While the Golden State is rich in resources and talent, the state's uncompetitive tax and regulatory structure is hampering its economic recovery. The result: far more Californians unemployed or underemployed, and fewer people paying taxes, than should be the case.

We live in a dynamic economy, and resources are increasingly mobile. Technology allows employers unprecedented flexibility in siting facilities where it makes the most sense in terms of global competitiveness.

When I spoke with Texas Governor Rick Perry recently, I asked him to avoid trying to lure any California companies away when he's back in the state later this year. He didn't make any promises. Nor should he. The Texas Governor is looking after his state when he makes he regular trips to California to lure employers to his state, which enjoys a much lower tax burden, smaller and less expensive government, and a less irrational regulatory structure.

The reality is that California state government makes Governor Perry's job easier by creating a tax and regulatory morass that gives employers ever reason to seek escape elsewhere, just as Northrup Grumman executives did in choosing to move the company's headquarters to low tax Virginia.

Governor Schwarzenegger and Republican lawmakers have repeatedly advocated for making California more employer-friendly, and they can point to the state's 12.7% unemployment rate to make their case. The Governor has vetoed a long list of bills that would have made the situation worse, while Republican legislators continually introduce bills to restore some sanity to the tax and regulatory structure. Those bills consistently meet with a quick death.

The American economy will continue to recover, but not all states will recover equally. Our state will emerge from recession later, produce fewer jobs, and experience greater budget deficits due to a shrinking tax base. It does not have to be this way. Let's try something new -- giving Republicans a shot at taking the state in a new economic direction. All the more reason to vote for your Republican candidate for state legislature in November.

I was pleased to read of the important victory for charter schools in Los Angeles as a judge denied an attempt by the United Teachers of LA union to block LA Unified from converting public schools to charters unless 50% of the district's teachers (read: the union) approved.

The LA Times reported:

If the lawsuit had been successful, the district could have had to change plans at the charter campuses and adjust procedures for school takeovers by charters in the future. Forty more campuses will be put up for bid over the next four years.

But Judge Alan S. Rosenfield rejected the lawsuit, writing in his ruling that it had depended on "illogical and strained interpretations" of the education code.

Supt. Ramon C. Cortines called the ruling a "huge win for parents and students."

Score one for the good guys!

Liberal proponents of expanding dope use through legalization have been hyperventilating over the last few days, upset that Republicans oppose the idea.

Now, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) has announced that she, too opposes the measure. Perhaps the same pot smokers will now attack Sen. Boxer for her position as well?

When an idea is so bad that even Sen. Boxer, a liberal among liberals, opposes it, you know the pro-legalization bunch is seriously out of touch.

With Jerry Brown running for governor, people talking about legalizing pot, and a liberal in the White House, this is starting to look like a rerun of "That 70's Show." All that's missing is bad hair and an AMC Gremlin.

The California Republican Party's platform firmly supports stiff penalties on drug dealers and users, with good reason. Our policy and current law, which puts the best interests of all Californians first, will be directly challenged by a new ballot measure this November which aims to legalize, and thus expand, dope use.

Studies show that the main factor that keeps many young people from trying drugs is cost. Without a doubt, legalizing dope (or any other drug) lowers costs and increases access. The idea of hundreds of thousands of new pot smokers in our state, mostly among young people, is one that does and should appeal to very few.

Instead of campaigning on the reality that their legalization measure will lead to more drug users, the proponents of pot smoking are dressing up their initiative as one aimed at taxing (by legalizing) dope (or as they prefer to call it, "cannabis.") As though the state's budget crisis is somehow the result of the state not having enough pot smokers.

While cost is the biggest impediment to young people getting started on drug use, we also know that if a young person can make it to age 21 without using drugs, they're more than 90% certain never to start. That's a pretty compelling fact.

California Republicans firmly oppose efforts to expand drug use through legalization. Nancy Reagan was right. When it comes to drugs and drug use, "Just Say No" remains the best approach.

SF Chronicle: Republicans Officially Oppose Legalizing/Taxing Dope in CA

A few hours ago I was stunned to learn that my friend Barry Nestande was taken by a heart attack while working out at his gym.

Barry was simply one of the finest men I have met in my twenty years of Republican activism. Most noteworthy was his permanent state of optimism, can-do spirit, and friendly demeanor. Indeed, on his Facebook page he listed his political views as "rose colored glasses." I enjoyed the many hours we spent discussing Inland Empire politics, and life in general.

Barry leaves behind a wife, Merrilee, and wonderful family.

The two most difficult places to which I've traveled were Baghdad and Kenya. Iraq was a war zone at the time, and Kenya, particularly rural Kenya, epitomizes all of the challenges of third world environments, with inadequate health, water, power, transportation and other infrastructure.

But none of that holds a candle to what we see in Haiti today with a level of earthquake damage magnified by the country's underdevelopment. That is, Haiti's condition as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere leads to structures more vulnerable to damage during natural disasters, which the Caribbean is prone to experiencing.

In any case, today we see a country teetering on the brink of total chaos and anarchy. All suffering is personal. "Countries" don't suffer, people in countries suffer, and the magnitude of that suffering we see today is unacceptable by any standard.

Every nation capable of helping has a moral obligation to act, and many are -- thankfully.

