Oct 292023

The more things change, the more they stay the same. In this case, I am referring to the fantastical corruption monster that seems to infect conservative county parties. They convince themselves there are ghosts of Tammany Hall in their own county that they alone have to ferret out.

As shot 10-27-2023 after Safely Crossing the Border back in to the State of my Birth and Residence

Your intrepid blogger went and visited the Shasta GOP meeting on 10-26-2023. On the menu was a Shasta GOP endorsement in CA-01, SD-01 and AD-01. But, there was also a By-Law amendment that would have forced any duly-elected member (or ex-officio) to have to recuse themselves from voting on their own endorsement. This was clearly directed at Tanessa Audette in AD-01.

While I am not a fan of Audette as a candidate because she has told multiple lies on the campaign trail whilst attempting to represent herself as the Bethel Church candidate, this attempt to muzzle candidates is foolish for a variety of reasons. (One example: Audette claimed at the meeting that she had County Supervisor Endorsements in every County of AD-01, this is simply and easily proven false. Another would be her repeatedly claiming to still be working with the Dahle’s in an attempt to imply their support)

One issue I will lay out in public is that the Chair of the Shasta GOP had a clear agenda and biases. He is entitled to his choice of candidates and his opinion, what is the issue for your intrepid blogger is the lack of transparency. It was clear that Dan Sloan supported the insane and dishonest David Fennell for SD-01 and Mark Mezzano for AD-01. Now you have further color for the run at Tanessa’s ability to vote for herself.

One member of the Shasta GOP took the argument over the By-Law amendment public. (It was tabled to March because it seemed absurd to change the rules mid-process.)

Start the Windmills folks, it is time to get jiggy

The AD-01 endorsement failed after 4 ballots. The Shasta GOP used a secret ballot AND a collapsing ballot for their endorsement process. Both are pretty unusual for an endorsement process and using both in the same process is typically only done when there is a desired outcome in mind. (This has been my observation for over 20 years) The SD-01 endorsement also failed because blank ballots were counted as votes against the total needed.

In the days since the endorsement meeting, there have been a ton of emails flying around. (Typical for county parties, lol) Your intrepid blogger has gotten several of them.

It seems that the Shasta GOP Chair by taking a run at Tanessa Audette under the veneer of corruption has activated a fringe of the County Party over an issue that is not even illegal nor is it challenged in Robert’s Rules of Order.

In fact, in my years in Placer County, several sitting electeds were on the committee and voting on their own endorsements and sometimes on those of their colleagues! It is and never was an issue because it is allowed in Robert’s Rules.

Central Committees are exempt from the Brown Act. So there goes that argument.

Further, getting a Shasta GOP endorsement does not guarantee a financial outcome for a candidate. Some offices are not compensated and others that have compensation are not guaranteed to be compensated by the time said person gets sworn in. For these reasons and more there have never been laws or regulations similar to what is being proposed in Shasta County.

Every Partisan elected gets members to the county parties within their district. But, a side effect of passing such a by-law amendment would be to deny them the ability to represent their own interests because it is some sort of “Perk” of office. I’d submit that being part of a County Party is the furthest thing from a “Perk” of office there can be – especially when groups like the Shasta GOP accuse them of corruption simply for existing.

The saddest thing is that if this by-law amendment were to pass, it would not stand up in court because it would strip duly-elected members of their rights. What Mr. Gorman, who should know better as he is a campaign operative in part of his life, is that Audette got elected separately to the Central Committee several years before running for AD-01.

Also, in public, Dan Sloan and another candidate have publicly pledged to recuse themselves from their own endorsements. This means little as neither Dan’s pending endorsement for County Supervisor in D3 or the other guy in D2 are controversial to the Shasta GOP. I doubt if the endorsement was hotly contested either would make such a move.

