Support Cook for Congress!

Written by: Richard Lara on Jun 11, 2008 11:57 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Courage Campaign, California for Democracy, Democracy for America - Orange County, Take Back Red California

Hey So Cal Democrats!,

The Primary is over, and Democrats in the 46th Congressional District have spoken loud and clear in favor of Debbie Cook's candidacy. 

Cook can win in November, but she will need our help in order to do so. Most of all, she will need plenty of campaign dollars in order to send Roharabacher into retirement, where he belongs.

We have all been talking about the change we want, but now it is time for us to back up that talk with action, and no action is more crucial to Debbie's, and our, victory in November than each of us donating to her campaign. So, I am putting my money where my mouth is with monthly donations to Cook's campaign.

Each donation is motivated by issues that Debbie supports and about which I, like you, have been talking:

In June, I am giving to Debbie's campaign so she can fight for healthcare reform.

In July, I am celebrating our nation's birthday by honoring the soldiers and veterans of the Iraq war, and I am doing so by donating to Cook's campaign so she can go to Washington and work for a responsible end to the war and the safe withdrawal of our troops.

In August, I am donating to Debbie's campaign so she can work to protect our environment.

And in October, I am donating to Debbie's campaign to ensure that in November we are DONE WITH DANA!

Come on Democrats! Join me in contributing monthly to Debbie's campaign to send Dana and the Republicans packing. Come November, you'll be glad you did!

Yours truly in unity and hope,

Richard Lara

PS: SEE YA, DANA!

Written by: Richard Lara on Apr 22, 2008 11:48 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Democracy for America - Orange County

Candidates' issues should be more than window dressing! Debbie Cook invests in oil companies even while she champions environmental issues. (Orange County Register, "Candidate with environmental platform has oil investments," Monday, April 14, 2008; The Wave, "Environmentalist Defends Stock Holdings,"Thursday, April 17, 2008; Huntington Beach Independent, "Cook defends her oil stock," Saturday, April 20, 2008) In her defense, she says: "I don't blame the oil companies, "We're the consumers. People are looking for a scapegoat to blame others for these kinds of problems. We're the energy hogs. We're the problem and we're the solution. "I can be an advocate against dying and still invest in mortuaries and that does not make me a hypocrite."Her argument commits the Weak Analogy fallacy. One commits this fallacy when the analogy upon which one's argument hinges is too weak to support the conclusion that one draws from it. Death is inevitable, and both tradition and the health department require that someone deal with deceased persons' bodies. As long as death is unavoidable, investing in mortuaries while advocating against dying will involve no hypocrisy. The advocate in this case can do nothing to stop death while tradition and social hygiene render mortuaries indispensable. Most importantly, mortuaries neither cause death nor play any role in enabling it to continue. So investing in mortuaries really is consistent with advocating against dying. Thus, one really can advocate against dying and invest in mortuaries without hypocrisy. However, this situation is not analogous to Cook's advocating against benefiting from oil used as a source of energy while she benefits from oil used as an investment opportunity. The advocate in this case, Cook, claims that we can and should curtail our practice of benefiting from oil used as source of energy because this practice is harmful to the environment. The moral, and/or practical, force of her claim consists in the fact that it is wrong to unnecessarily derive benefit from oil when doing so causes so much harm to the environment. If she is right, then she should not benefit needlessly from oil, whether by using it as a source of energy or by using it as a source of investment income, because these practices cause harm to the environment and enable this harm to continue - the first practice causes pollution, and the second practice enables this pollution to continue. Thus, Cook's analogy does not support her conclusion. Debbie Cook may be able to advocate against the practice of benefiting from using oil as a source of energy while she invests in oil companies, but she cannot do so without hypocrisy.

Read more

Richard Lara for Congress

Written by: Richard Lara on Feb 23, 2008 4:14 AM EST

Linked to groups: Democracy for America - Orange County

The Following is an email exchange Between Richard Lara, candidate for Congress in the 46th Congressional District, and Rich Gilloch, Debbie Cook Supporter.

------------------------------------
Hi Rich,

Thank you for your email. I hope that all is well with you.

Yes, I am a candidate in the 46th congressional district. I think that you are right when you say that we should clear the way for the first credible candidate in 20 years, so why don't you ask Debbie Cook to drop out of the race.