There will be plenty of time for debate and discussion later over how Haiti can develop in ways that improves the standard of living for all its citizens. But today there is a crisis requiring immediate action.

Photos of the situation in Haiti (Daily Mail, UK)

In 2004 I had the honor of helping train future Haitian leaders in communications and political technology. We helped about 65 Haitians, mostly in their 20's and 30's, in preparing to serve in politics and government in the Western Hemisphere's poorest nation.

At the time, the security situation was so bad in Port Au Prince that the training actually took place on the other side of Hispanola, in the Dominican Republic.

I remember at the end of the training the students were so grateful that they organized a "thank you" ceremony for those of us who had volunteered to do the training, and presented us with gifts for having helped them. It was my first time working with Haitians and I was incredibly impressed by each of the students, whom I found thoughtful, engaging, and very appreciative.

So it was with a great sense of concern that I read the reports today about the devastation of the 7.0 earthquake that struck the country today. "I think it's really a catastrophe of major proportions," Haiti's ambassador to the U.S., Raymond Alcide Joseph, said.

The Haitian people have suffered tremendously over the history of this nation that shares the island of Hispanola with the Dominican Republic. Dictatorship, corruption, and a non-functioning economy and have all contributed to an unacceptable level of human suffering. Eight in ten Haitians live in poverty. Today's earthquake comes atop all of that.

The American Red Cross and other charities are providing immediate aid to help alleviate the suffering.

Each of us at the California Republican Party was shocked beyond words when we learned this morning of the untimely passing of Will Smith, Chief of Staff for Senator George Runner.

I came to know Will over the years as someone who made working in politics and government a little easier. His great personality, demeanor, and style were terrific, making him a strong advocate for whatever important idea or issue he was working on that day. We often attended some of the same meetings in Sacramento.

Will's passing is a reminder that life is too short and too valuable to be wasted on the trivial or the negative. Fortunately, Will's example will continue to live on in the memories of his friends, family, and colleagues.

My family is originally from Germany - Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen) to be exact, and most of my family is still there. The story of how my parents came to be Americans is closely tied with why I'm a Republican.

At age 20, my father found a way out of his impoverished German town by joining the German merchant marines. In so doing, he not only found a job, but a way to see the world. It was a decision that would have major consequences not only for him, but for his future family.

If you spend any time in the towns along the Elbe River, you can see a never ending stream of cargo ships heading to and from Hamburg, one of Europe's largest ports. Everything from cars to chemicals, fertilizer to farm equipment, heads through this passageway to and from points around the world.

As a sailor in the merchant marines, my father had the opportunity to see the world. My most valuable possession is his old log book and atlas, showing where he visited, and recording the journeys in his own hand in a book.

During his six years on board ship, he had the opportunity to see and experience all kinds of different societies - Soviet bloc, South American, Caribbean, American, and more. When he finally decided to leave the merchant marines and take with him the skills he had learned working on massive diesel engines down below deck, he had to decide where to settle.

The easy, and typical, decision would be to settle back home in Germany. He knew the language, the culture, and the entire rather large family was there.

But his experiences gave him the taste of something different - something special. He chose that of all the places he had seen as a sailor, he wanted to go to America.

Freedom, he told me, was what drew him to America. The freedom to plot your own destiny, and to reap the fruits of one's labor.

So in 1960, at age 26, he met my mother, got married, and the two of them boarded the S.S. Hanseatic bound for New York.

Seven years later they became Americans. I still have their citizenship certificates framed in my home. They both valued their American citizenship as something very, very special.

As an American, my father took his freedom, and his responsibility, very seriously. He voted in every single election once he became a citizen - the first time in 1968. I remember going with him has a kid to the polling place at the local junior high school. There, the poll workers would open the book containing each voter's original voter registration card, and I could see the card on which my father had signed in to vote, going back years and years. It would be wonderful to get that card back, but I imagine those records were destroyed after he passed away.

My father took voting seriously, but he would never tell me who he voted for. To him, the privacy of the ballot was important, as it prevented the state from favoring or disfavoring voters based on which candidates they preferred.

To this day I remember my father telling me stories of how people in his town during the Second World War would disappear if they had voted for the "wrong" candidate, or had the "wrong" opinions about the government.

Nevertheless, my father was a Republican because he saw the Republican Party as the party best suited to preserve the freedoms that brought him and my mother to this country in the first place. He saw little difference between big government liberals in this country and socialists back in Europe.

I share my father's passion for limited government, lower taxes, and a strong national defense. I watched the Reagan-Carter debate in 1980 at the age of 10 and rooted for Ronald Reagan. I suppose that made me a Very Young Republican at the time.

I remain incredibly grateful my parents had the courage, vision and fortitude to make it to this country.

In his final push toward an improved fiscal legacy, Governor Schwarzenegger has boldly drawn the connection between creating a job-friendly state and solving California's long-term financial crisis in his 2010-2011 budget proposal.

The Governor and Republicans understand that the quickest and most efficient way to close the estimated $20 billion shortfall is to eliminate the job-killing policies that have plagued our state, while at the same time reforming the bloated pension system and redefining the relationship between Washington and Sacramento.

The Governor's budget plan is a positive step forward that all Republicans can embrace.

