Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Remove Sarah Christie from the planning commission
Christie is hardly an unbiased adjudicator of project proposals

Does anybody care that the SLO County Board of Supervisors has chosen to ignore and bury a scandal brought to light by the county grand jury? It’s a scandal involving an "unacceptable probability of bias" in the decision making process by an unnamed county planning commissioner, with charges of bias that were reiterated in the grand jury’s report by senior management staff of the county planning department.
Let me be perfectly clear. Although the grand jury never actually named the specific planning commissioner who is the subject of the report, I am not alone in my opinion that the commissioner they investigated is Sarah Christie, and I will accordingly make reference to her throughout this commentary. For corroboration, see the video record of the May 8, 2008 Planning Commission hearing during which Christie admitted having initiated the contact with the State Fish and Game representative that is the primary subject of this grand jury report.
A grand jury is an apolitical watchdog appointed to monitor local government and investigate complaints of wrongdoing. Their investigations and witnesses are kept secret and they only file reports on items that warrant further consideration and action by elected officials who are responsible for the areas addressed. Grand jury members are appointed by and report to a judge. Their terms of service are for one year. The fact that Sarah Christie has been singled out by more than one grand jury in the past couple of years indicates something is awry!
Having said that, it is unconscionable that the board of supervisors did not air the most recent grand jury report in a full public hearing, but instead buried their court mandated response on their consent calendar with a cavalier dismissal of the jury’s most important findings.
The grand jury was deliberate in their use of words in their report as they took specific language from the law that served to demonstrate that Christie raised a legitimate concern of a probability of bias. Planning commissioners while hearing cases are supposed to be as neutral as a judge in a courtroom. They are supposed to decide cases based upon what is being presented before them. The issue here is due process. Our Constitution guarantees that citizens will not be deprived of due process by government officials: What that means is they will get a fair hearing by neutral, unbiased decision makers who have no axe to grind in the matter.
Understand that the grand jury is a civil, not a criminal, grand jury and neither is it a court. The jury does not issue verdicts of guilt or innocence, but instead issues findings and recommendations for public agencies to remedy problems involving people and procedures. I read the report and conclude that Sarah Christie is not neutral and she is biased.      
She is very much involved in activist circles and uses and abuses her role as a county planning commissioner to further her activist aims. Christie was singled out by the grand jury because she in essence called in an air strike in her war against project applicants that has jeopardized more than one project before the commission. Sarah Christie helped to organize opposition to projects instead of being a non-involved reviewer of the facts in the cases before her. Again, she did this in more than one instance and has been written up by more than one grand jury—enough already!
An example cited by the grand jury involved Christie using her connections to call the California Department of Fish and Game to get a letter submitted to the record that would negatively affect the outcome of the hearing process. The grand jury observed that this letter would never have been submitted had it not been for Christie’s role as an environmentalist. Lobbying Fish and Game to weigh in on a project would be something we could expect from her brother, who is an activist with the Sierra Club. But Christie is being paid by taxpayers and entrusted by the public to sit in quasi-judicial proceedings as a neutral and unbiased adjudicator of facts on the record.
Based upon the findings of the grand jury, it is my opinion that it would be in the best interest of the public and the staff of the county planning department that Sarah Christie be dismissed from the planning commission and be forced to resume her activist role on her own dime from the other side of the dais. Unfortunately, Supervisor Patterson, who appointed her, continues to provide political cover for her at the expense of the interests of his own constituents and the integrity of the public hearing process.

Inexplicably, the remaining board members seem recalcitrant to see that justice is done with respect to this scandal as they could choose to remove Christie themselves. Encourage the county supervisors to preserve the integrity of the hearing process and the rights of applicants to have fair hearings free from bias.

 Andy Caldwell is the executive director of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business (COLAB) of San Luis Obispo County. He also hosts the Andy Caldwell talk radio show Monday-Friday on AM1440, which airs from 3-5 pm.

Posted at 09:25 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Thursday, July 23, 2009
Obama ‘change’ a pathway to destruction

By Andy Caldwell
Wednesday, July 22, 2009

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheeple. Excuse me dear reader, I meant people.”

Some folks will read that quote and think to themselves, here comes another right-wing attack on Barack Obama. But unfortunately for the likely defenders of the president and his pals in Congress, Stanislav Mishin, writing for the Russian Newspaper Pravda, doesn’t exactly fit the mold of a right-winger.

Even citizens of the former Soviet Union do not take for granted the freedom and liberty we are letting slip away. They do, however, recognize the complete and utter failure of allowing politicians and bureaucrats to control the nation’s economy and the everyday affairs of its people.

It is hard to imagine that, within the course of just a few months into this administration, we have seen the American taxpayer assume trillions of dollars in debt, nationalized a major segment of our industrial and manufacturing sector, initiated the largest tax increase on production in the history of our country, and undertaken an attempt to assume federal control of our health-care system.

