners, as well as bringing an increased risk of wildfire to the area. I believe you have a right to know when proposed county ordinances may affect your property, which is why I am sending you this letter today. No other notification would have been sent to you.

In 2007, I had asked for parcels in District 5 to either be removed from this phase of the PCCP, or scientific evidence produced that would prove the necessity of putting this area into conservation. This last week, I learn that instead of removing District 5 parcels, the number of parcels have increased to 1040 parcels. Per my recent request, Michael Johnson, Planning Director has indicated to me that he has instructed staff to pull all District 5 parcels from the revised plan. I have not received confirmation yet of this change to the staff report. If the District 5 parcels are removed from this phase of pcep, they most likely will be included in the future study (phase 2 of PCCP) where I am hopeful the scientific evidence will be addressed.

This proposed PCCP item is tentatively scheduled to be again presented to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008 sometime before noon. You are welcome to attend and voice your opinion. The Board of Supervisors Chambers is located at 175 Fulweiler Ave, Auburn. Please check with the Clerk of the Board for the finalized time at 530-889-4020, or check http://www.placer.ca.gov/bos/Agenda.aspx
at 5:00pm. Friday. September 19th for the posted agenda.

If you cannot attend this meeting, but would like to voice your opinion, please contact me at PCCP@brucekranz.com / 530-889-4010. Please feel free to contact myself or my staff directly if we can be of any additional help.
Sincerely,
(Signature)
Bruce Kranz Placer County Supervisor District 5
P.O. Box 352 • Meadow Vista CA 95722
Phone: 530.906.1018

Blogger’s Note – Will Charlie Brown Stand Up and Denounce Nancy Pelosi’s Fraud and the raft of Environmental Lawsuits aimed at stopping drilling?

Now is the time to man up Charlie? you were endorsed by the Sierra Club – are you going to follow them to court to thwart energy production?

Take a look at this report about enviro lawsuits to stop drilling – note how the Dems are ignoring the fact that these have occurred. The Enviros have sued to stop EVERY new lease in the last two years. This really underscores that Nancy Pelosi is a bald-faced liar with the use-it-or-lose-it policy, she knows there is nothing to lose because it is tied up in court!

By JOHN SHADEGG

After a five-week paid vacation, Democrats are back in Washington and claiming that they want to do something about oil prices.

But the problem is that their plan, which passed the House yesterday and will likely come up for a vote in the Senate later this week, will not produce a single drop of oil.

Why? Because it does nothing about environmental groups that are suing to stop drilling.

The Democratic proposal is not a death-bed conversion, it’s designed to solve their political problem. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her members in August that they can say they are in favor of drilling, but that she wouldn’t allow a vote on a drilling bill. Now that she has been forced to, she knows her environmental allies will block new drilling from going forward.

The Sierra Club has told its members that it is “working to ensure that the final bill’s focus is on real clean energy solutions rather than expanded offshore drilling.” Democratic Rep. John Murtha, a Pelosi confidante, went further last week in noting that his party’s not above cynical politics: “This is a political month. There’s all kinds of things we try to do that will just go away after we leave.” And Legislative Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council Karen Wayland has said “This is about politics, not necessarily about policy.”

The green lobby, however, is not going away. EarthJustice, which employs over 150 people, has filed hundreds of lawsuits. On its Web site, it says “Because lawsuits can be so effective, we have a team of policy experts in Washington, D.C. that work hand-in-hand with our attorneys to stop legislative backlash . . .”

Indeed, incessant legal and administrative challenges make true the Democrat claim that oil from newly opened areas will not reach the market for years. These groups make use of a wide range of laws and regulations to challenge development. And they will make sure that the Democrats’ proposal is meaningless.

In February 2008, the administration issued 487 leases in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, which holds an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and other groups used the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act to challenge and delay progress on all 487 leases. In a separate lawsuit, they challenged the entire national outer continental shelf (OCS) leasing program, seeking to block all future leases.

Even if a lease makes it through these challenges, it isn’t clear sailing. Right now, there are 748 leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Exploration activities in every single one were challenged in May of this year by EarthJustice in conjunction with others.

The Alaskan OCS contains 26 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Not one offshore lease has escaped litigation.

And it’s not just Alaska. Wild Earth Guardians and others recently filed suit to block energy exploration on all leases in recent sales in Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Last year, almost 50% of gas leases in the Rocky Mountain states were protested in court.

Environmental protections are necessary. But, there must be reasonable limits on litigation.

During the oil embargo in 1973, Congress waived environmental laws for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. That waiver, Democratic Sen. John Tunney of California said at the time, “in no way dilutes or diminishes the applicability of NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act].” Rather, he said, it “brings into balance grave concerns of national security” with our nation’s environmental safeguards. In 1996 and again in 2006, environmental laws were waived for the construction of fences along the southern border of the United States.

Absent provisions to stop abusive litigation, the bills Democrats support will not lead to oil production. Any serious energy plan would encourage the development of alternative and renewable fuels, and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the OCS and the Western U.S. to drilling. It also would put a stop to never-ending litigation. But that’s not what Democratic leaders are offering.

We’re told that the Democrats now favor drilling. That they have seen the light after feeling the heat all summer. What’s really happening is we’re mid-way through a political hoax.

Some 70% of Americans favor increased domestic drilling. Unfortunately, if Mrs. Pelosi and her party’s leaders continue to play politics, we can be sure Americans won’t get the energy they want.

Mr. Shadegg, a Republican, is a U.S. congressman from Arizona.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

Click here to listen to the Ad and KFBK’s coverage of the breaking story

Charlie’s response on this blog has been tepid at best – basically calling Deborah Johns a liar. Why? Because I nailed her about a year ago over attacking John Doolittle. This is unusual for team Brown as they actually made a definitive statement on something without a photograph cornering them.

Brown’s Press release “Challenges” Tom McClintock to do the 5% to Veterans Charity challenge – but McClintock isn’t the one with a guilty conscience over anti-war activity. Brown should also do the ethics challenge – returning Rangel and Perata’s dirty campaign cash.

BREAKING UPDATE: BROWN PULLED THE SEPTEMBER 12TH PRESS RELEASE OFF OF HIS WEBSITE (I HAVE A HARD COPY):

Brown’s release contains the following carefully worded paragraph, “To the subject of McClintock’s latest misleading ad, Charlie attended a highly publicized protest staged by pro Iraq war demonstrators in 2005 at the site of a controversial display at the home of an anti-war activist. (Steven Pearcy) He talked with people on both sides of the issue and left. He wore a camoflage jacket, as did many attendees on both sides who were ex-military. Case Closed.

If the case was closed then why did you pull the press release down off of your website?

There was absolutely no way Charlie could have been on both sides of the street as the police were in the middle of the street.

The fact that Stenhouse says that Brown wore a camouflage jacket to the rally also suggests that the Brown team remembers exactly what happened that night.

Blogger’s Note – I am not a fan of Move America Forward, they are counter-productive in my opinion. Eric Kerry-Egland, Deborah Johns and Mark Williams were all part of that outfit and they want after this blogger because I stood with John Doolittle. The fact that Charlie Brown was stupid enough to be at this event where he could be seen by these people is ultimately what the issue is here.

The only response of the Brown Campaign has been to call Deborah Johns a liar on this issue. Note – no denial, just a carefully worded press release that was PULLED DOWN FROM HIS WEBSITE.

I WILL SCAN AND POST THE PRESS RELEASE TOMORROW.