Complete article on the Flashreport

All Californians have been incredibly fortunate to have an outstanding representative in Congress fighting for them in Rep. George Radanovich. Throughout his 15 years in the House, George has been a thoughtful, passionate, and committed advocate on the issues facing California's Central Valley including water, agriculture, and jobs.

Read the complete statement

One of the fundamental principles of political involvement is that it should be voluntary. Unlike some countries, voting and registering to vote in America is voluntary, not mandatory. Financially supporting candidates should also be voluntary, but for too many Californians, it's not.

We continue to witness Californians who happen to belong to labor unions being required to fund political activity as a condition of their union membership. While dues are charged to members ostensibly to pay for the costs of the union serving as a collective bargaining representative, substantial sums are instead diverted to political activity in one form or another. Sometimes the diversion takes place directly, while in other instances sums are sent to national affiliates only to come back in the form of some political activity.

The question here is not whether unions should be able to participate in the political process - of course they should. The issue is whether union members who do not support the union officials' political agenda should be required to fund that agenda, regardless of their own political views. The answer there is, of course they should not. Political involvement, again, should be voluntary.

California voters have twice narrowly rejected "paycheck protection" proposals aimed at protecting union members from being forced to fund political speech they do not support. Yet, the defeat of those past initiatives can be attributed to the incredible disinformation campaign waged against them, which included twisted claims that workers already have the rights the initiative would embody.

Proponents are now circulating a new paycheck protection initiative with the help of many in the tea party movement. I signed the petition last week to help place the measure on the ballot. If you're interested in helping make sure that no one in California is forced to fund political speech they disagree with, you can download a petition here.

Barack Obama's public approval rating has dropped to as low as 47% in the last week, according to Gallup. Although the President will not appear on the ballot again until 2012, how the public views his presidency will have a direct impact on each party's performance in next year's mid-term elections.

The party holding the White House has lost seats in 10 of the last 12 mid-terms, going back to President Kennedy's 1962 losses. Even in that year, with a 74% approval rating following the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy’s Democrats lost seats in the House. Historically, the public uses mid-term elections to correct for the perceived excesses of the party in power, while the absence of coattail effects may result in some seats reverting back to the party with the natural advantage in the district.

Read my complete column on Fox and Hounds Daily

In the latest political indicator to show further shift toward Republicans, independent voters are now favoring GOP congressional candidates by 22% over their Democrat competitors, according to Gallup.

The ongoing shift of unaffiliated voters toward the Republican Party stands in stark contrast to the 2006 and 2008 elections when independent voters preferred Democrats. Taken alone this trend is significant enough, but when viewed together with falling Presidential approval (47%) and growing numbers of Americans who are identifying with the Republican Party (40%, up from 35% in Jan.), we see that we are working in a political environment very different than the one we were in a year ago.

Read the complete column on Fox and Hounds

Americans got a taste of what is to come if ObamaCare makes it into law when the U.S. Preventative Services task force, a federal panel, recommended against mammography for women under 50.

This report struck close to home.

My mother succumbed to breast cancer at age 52. She was first positively diagnosed with the cancer at age 46. Sadly, she first discovered the lump in her breast at age 39 after sustaining injuries to her upper chest in a car accident. Had she not gone seven years before acting on what she found at age 39, she might still be with us today.

The notion that we should be screening people less rather than more for various forms of cancer and other diseases is foolish, yet we're likely to see many more such proposals as government dramatically expands its role in health care as envisioned by liberals in Washington. Command and control decisions about cancer screenings will not work in the U.S. any better than they worked in Canada (producing a massive shortage of MRI diagnostic equipment), or in the Soviet Union (producing a massive shortage of everything).

In this great health care debate taking place, statistics are impersonal and likely to be matched with statistics from the other side, or glossed over altogether. Yet it is the personal side of health and medicine that impacts people's lives, and should inform the debate.

The federal panel justified its recommendation by concluding that the costs of "overdiagnosis" (too many tests leading to other tests and treatments that are ultimately unnecessary) is greater than saving a few lives through early detection. As the Wall Street Journal noted, "this makes little sense unless financial costs are a priority." Financial costs to a government, of course, which will be calling the shots.

The "public option" in ObamaCare is a big step toward the government run health care system Democrats envision, which is why their most liberal members are so adamantly for it while reasonable people like Sen. Joseph Lieberman are opposed. The government entering the health insurance market to compete with the private sector, at the same time it also sets the rules by which that competition takes place, is to guarantee the government eventually "prevails" and the private, competitive sector is crushed. The government side is also aided by the fact that it will have access to one resource the private insurers cannot use: the U.S. Treasury.

Ultimately, the issue here is one of options and alternatives. Will people have choices for diagnosis and treatment of health problems, or will they be limited to whatever choices the government makes for them, as in Canada? The ultimate result of the Democrats' health care plan will be fewer choices for patients, and more edicts from government panels.

My heart goes out to Ed Romaine and his family on Long Island in the aftermath of the untimely passing of Ed's son, Brookhaven Councilman Keith Romaine.

At age 36, Keith was a leader in his community and in the Republican Party. Tragically, Keith passed away as a result of complications from pneumonia, just two weeks after he was re-elected to the town council.

I met Keith twenty years ago while a volunteer on his father Ed's campaigns for Congress and local office in Suffolk County, New York where I went to college. Keith was just 16 then, but he was already involved with his father's campaigns and public service. It's no surprise he would enter public life and serve his community as his father has for decades.