I am in the race for the 46th CD because I have no confidence in any of the other candidates in the race. So even if I did drop out, I would be disinclined to support Debbie Cook.

Furthermore, Debbie is not the one who should have a problem with me entering the race. A number of months ago, I asked her if she planned on running for Congress in the 46th. She said that she had looked at the numbers and, being a realist, she decided that there was no way she could win and thus no way she would run. Now she wants to run. If anything, I should be complaining about her indecision. But the fact is that my supporters and I do not mind if she stays in the race because we believe that it will become clear in the primary that she is not our best candidate.

Read more

Written by: Richard Lara on Jun 17, 2007 7:11 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Democracy for America - Orange County

Shared Sacrifice
Flag Day 2007
(A Speech in Support of John Edwards for President written by Richard Lara - except for certain parts of that portion of the speech containing Senator Edwards position on Veterans issues)

The theme of today’s Flag Day celebration is “shared sacrifice,” and there is perhaps no more appropriate theme for such a celebration because again and again throughout our Country’s history it has been shared sacrifice that has advanced the United States of America, for which our flag stands as a symbol.
It was the shared sacrifice made by Patriots from each of the colonies that liberated all of the colonies from an oppressive British rule in the revolution of 1776. It was the shared sacrifice of the early states - in which each state surrendered some of its powers - that enabled the Founding Fathers to create a strong and lasting Union. It was the shared sacrifice of all Americans, but especially those who served in the armed forces, that made it possible for the United States to defeat fascism in WWII.
In some sixty conflicts from 1776 to 2000, brave Americans have made great sacrifices in order to protect our freedom and to advance the interests of freedom around the world.
Today, we are once again engaged in a conflict, and brave Americans are once again answering the call of duty by serving in Iraq. This Flag Day, we are assembled not only to celebrate the symbol of our shared freedom but also to honor their service.
As we search for a way to share in it, however, we glean something of the magnitude of the sacrifice that these soldiers and their families have made.
Ceremonies, speeches, and moments of silence all pale when compared to all that those fallen in battle once meant to all who knew them; these gestures are small consolation for all that war so mercilessly steals from the wounded and from all who experience the horrors of battle. So how can we, who have not ourselves endured such trials, hope to share in such a noble sacrifice?
US soldiers in Iraq have served each of us, and they have done so at great expense to themselves. We owe them our esteem and our appreciation. Above all, we owe it to them to fight, and to never quit fighting, to preserve the values for which they fought and continue to fight.
Today we can begin to share in their sacrifice by overcoming our differences, devoting ourselves to the values that unite us, and working to create an America that is worthy of their courageous service. I am here today to tell you just a little about a man, Senator John Edwards, who I believe is best suited to lead this task.
Let me begin with a quote from John Edwards: "I believe in a sacred contract between our country and America's veterans and military families. We must stand by those who stand by us. When our service men and women sacrifice so much to defend our freedom and secure peace around the world, we have a moral obligation to take care of them and their families." END QUOTE
America is asking for deep sacrifices from our Armed Services without providing them and our veterans the support they need. The recent scandal at Walter Reed is only the tip of the iceberg. The Defense Department and the VA are still having trouble sharing medical records. Extended tours of duty and rapid redeployments have put new strains on military families. College has never been more important to one’s success in American Society, but the GI Bill is now available to only half our service men and women in Iraq.
Now, John Edwards has what I believe to be the best plan for ending the war in Iraq, but I am not here to talk to you about his stand on the war. Instead, I want to tell you where John Edwards’ stands on Veterans issues.
John Edwards has called for repairing the sacred contract with our veterans-and-military-community. Central to this sacred contract is a solemn pledge to all who risk their life for our country that we will take care of them as they take care of us.
As president, John Edwards will do each of the following six things:
ONE
HE WILL FULLY FUND Veterans Health Care.
TWO
John Edwards Will Prevent Another Walter Reed.
THREE
John Edwards will Dedicate Resources to the Signature Injuries of Today's Wounded Warriors.
FOUR
John Edwards will provide a "Plan for Coming Home" for Every Service Man and Woman.
FIVE
John Edwards will create a National "Chain of Care," with Improved Treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
SIX
John Edwards will provide care for the newest generation of veterans without neglecting the continuing needs of veterans from previous generations.
We can share in the sacrifice of our soldiers and veterans by following their brave example. Let us take up the freedom that they fight to defend and use it to fight to create an America of which they would be truly proud. Let us send a president to Washington who will not shortchange the veterans who give their all for us. Let us send John Edwards to the Whitehouse in 2008.
Thank you.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, truly extraordinary