What makes the American people think we can afford to do any of this? The U.S. government has, in essence, committed the taxpayer to either pay interest on the money it has borrowed for the bailouts and stimulus plans, or worse, it plans to print the money it needs, which will cause each and every consumer to have to deal with inevitable hyper-inflation.

How can the American free-enterprise system survive? Study your history. What is happening in America today has been tried elsewhere and it doesn’t work. That is, unless it is forced upon the populace.

Do we really think that the former Soviet empire, Nazi Germany and China have better economic models than that which gave us the highest quality of life the world has ever known? That we should replace our free-market system with components of these failed systems?

Make no mistake about it. The Treasury Department of the United States of America did not and does not have trillions to spare for bailouts, stimulus packages and new entitlement programs. The current, existing unfunded multi-trillion dollar entitlement programs of Medicare and Social Security and government employee pensions are an indication that our future economic outlook was already bleak, at best.

And now, the federal government thinks we can afford nationalized health care? Plus, they plan on artificially constraining the ability of our manufacturing and industrial sectors to recover from the recession with the passage of cap-and-trade legislation, which, at best, will reduce manufacturing and industrial output for decades to come?

I sure wish our nation would take a look at what the radical left and moderate Republicans have done to California, before they mimic our economic catastrophe. We have in this state already a version of cap-and-trade, called AB 32, Arnold’s Global Warming Reduction Act.

It is now estimated the legislation will cost small businesses over $180 billion, and result in the loss of over a million jobs. It has been estimated that our quality of life and standard of living, with respect to energy consumption, will have to be rolled back a couple of hundred years in order to comply with the mandate. And they call that progress?

You are about to experience change all right, but it is not change that you would wish upon your worst enemy. Not even the folks at Pravda are happy for us right now.

Andy Caldwell is executive director of COLAB and a 41-year resident of the Central Coast. For more information, visit the COLAB website at

Posted at 10:11 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Why Lying is Abhorrent to Intelligence Officers
By Mike Gorbell
July 18, 2009
Exclusive to California Chronicle