Keith's passing reminds us that life is precious.

Suffolk Times: Keith Romaine fought for what he believed in until the end

Marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the California Republican Party released a new video highlighting President Ronald Reagan's key role in leading America to victory in the Cold War.

Republican organizations will commemorate the importance of the anniversary with special events, house parties and other functions throughout the state today and California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring issued the following statement:

"Twenty years ago today, the Berlin Wall was consigned to irrelevance because a Californian named Ronald Reagan demonstrated the leadership, commitment and perseverance necessary for liberty to triumph over tyranny.

"Millions of people ultimately contributed to victory in the struggle for freedom, and their efforts culminated on that evening two decades ago as the darkest scar on the map of Europe was suddenly rendered meaningless.

"Today, hundreds of millions of people in the former Soviet bloc are free - to travel, to live where they wish, to pursue their dreams. Having experienced firsthand life under tyranny, it should be no surprise that the democratic governments of many of those former Soviet satellite states are today among America's strongest allies in the ongoing cause of freedom.

"The legacy of California's 33rd governor, and America's 40th President, lives on today in the lives of people around the world and the free societies they continue to build.

Video highlights Reagan's leadership leading to Wall's collapse

The California Republican Party released a new video marking today's anniversary. The video will be shown at events around the state today and on the state party's YouTube Channel, CRPTV. Watch the video

Wow -- what an incredible turnout today at the tea party rally and the kickoff to the Tea Party Express II nationwide tour. Thousands of Californians gathered to make our voices heard opposing higher taxes, and a bigger, more imposing government in Washington, and Sacramento. KOGO Radio's photos from the rally My photos

Nancy Pelosi and her liberal allies in Washington dismiss these patriots as "astro-turf," a DC term referring to a type of phony grassroots advocacy ginned up to pressure Congress. I know astro-turf, and believe me, this isn't it. The Californians I saw this morning are genuinely concerned about the tax increases, bailouts, government takeovers and debt that have defined this increasingly unpopular government in Washington.

As someone who's been active in the taxpayer movement for years, I particularly appreciated the opportunity to address today's rally. It was a real honor.

I grew up in New York, and remember year after year the pressures the annual property tax bill put on my parents. Thankfully, in California we have Proposition 13 protecting us. To give you an idea of how high property taxes can get without such protections, my parents in New York paid about $5,000 each year in property taxes on a home that was worth under $100,000. That's an effective property tax rate at least five times higher than we have here in California under Proposition 13.

No wonder why the Sacramento liberals are always looking for ways to do away with Proposition 13.

Back to today's rally, it was great to see Roger Hedgecock, Howard Kaloogian, Peter Foy, and so many other leaders and activists on hand to show their support for this important movement.

In my comments, I noted that the Republican Party that will take back the Speaker's gavel from Nancy Pelosi next year will be a stronger, more disciplined party than the one that lost it in 2006, thanks in large part to the support for lower taxes and limited government that so many people active in the tea party and taxpayer movements have provided.

I noted today that Republicans should continue to oppose all tax increases as a matter of principle, oppose the dangerous cap and trade scheme supported by Barack Obama, and that no "Czars" in this administration should be funded unless and until they are confirmed to their positions by the United States Senate.

Thanks again to everyone who turned out in San Diego today.

Democrats are playing defense in some key U.S. Senate races that should otherwise be considered safe.

Historically, Senate incumbents already tend to be a bit less safe than House incumbents simply because one cannot gerrymander a state. House lines are often drawn and redrawn to protect incumbents, while states don't change borders without something major...like a war. Even in that revolutionary year of 1994, 92% of House members seeking re-election won, while 90% of Senators won.

A review of the position some incumbent Democrat Senators find themselves in shows a level of vulnerability that is out of the ordinary, and certainly a far cry from the last two election cycles which saw heavy Democrat gains.

Complete story on Fox and Hounds Daily

Thankfully, Internet content remains largely free of government intrusion and regulation. Americans are increasingly going online for news, to plan their travel, and perform other everyday tasks like banking and keeping up with relatives. They're also going online for the information they need to determine how they will vote. As candidates and parties consequently step up their online presence, outdated campaign finance laws are giving the bureaucrats a new opening to impose restrictions and regulations on Internet content.

Complete story on Fox and Hounds Daily

On German American Day, I'm reminded of the steps that led by family from Depression-era Germany to today's California. It's an important story but one that is not unlike millions of others involving immigrants who came to these shores.

Because of my parents' decision to emigrate, I had the opportunity to be the first member of my family involved in politics and government. I vividly remember my father's stories of those in his home town who spoke their mind about the county's leadership in World War II and were often never seen again, turned in by some informant for the regime and hauled off in the dead of night by the Gestapo.

Even in today's Europe, it's rare for first generation Europeans to rise through political or government ranks, and even more unusual without a PhD or some other advanced degree. Yet in America, people from all walks of life are routinely elected to federal, state and local offices, providing for a democracy that is more representative of its people than in many other societies.

My father in particular chose America because of freedom. Like so many others, he came to New York with little more than two chests of clothes and goods, drawn here by the promise, and the reality, of political and economic freedom that still serves as a model for much of the world.