Written by: Richard Lara on Apr 25, 2007 11:15 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Democracy for America - Orange County

Sometimes it is appropriate to fight fire with fire, and sometimes it is not. Most children would recognize that the United States’ effort to put an end to terrorism falls into the latter category, but Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (Rep. 46th Congressional District) claims that it is acceptable to fight terrorism by doing harm to perfectly innocent people.

Rohrabacher stated this opinion in a televised House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing on the Bush administration’s practice of “extraordinary rendition.” This practice involves abducting “terror suspects who had never been indicted for any crimes” and torturing them in order to acquire information about terrorist activities.

In the hearing, Rohrabacher acknowledged that in accordance with extraordinary rendition, the US had abducted as many as 200 innocent people and tortured some of them. He defended the practice by saying: “[…] we’ve got to make sure that we do not let go 50 terrorists who will go out and plant a bomb in London and kill 20,000 people in order to protect that one person who we arrested accidentally […] That’s the type of unfortunate consequence.” He later added: “We want to get information from somebody that we think might want to kill our children and kill your children.” In other words, Rohrabacher claims that one may justifiably wrong some innocent people so long as one is convinced that doing so benefits a significant number of other people.

Rohrabacher later repeated his support of extraordinary rendition. He said, “[I]f in order to protect the rights of one or two people, or five people or ten people, who are mistakenly abducted, […], if 10 of those people suffer those consequences, but in order for us to take 90 other people off the street who are intent and involved in plans that would slaughter tens of thousands of our citizens, I’m afraid that’s the price we pay in a real world.” Again, there are serious problems with Rohrabacher’s position.

Read more

New Direction In the New Year!

Written by: Richard Lara on Apr 25, 2007 11:15 PM EDT

Dear esteemed fellow Democrats,

On Sunday, June 19th of 2005 I was the guest columnist for the Orange County Register. In my article, Patriotism, New and Old, I explained that America�s fear inspired reaction to 911 was resulting in an increasingly dangerous manner of support for George Bush. I said that Bush �failed as commander-in-chief when he began the war without adequate justification and failed to create the broadest possible international support for the invasion.� I said of the troops and their families that �their burden is much greater than it would have been if the president had been a better international leader� and that �Bush's approach to the war places American soldiers in greater danger than they needed to be.�

Today, politicians in Washington are discussing a proposal to increase the number of troops in Iraq, and I, like many of you, believe that proposal to be hopelessly flawed. However, the political climate in the US, though changing, is still not conducive to clear and open discussion of viable approaches to the problem in Iraq. Americans now lack faith in the President�s approach to the problem, but they still want to leave Iraq in possession of a stable new government, and this desire makes sending more troops seem a viable new approach. Will the political climate in the US catch up with the situation in Iraq in time to head off disaster?

The questions of the legitimacy of the war, the justice at which it allegedly aims, and America�s obligations to Iraq are all important considerations for any proposed solution to the problem in Iraq. However, these considerations should not blind us to one of the most fundamental considerations with respect to America�s success in Iraq, namely the issue of the �Sources of Violence.� The Iraq Study Group Report refers to �multiple sources of violence in Iraq,� including �the Sunni Arab insurgency, Al Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups, Shiite militias and death squads, and organized criminality.� However, this list is incomplete, if not conspicuously so, for the very presence of American troops is, whether Americans think it should be so or not, one of the chief sources of violence in Iraq. However, the American troops are not responsible for this violence or for its growing intensity. Instead, it is the unscrupulousness and ineptitude of George W. Bush that accounts for �the grave and deteriorating� situation in Iraq. As I said in my June 19th commentary: �[�] step into the shoes of the Iraqis: 'My government was not complicit in the 9/11 attacks, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and Bush has garnered but scattered international support for the invasion. Subsequently, there is widespread international opposition to the invasion coupled with worldwide anti-Americanism, so Iraqi opposition to the American invasion might find support amongst influential nations. So do I welcome US soldiers with open arms, or do I take up arms and resist the invasion?'"