Central Committees are supposed to be incubators for Candidates. Good Committees (like Placer) recruit candidates and get them elected. If you do it the proposed Shasta way, you are telling people that get elected to Central Committee that decide later to run for office they are crooks if they attempt to advance their campaign as a member of the Central Committee. What a message!

Tanessa’s AD-01 Campaign is going to fail on its’ own for a variety of reasons. This is not one of them.

There are emails out there that may well have been forwarded multiple times by now. This issue should have never been created and now it is going to further marginalize the Shasta GOP. Worse, they are railing against something that neither an issue of morality or illegal.

The more things change with County Parties, the more they stay the same.

Oct 192023

I found an old Liberal OC article about this tilt.

Paul Lucas is now a libertarian who fights for legal pot and opposes law enforcement. He has been celebrated for it.

The Liberal OC also has another gem. There is a letter written in 2008 by Paul Lucas – Paul Lucas Letter on Janet Nguyen Helping Him Against Van Tran clearly implicating Janet Nguyen for supporting him over Assemblyman Van Tran.

I want to credit the Liberal OC again for posting this letter as I downloaded it from a link on their website.

For those of you who refuse to click on the link, here is the text:

To Whom It May Concern

During my run for Assembly against Van Tran in 2006, Janet Nguyen provided me with a summary of votes that would be damaging to the incumbent of the 68th Assembly District. The information was useful to any democrat opponent running against Van Tran.

The passage of time blurs all nature of circumstances relating to nature of the transaction, but to this day, I find it abnormal that a Republican Garden Grove Councilwoman would work behind the scene to undermine a sitting Republican Assemblyman.


Paul Lucas, Member Orange County Democratic Party

It’s signed and dated April 21, 2008. Captured in time and space.

Currently, the Orange County Republican Party is preparing to amend their By-Laws specifically to benefit Janet Nguyen so she will never be held accountable for aiding and abetting democrats running for election.

Quoting Fred Whitaker the Chairman of the OCGOP: “Second, I have had enough of these nasty, negative hit pieces coming out against our friend Senator Janet Nguyen and now attacking the OCGOP and our bylaws process. Janet is a strong conservative who has not only been a strong voice for us in Sacramento, but she has been a strong and active part of, and supporter of, our Republican candidates and causes all around Orange County. Just ask Diane Dixon, Scott Baugh and the Fab 4 in Huntington Beach. In many respects she has been the ideal legislative partner for the OCGOP.”

Fred Whitaker is presiding over the destruction of the credibility of the Orange County Republican Party – he is going to the wall for a woman who is neither a conservative nor a “strong” let alone weak supporter of Republicans. Janet is a party destroyer and her actions bear that out.

She literally sent opposition research to a democrat candidate running against an incumbent Republican Assemblyman! Somebody has to stand up for the Orange County Republican Party because it appears its’ leadership has Stockholm syndrome!!!

Oct 192023

… and actively campaigned for her!

So this is a RECENT (not 2018 example) of Janet betraying the OCGOP.

Janet Nguyen has basically burnt almost every Vietnamese Republican in Orange County and currently only lists three Vietnamese endorsements: Cindy Tran,  Ted Bui, who Nguyen endorsed against Assemblyman Tri Ta and one other former elected on her website.

 Look at Janet’s recent record of trying to destroy the Vietnamese  Republican majority that took decades to build.


  • Westminster Mayor – Nguyen endorsed and campaigned for Tai Do. Charlie Chi Nguyen easily won the Mayor’s race.

  • Westminster City Council – Nguyen endorsed and campaigned for John Gentile – Amy (Phan) West defeated Gentile.

  • Westminster City Council – Janet Nguyen worked with Namquan Nguyen’s opponents, Namquan won easily.

    Conservative Shirts 2 970×350
  • State Assembly 70th – Nguyen endorsed against and campaigned against Tri Ta in the primary.  Ta easily won.

  • Supervisor – Nguyen went out of her way to attack Republican candidate Andrew Do, by sending out a robocall announcing that she has not endorsed Do.  Andrew Do won his race.