Like so many other immigrants, my parents gravitated to a small German-American community on Long Island, working in a German-owned grocery store stocking shelves and living in an apartment above a garage in the back. It took seven years of classes and tests to earn their citizenship, and today their citizenship papers remain framed and on display in my own home. They were both proud to have earned them.

So on this German American Day, I remember my parents, and why they chose to become citizens of this very special country.

It's fun to watch liberals and Democrats give the Republican Party advice. It's as though no one notices that they're liberals and Democrats, and therefore have little interest in seeing our party succeed.

It's with this in mind that I've noticed a number of "analysts" giving advice to the Republican Party to distance itself from the Americans choosing to speak out against high taxes and intrusive government through the Tea Party movement.

My response to that advice: thanks, but no thanks. Americans who are concerned about skyrocketing taxes, unsustainable debt, and wasteful government spending have a natural home in the Republican Party and they are welcome.

Politics is about addition. Yet here's the advice one Berkeley professor offered our party in a San Francisco Chronicle story this weekend:

"I don't see where reaching out to the tea party people helps. That's the fringe of the far right," he said. "They need to reach out to the decline-to-state voters in the middle."

"The fringe of the far right?"

Really?

I've been active in the conservative movement for twenty years, including in think tanks, taxpayer groups, and of course the Republican Party. The modern tea party movement has activated hundreds of thousands of Americans who are not "the fringe of the far right" whatsoever.

Most are everyday Americans now active for the first time, concerned that Barack Obama and the Democrats are taking the country in the wrong direction, saddling future generations with higher taxes, spending and debt.

Liberals who neither understand nor support the objectives of this movement seek instead to delegitimize it by declaring it "extreme," and then dismiss it.

Successful political parties are broad based, bringing together people with different issues bringing them to the same political party. Many in our party are motivated by family issues, others are brought to our party by economic issues, and yet others are primarily concerned with national security concerns. Yet, they all arrive at the same Republican Party.

Californians motivated by concerns over rising taxes and excessive government spending are welcome in the Republican Party, and their presence strengthens it.

The Berkeley professor quoted above poses a false choice. It suggests that the interests of the "center" are by definition at odds with those active in opposing higher taxes and excessive spending. Yet, we have seen that the majority of Californians, including those in the "center" oppose higher taxes, and believe California's budget should be balanced mainly through spending cuts, not tax increases.

In other words, the sentiments of many in that "center" are in line with so many of those who have chosen to voice their concerns through the Tea Party movement.

Liberals have been lecturing Republicans for years about how our party cannot possibly appeal to centrists and conservatives at the same time. Yet, the assertion flies in the face of reality. The California Republican Party is the party of choice for Arnold Schwarzenegger as it is for Tom McClintock. Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner, Tom Campbell have different ideas, yet all call our party home.

At the end of the day, Californians who want to bring taxes down to Earth, save our children from trillions in inter-generational debt, and limit the intrusiveness of government to protect our liberties are natural allies, and have a home, in the Republican Party.

On Friday I learned that my doctor, who is Persian, has been a strong supporter of the freedom movement back in his native Iran. My response: fantastic!

America supports freedom movements around the world in a very unique, although under reported, way. Immigrants succeed in America, usually well beyond what they might achieve back in their native country. Their success proves that the American combination of free markets and democratic governance works for everyone.

Immigrants' success in America -- people like my parents, who came from Germany in 1961 -- specifically disproves one of the excuses used by dictators in other countries: that somehow free markets and democracy only works for some groups, but that "their" country is different and somehow their "system" is better for their people.

Of course, one look at the Korean Peninsula at night, with the bright, prosperous South providing a stark contrast to the dark, backward North, disproves this argument as well. One people, one ethnic group, two systems: failure under socialism, success with freedom.

As they succeed in America, immigrants often become strong advocates for freedom back home. Experiencing first hand the success freedom can bring, they support spreading those benefits back in their native country.

Another benefit of the American system.

Today the California Republican Party remembers those who died, were injured, or whose loved ones were lost in the terrorist attacks on America eight years ago today. Our commitment to vigilance in the global war on terror remains steadfast, and the grief we still feel inspires us to maintain that vigilance. The tragedy of 9/11 proved the resilience of the American character, the American spirit, and the American commitment to freedom and liberty throughout the world. Our men and women in uniform had thrust upon them a new challenge on 9/11, one they have met with distinction and valor that continues to this day.

The state of American politics is today fundamentally different than when President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid became the triumvirate of the legislative and federal branches of our government.

Less than a year ago, Barack Obama and the Democrats won a national election giving them total control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. With Al Franken's belated Minnesota victory, they even have a filibuster-proof majority in the upper house.

It's an enviable position.

Or at least, it was.

In the months since, President Obama has experienced the steepest decline of public support for any modern president other than Gerald Ford following Watergate, as columnist Charles Krauthammer observes.

Meanwhile, the public's incredibly sour view of Nancy Pelosi has turned her into such a liability she is turning up in Republican television ads in much the same way Democrats featured Newt Gingrich in their messaging in the late '90s.

As a direct consequence of the pubic turning against the majority party, their legislative agenda has become mired in a morass of conflicting interests and a leadership vacuum. Democrat House members who would like to keep their jobs next year but represent conservative districts have suddenly become unreliable supporters of the liberal agenda. In the other chamber, their 60-vote majority hasn't produced much.