The recent public accusations of CIA “lying” by Democrat Congressmen, up to and including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have been received mostly with a yawn by an American public whose principal exposure to the world of intelligence is the entertaining fantasy of James Bond movies and the shenanigans of the popular TV series “24.” Within the tight knit community of current and former American intelligence professionals, however, these cavalierly-wielded charges, and the tepid response to them by those in the Obama administration charged with leading our intelligence effort, represent an incredible body blow to morale. For those intelligence officers still in active service, the accusations have had been a serious detriment to the exceptional motivation and trust required to carry on in protecting America and Americans while operating, sometimes alone and completely defenseless except for your wits, in some of the most inhospitable places on the planet.
I first entered the Headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1980 as a Captain of Marines who had been summoned to brief Agency analysts on my then area of expertise, Soviet amphibious warfare capabilities and tactics. I suppose like every first time visitor, I paused at the impressive Seal on the marble floor at the entrance and considered the challenge of the words of John 8:32, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” To the right of me, 43 stars were engraved on a marble Wall of Honor, representing those CIA officers who had died in the line of duty (to that date). To my left was a single star for those of the Office of Strategic Services who had similarly given their lives (in the days of OSS, they didn’t keep records). I knew at that moment that I would be a CIA intelligence officer some day.
When I arrived overseas on my first assignment for the Agency as a replacement for a Star that had been added since that first visit, my Chief of Station, himself to become a Star two years later, schooled me on the ethics of my chosen profession. “When you are overseas, you spend your life telling lies,” he said. “You lie about who you are, where you come from, what you are doing. But as an intelligence officer, there are four times when you may never lie. To the President, to Congress, to those for whom you are providing intelligence, and once you cross over that Seal and pass those Stars at Headquarters. Then it is all truth.” Every time I crossed that Seal and passed those Stars when I returned from various assignments overseas, I thought about what he had said. When I was loading a Star’s remains onto an aircraft overseas, a man with whom I had just shared a meal a few hours before he was killed, those Stars took on a particular meaning.   I realized how many Stars that I knew and had worked with, even though their names didn’t appear in the Book of Honor because they were under cover on a sensitive assignment. Those thoughts were always with me years later when I briefed Congress on what I had done, and what I intended to do, as a senior officer.
Although it may seem strange to others, as an intelligence officer your life is very much about discovering the truth and making sure that the President, Congress, the military and every other government “intelligence consumer” receives your very best assessment so as to keep the people of the United States safe and successful. You realize that your consumers may act on your intelligence differently than you might have, but what matters is that they get your very best effort at the truth. That is your job, and it is what your honor and the memory of those Stars on the wall demand.
In days past, this professional ethic was respected by our consumers in general, and in particular by those whose job it was to oversee our activities on behalf of the citizenry: the select intelligence committees of the Senate and House of Representatives. One Senator on a select committee, himself a Medal of Honor winner and former Navy SEAL officer, told my colleagues that he was inspired by their bravery and dedication. High praise indeed, particularly so as it came in a private, face-to-face meeting that involved the Senator undertaking a very inconvenient surveillance detection routine so as to protect our identities.
Our current crop of “betters,” particularly Representative Pelosi, seem much more interested in pursuing their political fortunes at the expense of intelligence officers’ honor. Since we are used to being in the shadows, this might be tolerable except for the fact that man chosen by President Obama to be the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the retired career partisan politician Congressman Leon Panetta, has publicly sided with his former congressional colleague Pelosi and in effect told his troops to suck eggs.
How do POTUS (President of the United States), Pelosi and Panetta think that it makes their intelligence troops feel when the values that define the profession and very life of an intelligence officer—integrity and honor—are so callously sacrificed on the altar of political expediency? Actually, since their own chosen profession of politics apparently values integrity so little, I really don’t think that they care. Worse, they don’t understand the people who serve America that do care.
There is one glimmer of hope, though. Intelligence officers are generally, well, intelligent. They have faith that the majority of the American people still have special trust and confidence in their patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities. And there are now 87 stars on that marble wall to remind you when you come back from a mission of a challenge that will ultimately outlast POTUS, Pelosi, Panetta and the other prevaricators of political expediency: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Mike Gorbell is a retired intelligence officer from California’s Central Coast.
Posted at 13:50 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Wednesday, July 15, 2009
‘Gay’ Penguin Flies Straight
By J. Matt Barber
The highly contentious “nature vs. nurture” debate over whether gay penguins choose the homosexual lifestyle or are hatched that way has reached a hard boil.  
San Francisco’s Fox affiliate KTUV reports: “The San Francisco Zoo’s popular same-sex penguin couple has broken up.
“Male Magellan penguins Harry and Pepper have been together since 2003. The pair nested together and even incubated an egg laid by another penguin in 2008, but their relationship hit the rocks earlier this year when a female penguin, Linda, befriended Harry after her long-time companion died.
“Zookeepers say Harry and Linda are happy and were able to successfully nest this year,” reported KTUV. 
But not everyone is celebrating Harry and Linda’s newfound love. Some believe there can be no such a thing as an “ex-gay” penguin. Upon news of Harry’s decision to fly the same-sex-coop, outspoken pro-homosexual activist and anti-ex-gay crusader Wayne Besen cried fowl:
“Attempts to change sexual orientation are patently offensive, discriminatory by definition, theologically shaky, uniformly unsuccessful and medically unsound!” exclaimed a visibly angry Besen. “There is no ‘ex-gay’ sexual orientation. Harry is simply in denial. He’s living what I call the ‘big lie.’”
When asked if heterosexual penguins can become gay, Besen replied, “Well, um, sure. It happens all the time. But in that case it’s just the penguin embracing who he really is. Penguin pride is quite a courageous thing to witness, what with all the mean-spiritedness and homophobia among Penguo-Americans and everything. Once gay, always gay! You know; birds of a feather and all that.
“See,” continued Besen, “medical science has conclusively determined that, while still eggs, many of the more effeminate penguins sometimes get a bit scrambled, so to speak, due to what’s called ‘Homospheniscus Magellanicus Inheritus’ or, as it’s commonly referred: ‘The Gay Penguin Gene’ (GPG).
“No, seriously. It’s science,” insisted Besen. “Harry’s as gay today as he’s ever been. Mark my words. It’s just a matter of time until he ends up slinking around some back alley gay bar in the Castro District, strung out on meth.”
As is customary, Besen – along with a lathered-up handful of equally irate anti-ex-gay blowhards – intends to raucously picket Harry’s Zoo holding area – megaphones in hand – to protest what Besen called, “the tremendous political setback an ever-increasing number of ex-gays pose to our furiously ambitious political agenda. I really, really wish they’d just go away.” 
Meanwhile, Pepper has also had difficulty accepting Harry’s decision to embrace natural sexuality. According to KTUV, Harry’s relationship with Linda “did not go over well with Pepper, who became violent.” Zookeeper Jennifer Katz lamented that “Pepper is by himself now.” 
Still, it appears that Pepper has yet to hit rock bottom. In recent days he has reportedly been spotted waddling around the zoo’s public men’s room, skulking in stalls and inexplicably tapping his flipper. There’s even speculation that, as things continue to spiral, he may consider a run for political office. 
Posted at 15:06 PM By Administrator | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Thursday, July 9, 2009
Obama’s Moral Clarity Deficit
By J. Matt Barber

