Republican Pary of Kings County
Register to Vote


Trump Thumbs Up



More Get Real Videos

Andy Vidak greeting voters.

If you want to be an integral part of the conservative movement in Kings County California, you will find camaraderie and commitment in your local Republican Party. Like you, we are concerned about our community, our state, and our nation.

You will find the Republican Party of Kings County is an engaged and active force for conservative values in Central California. 

Here are just a few of the things you can do to help our state and country ...

  • Help with Thursday Night Market Booth
    (spring — fall)
  • Precinct Walk
  • Man Phone Banks
  • Staff Headquarters
  • Help with Mailings
  • Poll Watch on Election Day
  • Make a Generous Donation

  • News & Updates

    The Hypocrisy of Jerry Brown, California's Top Cop

    By netboots, on Nov 13, 2009

    [Source: California Republican Party News]

    By Ron Nehring

    Big Government, November 12

    The Communications Director for California Attorney General Jerry Brown resigned last week after admitting he regularly taped telephone conversations with reporters without their permission. Under California state law, the recording of private telephone conversations without consent is illegal. Although the Attorney General–s Office worked to shut down the story by calling it an internal personnel matter, the potentially illegal behavior of a senior staff member to California–s top cop raises some serious questions.


    Here–s one: How can one of the most powerful law enforcement officials in America not know his communications director routinely engaged in activities that may have been unlawful?

    Or, how is it that only this senior member of the staff knew this was occurring as they currently claim?

    Since we know the conversations on the tapes were transcribed, who provided those transcriptions? Was it an internal staff member? If it was an outside service, who approved the payments for such service?

    Any logical line of questioning (especially from an office full of state attorneys) would seem to lead to two possible conclusions: either procedures in one of the highest profile law offices in the nation are woefully inadequate and ineffective; or, other members of staff knew what was going on and are now concealing their earlier knowledge.

    Either conclusion is a disaster for a man who frequently brags of the benefits of four decades of political experience.

    The irony here is that while Jerry Brown has chosen not to investigate the matter further, his office is currently pursuing the makers of the recent videos that exposed ACORN–s corrupt practices based on the same legal grounds. Apparently California–s Attorney General thinks that he and his cohorts can sidestep the very laws that they are using as justification for their investigations of ACORN filmmakers James O–Keefe and Hannah Giles.

    Unfortunately, it appears Brown may manage to casually sweep this scandal under the rug while breezing into the Democratic Party–s 2010 gubernatorial nomination. With the sudden departure San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom from the race last week, Brown currently has no other opposition in the race to win the nomination of the party that likes to lecture everyone else about diversity.

    The bottom line is that Brown displayed serious management deficiencies that allowed a senior member of his staff to go rogue under that neglected leadership. His double standard policy for the investigation of possible crimes under the law conveniently keeps his political pals out of the fray while aggressively going after those who exposed the problems at ACORN.

    At least we know who that group will be campaigning for in 2010.


    Link to posting.

    CRP Praises CA Republicans on Health Care Vote

    By netboots, on Nov 7, 2009

    [Source: California Republican Party News]

    SACRAMENTO -- Citing the higher taxes and massive expansion of government control over individual health choices that will result from Nancy Pelosi's health care bill, California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring tonight praised the members of the state's Republican delegation in the House of Representatives for voting unanimously in opposition.

    "California's Republican Members of Congress tonight stood together on the side of the American people and against a giant, costly new health care bureaucracy that will transfer decisions about Americans' health out of the hands of patients and doctors and into thousands of bureaucrats' little cubicles in Washington DC," said California Republican Chairman Ron Nehring.

    "Nancy Pelosi's legislative monstrosity will make health care more expensive for families, raise taxes, cut Medicare, and put bureaucrats in between doctors and patients. Other than that, it's a great bill," he added. "Republicans will continue to support fiscally responsible health care reforms that empower patients and doctors, not bureaucrats, trial lawyers and tax collectors."

    California is represented by 19 Republican Members of Congress, each of whom voted against the Pelosi bill this evening.

    "Tonight's vote demonstrates Democrats have no interest in learning the lessons of the 2009 elections that gave Republicans control of two governor's offices plus many state and local government posts. As the Democrats lurch further to the left, we'll seize the opportunity to teach those same lessons again in 2010," Nehring said.

    New Federal Bureaucracies Created in Pelosi Health Care Bill

    By netboots, on Nov 2, 2009

    [Source: California Republican Party News]

    The House Republican Conference has compiled a list of all the new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi–s government takeover of health care:

    1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
    2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
    3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
    4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
    5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
    6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
    7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
    8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
    9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
    10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
    11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
    12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
    13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
    14. ‘Public Health Insurance Option’ (Section 321, p. 211)
    15. Ombudsman for ‘Public Health Insurance Option’ (Section 321(d), p. 213)
    16. Account for receipts and disbursements for ‘Public Health Insurance Option’ (Section 322(b), p. 215)
    17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
    18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for ‘culturally and linguistically appropriate services’ (Section 1222, p. 617)
    19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
    20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
    21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
    22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
    23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
    24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
    25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
    26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
    27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
    28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
    29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
    30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
    31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
    32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
    33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
    34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
    35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
    36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
    37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
    38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
    39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
    40. ‘Identifiable office or program’ within CMS to ‘provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles’ (Section 1905, p. 1191)
    41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
    42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
    43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
    44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
    45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
    46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
    47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
    48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
    49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
    50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
    51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
    52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
    53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
    54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
    55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
    56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
    57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
    58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
    59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
    60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
    61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
    62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
    63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
    64. ‘No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza’ demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
    65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
    66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
    67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
    68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
    69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
    70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
    71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
    72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
    73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
    74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
    75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
    76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
    77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
    78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
    79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
    80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
    81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
    82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
    83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
    84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
    85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
    86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women–s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
    87. National Women–s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
    88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women–s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
    89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women–s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
    90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women–s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
    91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women–s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
    92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
    93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
    94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
    95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
    96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)
    97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
    98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
    99. Office of Indian Men–s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
    100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
    101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
    102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
    103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
    104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
    105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
    106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
    107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
    108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
    109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
    110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

    Campaign Finance Laws Giving Government Excuse to Regulate Online Content

    By netboots, on Oct 20, 2009

    [Source: California Republican Party News]

    By Ron Nehring

    Chairman of the California Republican Party
    Fox & 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.