America remains a center-right country, yet the liberals in control of Washington assumed last year's election represented a fundamental leftward realignment of the electorate. If that were the case, the President would have had his health care bill signing ceremony by now.

Clearly the American people wanted a change in direction and perceived priorities, yet the current state of politics makes clear they did not suddenly embrace a left wing view of the role of the federal government just because they had differences with President Bush. Americans want a government that will get the economy on track, make government less of a burden, and defend the nation from those who would do us harm.

If the other team had focused on those priorities, they would be in a stronger position today.

The response we've seen from the majority party to their train coming completely off the tracks has been all too predictable: blame Republicans, and if you can find a way to blame President Bush too, so much the better.

It's a losing strategy, but the only one immediately available to them that does not involve adopting a more centrist policy agenda.

Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton, who campaigned as a "New Democrat" distinct from the party's liberal wing and demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt to changing political circumstances. First, he championed his wife's plan for a complete federal takeover of health care in America, only to later declare the "era of big government is over."

While Clinton demonstrated flexibility, Obama and his team exhibit a more dogmatic approach that they believe they have the majority, they're not going to have it forever, and they're going to plow through to get their agenda passed now while they have the chance.

It's a blunt-force approach.

And it's failed. Concurrent with the President's plummeting approval ratings, a new Rasmussen Reports poll shows 51% of Americans believe Congress is too liberal, while only 22% believe it's too conservative.

Health care marks the end of this phase of the Obama presidency.

Next week the President will attempt to reshuffle the deck with a speech to a joint session of Congress. With broad majorities in both chambers it's something he shouldn't have to do, yet it's something he must do, for while the liberal leadership in Congress may support the health care plan, the American people do not. The President will attempt to change the terms of the debate to get his way despite the objections of so many Americans.

Going into 2010, Republican victory is not yet assured. We have to work for it. The President's numbers are unlikely to remain in the tank forever, and when they tick up a bit there will be a long line of liberals in the media to talk about the "comeback."

That comeback, however, is likely to be limited by what Bill Clinton possessed and Barack Obama lacks: an ability to put aside liberalism when it's a loser with the public. It was in 1994, and it is today.

While sitting in the doctor's office I took a few minutes to consider how different it might be if Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are successful in giving the federal government even more power over our health care options.

I paid a reasonable co-pay, was seen without much of a wait, etc. Now, listening to the Democrats, it would seem my experience was unusual. In fact, it's much more the norm: the overwhelming majority of Americans are satisfied with the health care they receive.

The key issue is whether more government involvement of the type the liberals are advocating will make the situation better for those who are uninsured, without making care worse for the vast majority of Americans who carry health insurance and are generally satisfied with their level of care.

Instead of advancing narrowly tailored legislation aimed at expanding health insurance coverage opportunities and lowering costs by expanding competition, the health care "crisis" is instead being taken as an excuse for a massive expansion of the federal government's involvement in our health.

The so-called "public option" is the most obvious abuse of this excuse. Liberals argue having the government compete directly with private insurers is important to driving down costs and increasing competition. What a misguided assessment. In fact, there is plenty of competition among private insurers today, and the easiest way to expand that competition without a big new federal bureaucracy would be to allow private insurers to compete across state lines, something the Democrats refuse to allow.

Some tort reform would also help bring down the cost of "defensive medicine," but the Democrats are reluctant to take on their masters in the trial bar.

Instead, they want the feds to offer the same kind of insurance policies to citizens that private insurers currently offer. Of course, government would then be in the position of both setting the rules, and competing by those rules. This is the equivalent of the Chargers playing the Jets while all the referees are employed by the Jets. Additionally, the federal insurance "company" would have one thing the private insurers do not have: access to the U.S. Treasury for whatever subsidies Congress decides to provide.

Liberals argue that because the government would not take money "out" of the system for "profits," more money would go to providing health care than under private insurers. Right. Let's see how that worked in Germany: Volkswagen takes money "out" for profits, while the East German government took no profits for their "Trabants." Which car would you rather drive?

To be even more practical, take the argument to its logical conclusion: what if the federal government ran the entire health care system, as many liberals want? How would your health care experience change? I kept having images of sitting around a DMV office, or the pleasant experience of the U.S. Post Office, popping into my head while in the doctor's office.

The bottom line is that there are plenty of improvements that can be made to America's health care system, and many of the problems are the result of government involvement in the first place. More competition, more transparency, and more options on a level playing field are the way to get there. Those are some of the solutions Republicans are advocating. Democrats should listen.

Much of the speculation on September 12, 2001 and in the days and weeks that followed concerned when and where we would be hit next. What would the targets be? How would they hit them? How do we prepare?

Within weeks, disaster preparedness kits started appearing in stores only to fly off the shelves as Americans did what they could to prepare for the next attack which everyone seemed convinced was imminent.

To this day, thankfully, we have prevented the next mass casualty terror attack. I use the word "prevented" on purpose, as opposed to "avoided." We have prevented the sequel to 9/11 thus far despite the best efforts of al Queda and its imitators. America's law enforcement, military and intelligence communities deserve credit for thwarting such plans, including former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, and their teams.

While the military response to 9/11 was directed primarily at Afghanistan, the President and his team correctly understood that the terrorist threat was not specific to that country, but instead was and remains global. The terrorist threat to America is not primarily rooted in the sponsorship of one state, but rather flows from organizations that transcend national boundaries in their staging, operations and financing.