George W. Bush has done virtually everything imaginable to provoke the Iraqis, to embolden them, and to incite them to violence. Now he and others in Washington want to send more troops to the region, which would increase resentment even while providing it with more targets. This is unconscionable! In the new year, let's continue the fight to move America in a NEW DIRECTION!

Happy New Year Democrats!

Sincerely,

Richard Lara

THE FIGHTING SLATE OF CALIFORNIA'S 67th AD!

Written by: Richard Lara on Jan 1, 2007 1:22 PM EST

Linked to groups: DFA Blog Network

Dear esteemed fellow Democrats,

On Sunday, June 19th of 2005 I was the guest columnist for the Orange County Register. In my article, Patriotism, New and Old, I explained that America’s fear inspired reaction to 911 was resulting in an increasingly dangerous manner of support for George Bush. I said that Bush “failed as commander-in-chief when he began the war without adequate justification and failed to create the broadest possible international support for the invasion.”

I said of the troops and their families that “their burden is much greater than it would have been if the president had been a better international leader” and that “Bush's approach to the war places American soldiers in greater danger than they needed to be.” Today, politicians in Washington are discussing a proposal to increase the number of troops in Iraq, and I, like many of you, believe that proposal to be hopelessly flawed.

However, the political climate in the US, though changing, is still not conducive to clear and open discussion of viable approaches to the problem in Iraq. Americans now lack faith in the President’s approach to the problem, but they still want to leave Iraq in possession of a stable new government, and this desire makes sending more troops seem a viable new approach.

Will the political climate in the US catch up with the situation in Iraq in time to head off disaster? The questions of the legitimacy of the war, the justice at which it allegedly aims, and America’s obligations to Iraq are all important considerations for any proposed solution to the problem in Iraq.

However, these considerations should not blind us to one of the most fundamental considerations with respect to America’s success in Iraq, namely the issue of the “Sources of Violence.” The Iraq Study Group Report refers to “multiple sources of violence in Iraq,” including “the Sunni Arab insurgency, Al Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups, Shiite militias and death squads, and organized criminality.”

However, this list is incomplete, if not conspicuously so, for the very presence of American troops is, whether Americans think it should be so or not, one of the chief sources of violence in Iraq. However, the American troops are not responsible for this violence or for its growing intensity.

Instead, it is the unscrupulousness and ineptitude of George W. Bush that accounts for “the grave and deteriorating” situation in Iraq. As I said in my June 19th commentary: “[…] step into the shoes of the Iraqis: 'My government was not complicit in the 9/11 attacks, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and Bush has garnered but scattered international support for the invasion.

Subsequently, there is widespread international opposition to the invasion coupled with worldwide anti-Americanism, so Iraqi opposition to the American invasion might find support amongst influential nations. So do I welcome US soldiers with open arms, or do I take up arms and resist the invasion?'" (Richard Lara, OC Register, Commentary, 06/19/05) George W. Bush has done virtually everything imaginable to provoke the Iraqis, to embolden them, and to incite them to violence. Now he and others in Washington want to send more troops to the region, which would increase resentment even while providing it with more targets. This is unconscionable!

It is up to us to continue the fight. Please help Roz Freeman, Marjorie Niland, Laura Sweet, Louise Stewardson, Michelle Smith, George & Louise Giacoppe, Joe Shaw, Trung Ta, Vern Nelson, Dorian Yarnelson, and me, Richard Lara, to move America in A NEW DIRECTION!

VOTE FOR THE FIGHTING SLATE OF THE 67th AD! The election is Sunday, January 14th at 2:00pm at the address below. VOTE FOR THE FIGHTING SLATE OF THE 67th AD!

The election is Sunday, January 14th at 2:00pm at the address below. AD #67 Convenor: Larry Caballero 1/14/07 at 2:00pm 714.898.9141 / democab@ca.rr.com International Machinist Hall 5402 Bolsa Ave., Huntington Beach at Bolsa Chica and Bolsa Ave