    Consider Scott Wagner, the candidate for St. Petersburg mayor whom the Florida Elections Commission ordered to take down an online ad because it didn–t include a ‘Paid for by’ disclaimer. Wagner argued the ‘paid for by’ disclaimer should not have been required because it was only ‘paid for’ by someone once it was clicked on, not before.

    The possibilities for absurd regulation of online campaign content are endless. Consider this: As the FPPC takes a look at regulations involving California state and local candidates, should Twitter or Facebook recommending a candidate–s page or account be followed constitute an in-kind contribution? It will be interesting to see what the FPPC says, for if it determines such recommendations are in-kind contributions, will the Federal Election Commission do the same? If so, such Twitter and Facebook recommendations would constitute an illegal corporate in-kind contribution to the candidate.

    Taken a step further, will the operators of sites such as Twitter and Facebook be required to track which accountholders are candidates, or potential candidates? And if these rules become too silly or complicated, what of sites that choose to be based outside of the United States? What if they are already? How much does it take to transfer your website to a server in Mexico?

    So here we see the proverbial camel–s nose under the tent as regulatory busybodies in 50 states, six territories and the federal government all potentially consider how to impose new rules on Internet content all in the name of ‘fairness.’

    Many of today–s state and federal campaign laws have their origin in the 1970–s, and today–s bureaucrats are attempting to apply those rules to a rapidly changing 21st century communications environment where websites and email are giving way to Twitter and Facebook as the latest communications powerhouses, often with little or no marginal costs to candidates. Government bureaucrats will never be able to keep up with the changes in how American voters and candidates are communicating.

    Perhaps this is a time to consider an alternative to promulgating thousands of additional pages of regulations governing political speech, and instead consider taking steps deregulating and decriminalizing political advocacy and discourse. Today–s governor–s race in Virginia is being waged in a state with no contribution limits to state candidates, and none of the reams of regulations that typically govern the application of such limits to fundraising, spending, and the like. Seems like democracy is functioning pretty well without such restrictions on speech. The bureaucrats should take notice.


    Link to posting here.

    President Obama's Pattern of Bad Policies and Failed Efforts

    By netboots, on Oct 7, 2009

    [Source: California Republican Party News]

    President Obama's most recent failure to get the 2016 Olympics to come to Chicago, is just another example of how Obama's "hope" and "change" mantra has, in reality, only produced disappointment and failure.

    President Obama's inability to push Chicago through even the first round of the Olympic selection process, despite his lobbying trip to Denmark, highlights a developing pattern of failed efforts and faulty policy decisions by this president and his administration.

    To refresh your memory, let's take a quick look at the some major failed reforms and proposals, both domestic and international, that Obama has spearheaded in only his first 9 months as president. Keep this in mind; these failures occurred while the Democrats are the majority leader in both houses of congress.

    Stimulus - President Obama and the democrats rammed the nearly $800 billion dollar stimulus bill through congress as quickly as possible, promising that the stimulus package would "create or save 3� million jobs over the next two years" and "would keep unemployment under 8%." Not only has this expanded the reach of government into private industry, but thousands of people continued to lose jobs every month at a record paced and employment in U.S. has reached 9.8%.

    Obama's Stimulus Package: Failed

    Healthcare - President Obama ‏guaranteed' that his universal healthcare reform would get passed this year. Lack of public support, inaccurate accounting for the cost of the bill, and push back from members of his own democrat party, has stalled his version of the healthcare bill from even getting out of a congress that is controlled by his own party.

    Obama's Healthcare Bill: Failed

    Foreign Policy - President Obama has traveled down the dangerous path of appeasing and playing nice with nations that wish us ill in hopes that they will play nice with us. He has tried to open a friendly dialogue with Iran without any preconditions and for this Iran recently admitted to having a second nuclear plant, and by all appearances, is closer than ever to developing nuclear weapons with no intention to stop. In addition, he pulled the plug on the US's missile defense shield in order to appease Russia. We abandoned and angered all of our allies in Eastern Europe, yet Russia is still not playing any nicer.

    Obama's Foreign Policies: Failed

    Closing Gitmo - One of the first things that President Obama did when he took office was to sign an executive order which set a deadline of January 22, 2010 for closing the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. But President Obama's plan is stalling and has already missed key initial deadlines. The Senate voted 90-6 against appropriating funds for closing the base. The House also went on record last week opposing bringing Gitmo detainees to the US.

    Obama's Plan to Close Gitmo: Failed

    The War in Afghanistan - President Obama has taken a stand pat approach in Afghanistan and continues to ignore the requests of his top commanders for the deployment of more troops to fight the growing strength of the Taliban. Not only is he not giving General McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the men he has requested, but he has ordered them to stop bombing before they go into areas, which means we don't suppress the terrorists - making our troops more vulnerable to attack and raising the casualty toll.

    Obama's Promise to Improve the War in Afghanistan: Failed

    Although these are the most glaring, these are only a fraction of the failures that the Obama Administration has compiled in the infancy of his term.

    Let's hope the US Olympic team performs better in 2016 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.