Did you know that Janet Nguyen worked with an out-of-town developer and Democrats to spend $2.4 million on recall of Republican Vietnamese elected officials in Westminster???

The recall failed with 60% of residents voting no.

It should be noted that the Vietnamese Community is all that stands between Orange County being a D+20 wasteland and the current purple 50/50 status it has. Is Janet Nguyen trying to turn Orange County Blue?

This is what Cindy Tran looks like in GOP Data Center.

Just for color to complete this, here is a slate doorhanger for the actual Republican that Janet Nguyen opposed:

Oct 132023

Hi Fred!

Fred Whitaker, the Chairman of the OCGOP sortied out of his bunker recently to attack your intrepid blogger! Rather than address the validity of the expose’ on Janet Nguyen, similar to an email sent by Nguyen’s consultants, it was long on Hyperbole and short on facts. Everything your intrepid blogger has written about Janet Nguyen is true and we will re-affirm that in this installment of the Janet Nguyen Accountability Project. In addition, your intrepid blogger will provide a fact-check on some of the assertions that Mr. Whitaker has made in his recent email.

Second, I have had enough of these nasty, negative hit pieces coming out against our friend Senator Janet Nguyen and now attacking the OCGOP and our bylaws process. Janet is a strong conservative who has not only been a strong voice for us in Sacramento, but she has been a strong and active part of, and supporter of, our Republican candidates and causes all around Orange County. Just ask Diane Dixon, Scott Baugh and the Fab 4 in Huntington Beach. In many respects she has been the ideal legislative partner for the OCGOP.

Nasty is an opinion. Calling Janet Nguyen a Conservative is also an opinion. Saying she has been a strong supporter of ALL of our Republican candidates is a lie. Your intrepid blogger has documented, with evidence three major instances of Nguyen defying the endorsements of the OCGOP. There are screenshots of mailers and even the tape of a robocall in Vietnamese that she did whilst combatting the endorsements of the OCGOP. Why the Chair of the OCGOP sees fit to outright lie on behalf of a candidate is beyond me.

See here for yourself Nguyen endorsing a left-leaning NPP against OCGOP endorsed Laurie Merrick for Garden Grove Council in 2022.

See here for yourself Janet Nguyen endorsing a democrat for Santa Ana Council in 2018 David Penaloza over Miguel Gonzalez and Left-Leaning NPP Mirna Velasquez over Ceci Iglesias.

See here for yourself the robocall in Vietnamese Janet Nguyen cut on behalf of her defiance of the OCGOP.

Evidence that demands a verdict.

The proposed OCGOP By-Laws changes, especially now that Fred Whitaker has come out of the closet for Janet Nguyen look even more suspect. If adopted all Janet has to do is apologize in a letter for endorsing against Laurie Merrick and she won’t even have to answer for what she did in 2018 because the new bylaws only have a 4 year look-back.

Anyone observing OCGOP politics remembers when Todd Spitzer (who I proudly worked for in 2022 to hammer the local newspapers in to submission when they regurgitated complete crap puked out by Soros aligned groups) got the OCGOP By-Laws amended to deal with Tony Rackauckas habit of endorsing democrats. Those amendments were pretty popular then, what changed?

But it seems like every day I am opening up my email and there is another nasty note from paid muckrakers, attacking her in the most vicious way. Now I got what pretends to be an online survey seeking to get my opinions only to find out that it is just another vicious hit on our friend Janet.  I note that this “blogger” is not only paid, but has a history of attacks on fellow Republicans – that same blogger has been paid to attack Jennifer Beal in 2018,  John Moorlach in 2020 and 2021, and myself and the OCGOP in 2021.