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama argued that Iraq was a diversion from the global war on terror, and that Afghanistan should be the real focus where terrorism is concerned. This represents a worldview, or at least a political view, that Iraq was the politically incorrect war, while Afghanistan is acceptable because the country served as the staging ground for 9/11.

The real strategic issue is that terrorist groups and their imitators and allies don't owe allegiance to any particular country, making a nation-specific focus on our part besides the point. The real issue concerns where terrorist groups may find allies, and destroying such opportunities for basing, staging and financing.

The terrorists' orientation goes beyond national boundaries, and our focus must do the same if we are to protect our country, its citizens, and our allies.

My visit to Ground Zero reminded me of the events of September 11, 2001 and the impact those events have had on our nation, and my own life.

We can all remember where we were when we heard the news of 9/11. For me, the news came on the morning after my first meeting as the new Chairman of the Republican Party of San Diego County. We had an exciting meeting on the evening of September 10, drawing hundreds of people to the Manchester Grand Hyatt including friends and colleagues from out of town.

Less than twelve hours after we adjourned that meeting, three planes commandeered by terrorists hit their targets in New York and Washington, while a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. By the end of that day, the global war on terror would be on.

On the morning of 9-11 my clock radio came on around 6:40, with the LA newscaster saying something about "all bridges and tunnels into the city are closed." That odd statement (what bridges and tunnels into LA?) prompted me to turn on the TV to see a picture of the World Trade Center with smoke emerging. Shortly thereafter, the buildings collapsed, leading eventually to the work site I saw on my visit last weekend. Photos

One of the passengers on American flight 77 out of Washington, DC was conservative activist Barbara Olson. Barbara was married to President Bush's Solicitor General, Ted. Barbara and I attended many of the same meetings in Washington and I knew her as a tenacious activist. Sadly, she met the same fate as the other passengers when her plane was crashed into the Pentagon.

One of my closest friends on Long Island arrived home from an overnight tour of duty a few hours before the buildings were hit. By Noon he would be on his way back to the city, part of a NYPD citywide mobilization. He would be on hand near the WTC site for the next few days -straight. Today, he suffers from an extremely rare condition that has been attributed to exposure to the contaminants that filled the air following the collapse of the towers. His situation reminds me of the importance that we as a society make sure those who were impacted in the line of duty, and their families, are properly taken care of.

The Obama Administration on Monday opted to ramp up the involvement of law enforcement in the global war on terror. What may surprise most Americans is that this new law enforcement emphasis is not aimed at those who plot and commit acts of violence, but rather the intelligence agents charged with defeating them.

Attorney General Eric Holder has named John Durham as special prosecutor as the first step toward bringing chargest against current and former CIA personnel for the interrogation techniques used on detainees, mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Press reports indicate the decision to move forward toward prosecution was taken solely by AG Holder, and may even stand in contrast to the President's own stated position to move on from the national security "controversies" of the Bush Administration.

Yet, it is implausible that Holder would take such action without at least tacit approval from his boss, the President. Additionally, this action is in line with the stated desires of liberal Democrat members of Congress, including several from California, who would clearly like nothing more than a full scale witch hunt of Bush Administration officials involved with protecting America and her allies from terrorist attacks following 9/11.

Holder's moves are inconsistent with an effective national security policy, particularly regarding the global war on terror, and the related issues of securing victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For instance, in recent weeks we have witnessed a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq, including the bombing of the Foreign Ministry building and other key government facilities, coinciding with the withdrawal of US military forces from urban areas, and the decision by the al Maliki government to remove protective concrete barriers from many areas in Baghdad, increasing their vulnerability to attack.

Insurgents and terrorists have seen such moves as new opportunities to press on with their campaign of violence against the democratically elected government. Likewise, what signal does it send to terrorists and insurgents to have the United States engaged in the high profile prosecution of those who were charged with fighting and defeating their violent brethren? The answer: encouragement.

The decision to prepare for a witch hunt of Bush Administration officials (which liberals in Congress would pursue, and still may, regardless of the direction the Obama Justice Department takes) comes on the heels of last week's complete failure of the Obama Administration to block the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi from prison in Scotland.

Barack Obama is credited by Europeans and American liberals with having elevated America's stature and "soft power."

Yet, despite "weeks and months" of effort by the Obama State Department, it could not even convince America's closest ally, Great Britain, to not release the man responsible for the murder of 189 Americans. Instead, the bomber was released, picked up in Muammar Gaddafi's private plane, and flown back to Libya to be greeted by a massive state sponsored rally at the airport.

So much for results from the Obama diplomatic team.

Barack Obama is certainly bringing "change" to the global war on terror: treating attacks on America as law enforcement violations, and an overreliance on diplomacy that has witnessed the return of a mass murderer to his home country and fresh threats to the democratically elected government in Iraq.

Together, let us remember those who have sacrificed over the 233 years that have led to this day to give us a nation founded on principles and defined by ordinary Americans making extraordinary accomplishments.

July 4th has come to mean even more than independence from Great Britain and the impressive journey that has followed. Today, it serves as an opportunity to appreciate the blessings of liberty over tyranny, of democracy over dictatorship, and of courage over fear.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction," said Ronald Reagan. "We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free."