Fact Check: I have never been paid to attack Fred Whitaker, he has been collateral damage. (this holds true with the OCGOP as well) I have never been paid to attack Jennifer Beall (note the spelling), and when I did it was two posts in 2022, not 2018. In the case of John Moorlach, sometimes yes, it was paid for and sometimes they were on the house because I love me some Johnny.

It appears that Whitaker is lawyering up the OCGOP trying to use your intrepid blogger to rally support for changing the OCGOP By-Laws to pave the way for endorsing the party-destroying Janet Nguyen. Whitaker does not explain why Jon Fleischman said the following in an email:

But most importantly right now – we need to get a drill going to make sure you still have all of your supporters, and that they will be able to be there Monday night to vote yes on the bylaw change. We can tell your supporters that if the bylaw change goes through it will eliminate with certainty any lingering questions about whether you can be endorsed by the Central Committee.

Perhaps the answer can be explained by the first sentence in the same email:

If they are circulating this stuff to the committee, we should be figuring out how to respond.

Fred Whitaker could have done a far better job responding. So could Nguyen’s campaign as there is no way to decouple Nguyen from the current effort to amend the OCGOP By-Laws.

There is another key difference between your intrepid blogger and Fred Whitaker. I am not a party officer. I am not a club officer. I am an independent operative and I am not using a title to push my positions. Party officers should remain neutral. Fred Whitaker is anything but, and people in Orange County tell me that Fred Whitaker is pushing Kate Monroe in CA49, Crystal Miles in SD37 and Janet Nguyen. All three have the same consultant. Perhaps members of the OCGOP should inquire as to the relationship between that consulting firm and Mr. Whitaker.

Jon Fleischman and that firm have a long-standing relationship, which is why the email I got from him by mistake discussing Janet Nguyen’s strategy and “drill” to amend the OCGOP By-Laws came as no surprise.

When your intrepid blogger calls a candidate a squish or a rino, there is a reason. When I talk about specific issues, I do so with evidence… perhaps this is why the campaign and Mr. Whitaker call me nasty and a liar without contravening evidence.

Straight off of the California Leg Info website is Janet Nguyen voting yes on AB2601. Fred Whitaker and Jon Fleischman need to do a better job of research. You can read all about AB2601 here including detailed information from Live-Action, a right-leaning parent’s rights/education group.

And Janet Nguyen endorses democrats. How vicious it is of your intrepid blogger to point these facts out!

It is worth noting that Janet has not stooped down to this level — all of her communications to the committee have been positive, talking about her accomplishments, her goals, and sharing her extensive endorsement list. It’s also worth noting that she does not even have an application for endorsement in front of the committee.

Fred lied again. Nguyen’s crew has attacked your intrepid blogger. (including Whitaker) The spin on her application for endorsement is fascinating as she withdrew it in a cloud over her non-Republican endorsements precipitating the effort to amend the by-laws. If the by-law change was not tied to endorsing Janet Nguyen, she’d have told the committee she was going to wait until after the primary before trying again and/or the OCGOP would wait until after the primary to amend the by-laws as the only current applicant that would be affected by the proposed by-law changes is Janet Nguyen. 

That’s correct – filter through everything and ask yourself why is the OCGOP trying to change their by-laws in the middle of a campaign election cycle? Who benefits from said endorsement change? It’s Janet Nguyen.

The OCGOP is prepared to allow would-be endorsers to endorse democrats as long as it was 4 years ago and allow endorsements of NPP’s with a nice letter that the same people considering the endorsement have to “approve”. The OCGOP is about to make their endorsement meaningless on behalf of someone who has been on a rampage against Republican Candidates for Orange County offices since 2018… and I will leave you with the below excerpt from my first “vicious” post about Nguyen when she trashed Trump and immigration enforcement:

In 2017, Janet joined with Democrats to condemn President Trump’s immigration enforcement

See it here. My Favorite Parts are below:

WHEREAS, The Trump administration has justified its vast expansion of those targeted for deportation by falsely portraying the United States as a country under siege by a flood of undocumented immigrants who threaten public safety, giving rise to anti-immigrant fervor and a nativist desire to preserve our nation’s historically dominant Euro-Christian culture; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, That the Senate calls upon President Trump and Secretary Kelly to publicly and explicitly reaffirm the principles and content of the ICE policy memorandum dated October 24, 2011, regarding enforcement actions at or focused on sensitive locations; and be it further
Resolved, That the Senate calls upon Secretary Kelly to underscore to the public and to all United States Department of Homeland Security personnel that the policy on sensitive locations is not limited to enforcement at the sensitive location, but also to enforcement focused on sensitive locations, and that in other words, waiting across the street from a church or school for people to emerge from the sensitive location violates the policy as much as entering the location itself, as does following someone away from a press conference or other sensitive location so as to detain them; and be it further
Resolved, That the Senate calls upon Secretary Kelly to take affirmative steps, including public commitment to the sensitive locations policy, staff training, investigation or reports of past and future violations of the policy, including, but not limited to, investigating the incidents detailed in this resolution, and pursuing disciplinary action against personnel found to have violated the policy; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States.
Basically, Janet Nguyen voted yes on a resolution attacking White people and the Trump administration policy of raiding illegal sanctuaries for illegal aliens. Great Job Janet Nguyen.
Oct 082023

Really, OCGOP??? Did you do your homework?

Quoting Live Action’s Article some more:

Now, every one of those unique programs will be teaching the same sex ed curriculum. Breitbart reports:

“We are thrilled that all students, regardless of the school they attend, will receive adequate and comprehensive reproductive health education that will enable them to make the best decisions for their life and future,” said Sarah Hutchinson, Act for Women and Girls policy director….

In April, parents across the nation pulled their children out of school to protest comprehensive sex education programs that have become steeped in gender ideology and promotion of abortion by LGBT advocacy groups and Planned Parenthood.

Breitbart also points out:

Planned Parenthood’s Get Real program is a Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) curriculum that assumes all young people will be sexually active. In addition to teaching children about contraception and abortion, the program focuses on LGBTQ issues and terminology.

In Grade 6… it introduces students to the “key Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) skills” they will supposedly need to be able to discuss sexual relationships and how to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

… in Grade 7, students also discuss sexual identity and “examine the myths and facts about sexual orientation.” They also learn how to use a condom and review the use of hormonal contraception, including emergency contraception after sexual intercourse.

Former Planned Parenthood educator Monica Cline, interviewed by Breitbart, compared Planned Parenthood’s comprehensive sex ed to the grooming techniques used by sexual predators on their victims.

It remains to be seen if this comprehensive sex ed decision will motivate more parents to protest and/or pull their children out of charter schools, as well.

Some of then-senator Nguyen’s colleagues lit this garbage bill up:

What the opposition said:

https://youtu.be/TttxbjHGx24 by Senator Joel Anderson

https://youtu.be/gEpY0WaMZmc by Senator Jeff Stone

Janet Nguyen voted to strip all abstinence education from the curriculum that former State Senator Marian Bergeson worked so hard to put in.

If you are not disgusted enough with the actions of then-Senator Janet Nguyen (note: this bad vote did not help her as she lost re-election), check out who she aligned herself with!

Other controversial organizations in support of AB 2601 include:
  • NARAL Pro-Choice California

  • Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California

  • California State PTA

  • California School Boards Association

  • California Teachers Association

  • Equality California (EQCA)

  • National Center for Lesbian Rights

  • San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center

  • San Diego LGBT Community Center

  • Feminist Majority

  • ACLU of California

  • Genders and Sexualities Alliance Network

  • Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at the UC Berkeley, School of Law

  • More Than Sex-Ed

  • Trans Family Support Services

  • Asian and Pacific Islanders for LGBTQ Equality – LA

  • Bay Area Student Activists

  • Community Action Fund of Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties

And she endorses democrats!