Let each of us pray for those who are engaged in that ongoing struggle to preserve and defend individual human freedom and self-determination around the world. As so many have observed, the price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance, and our nation has been blessed with an abundance of sons and daughters who have exercised that vigilance, and in so doing created a nation that has served as a refuge and safe haven for oppressed people around the world.

That is our truly American achievement.

Best wishes to you for a safe and enjoyable Independence Day.

With this Father's Day I'm taking a few moments to thank my father for his role in my being an American, the reasons I choose to be a Republican, and why they are so closely linked.

My father, Henry Nehring, was born and raised in a poor farm town in rural Germany during the Great Depression and the Second World War. Receiving only the equivalent of a 10th grade formal education, he made up for it in the determination to see that his children would have a better life than he did.

It was that determination that led him to finally escape his rural home town by joining the German merchant marines, traveling the world for years on board one cargo vessel after another, and in the process picking up the skills he would use later in life as a mechanic on both land and sea.

His travels also allowed him to experience a world that he would otherwise have never seen outside of books, magazines and television. After six years of traveling the globe, then leaving the merchant marines and meeting and marrying my mother, my father determined that of all the places he saw, he wanted to raise his family not in his native land, but in the freedom he saw in the United States of America.

For years my parents worked in a German food store in New York lived in a small apartment above a garage in the back. After the requisite seven years, citizenship classes, and learning English (much of it from cartoons on television and interacting with customers), they very proudly became American citizens. I was born a few years later.

My father joined the Republican Party on becoming an American citizen because he believed it was best suited to protect those qualities in America that brought him here: individual liberty, freedom, and a free enterprise system that allowed people to reach their full potential. He was equally drawn to the strong leadership Republicans demonstrated during the Cold War, and the passionate belief in the American system over the alternative offered by the socialists and communists during that time.

Although he is no longer with us, I remain thankful to my father for giving me the gift of being an American, and the foundation to conclude that I, like he, would find a home in the Republican Party as the best defender of those special qualities that make America that "shining city on a hill."

State Republican leader says latest polling shows Democrats can't win battle of ideas, but GOP must be prepared with superior organization in 2010

BAKERSFIELD -- Citing the sharp turn in voter attitudes against higher taxes and more government borrowing, California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring today said the mission of the Republican Party must be to provide real, alternative solutions to the challenges facing families today, and to build a superior state campaign organization in time for the 2010 general election.

"Voters are increasingly concerned over the higher taxes and dramatically higher government debt Democrats are leaving to future generations, and people are now looking for an alternative, and that presents Republicans with an opportunity to lead in 2010," said Chairman Nehring in comments to the California Republican Assembly state convention in Bakersfield this morning.

In results released this week, the Field Poll found that 67% of Californians prefer the state's budget deficit be solved "mostly through spending cuts," while only 23% favored a solution "mostly through tax increases." The portion of voters favoring spending cuts is now 4% higher than 11 months ago, while support for tax increases dropped 3% over the same period.

Democrats in Sacramento are out of touch with members of their own party as research shows even a majority of Democrats oppose making it easier to raise taxes by lowering the threshold needed to pass such increases from two thirds to a simple majority of the legislature. "When 58% of their own members oppose the Democrats' idea to make it easier to raise taxes, it shows their team has disconnected itself from reality," said Nehring.

As voter attitudes against taxes and borrowing have grown, so has Republican performance in generic ballot tests. "For just the second time in more than five years of daily or weekly tracking, Republicans now lead Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot," indicated Rasmussen Reports this week.

"Our opponents are not going to be able to compete effectively on the issues as voter attitudes shift against them. The Republican challenge is to build the campaign organization necessary win on the battlefield, neighborhood by neighborhood," said Chairman Nehring. "When our opponents can't rely on issues, they turn to organization, and that will be our challenge."

In the last four weeks the California Republican Party has launched a series of initiatives aimed at increasing the party's organizational strength for the 2010 general election campaign, including a permanent coalition building effort called Networks, a Technology Leadership Initiative, and a grassroots educational program called Roadshow.

WASHINGTON -- Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele announced today the appointment of California Republican Party (CRP) Chairman Ron Nehring to be the chair of the State Party Chairmen Committee.

"Ron's experience and dedication makes him a valuable member of our team," Steele said. "I have no doubt that he will help bring the voice of every Republican state party to the national table."

Nehring is the Chairman of the largest Republican state party in the United States. He was first elected Chairman in 2007 and was recently re-elected on a platform of ensuring that California is a leader in utilizing new and innovative technologies, empowering local Republican committees and using state party resources to strengthen volunteer organizations. Before serving as State Party Chairman, Nehring served as President of the California Republican County Chairmen's Association. For nearly 20 years, Chairman Nehring has been dedicated to leading Republican campaigns and advancing conservative principles in government.

"Chairman Michael Steele's mission is to promote the rapid growth and expansion of our party by sharing ideas and best practices across all of our state parties so innovation in one state can be quickly picked up in others," Nehring said. "I'm proud to assist Chairman Steele in his relentless focus on building strong parties in every state and territory: making the Republican Party the national leader in the use of new technologies, building coalitions into communities that don't yet benefit from Republican leadership, training a new generation of Republican activists, and putting Republican ideas into action at every level of government."