Relativism is as relativism does and Barack Obama does it well. His less than tepid response to evidence of a rigged election in Iran a few weeks ago and the subsequent brutalization of the Iranian people by an Islamofascist regime says more about our President’s worldview than it does his foreign policy.
Amid Tehran’s bloody election protests the internet was awash with images of Iranian citizens – many beaten, even murdered – desperately reaching out to Uncle Sam for cover. “Obama, please help us, they are killing our young children,” implored one protester’s sign. 
Obama’s response? He launched the most vapidly uninspired course of inaction since the days of one-term Jimmy: “It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling,” he lectured.
Critics pounced, calling the President’s hyper-measured reaction “timid” and “passive.” So he stepped it up a notch. This time he expressed “deep concerns about the elections,” promising to “monitor the situation.” Nonetheless he urged calm saying that he was “waiting to see how it plays out.” (Just what Granny needs while she’s being mugged: A would-be champion to “monitor the situation” and “see how it plays out.”)  
Of course an abundance of “concern,” “monitoring” and about eighty-nine cents will buy you a bitter cup of coffee. So, as Obama’s critics got tougher, so did his rhetoric. The next day he again modified his official position, this time mustering enough righteous indignation to upgrade from “deeply concerned” to “appalled” and “outraged.”    
Still, his instinctive impulse to equivocate was more than Obama could bear. In the same breath he reassured Iran’s despotic Mullahs and their puerile presidential puppet, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that “the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs.”
Not really a “tear down this wall” kind of moment, but, with this president, I guess it’ll have to do.
All the same, what’s most puzzling to me is why anyone’s remotely surprised. Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal; a postmodern “progressive”; a committed social and moral relativist.
The moral relativist, by definition, is bereft of moral clarity. The only thing immoral is to reckon there are things immoral. The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. No fixed right or wrong; no black or white; only shades of gray.

Indeed our debonair young Commander-in-Chief sees the world through the murkiest of gray-colored glasses. Though evidence of this abounds, I can think of no starker example than his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Born Alive very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion – when she is “born alive” – further attempts to kill her must immediately cease and steps must be taken to save her life.
In 2002, Born Alive passed the U.S. Senate with unanimous, bipartisan support. Yet Obama, while serving in the Illinois Senate, vehemently opposed its Illinois twin.  He complained that “adding an additional doctor” (read: an actual doctor) to save the child’s life is “really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”
Did you get that? To require that a doctor save the child survivor of a botched abortion would “burden the original decision” of the mother to kill her. The not-so-subtle implication, of course, is that they should, instead, put her aside until she dies. Or – as I attempt to hone that moral clarity, passé though it may be – deliberately kill her through wanton neglect. 
This is infanticide by any objective measure; but not to the moral relativist, and not to Barack Obama. There is no such thing as an “objective measure,” you see, only a subjective “choice.” 
So here it is in black and white: Black: It’s always wrong to kill babies. White: Doctors should make every effort to save the life of babies born alive. Gray: To require such would “burden the original decision” of a mother to kill her baby.
Black: It’s always wrong to kill peaceful protesters. White: The U.S. demands the killing stop or we will stop it. Gray: We’re monitoring the situation to see how it plays out. 
Then again, I ask: Why should we expect moral clarity from this president? How can we expect him to value the lives of innocent Iranians halfway around the world when he doesn’t even value the lives of the most innocent of his fellow citizens?
We can’t.
But we can hold him accountable for it.
Posted at 09:11 AM By Administrator | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Friday, July 3, 2009
Cap and Tax Bill
Cap and Tax Bill: I write you this from a Saturday morning flight home to California after one of the biggest votes of my Congressional career. I'm sure you have already heard a lot about this bill that passed by a vote of 219-212 on Friday evening. It is known by a variety of titles, but most commonly as ‘cap and trade,’ ‘cap and tax,’ or ‘the national energy tax.’ I won't repeat a lot of what you already know. But suffice it to say, this bill will be a disaster for our economy, which is already in huge trouble. The bill is so bad that it took a full court press from the President, the Speaker, and just about everybody who works in the West Wing to cajole the votes necessary with threats and treats. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) was even brought out of rehab where he is undergoing treatment for substance abuse for this vote, and rumors abound that some members were promised 9 figures of pork for their districts if they voted for the bill.

Why is it so bad? According to MIT, it will result in an energy tax that will, on average, cost American families about $3,000 per year! In addition, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy, this bill will only reduce the Earth's temperature by 2 tenths of one degree 100 years from now, at MOST. Furthermore, for every ton of carbon dioxide saved by this bill, the Chinese alone will add 3 tons to the atmosphere. According to the Heritage Foundation, this bill will cause the net loss of over 2.5 million American jobs. This bill is awful. There are two things you will hear said by proponents that are simply not true: (1) they will say that this bill is about air quality. It is not. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Plants on earth require carbon dioxide. Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxide are pollutants that cause smog and are unhealthful, Carbon Dioxide, which each of us expels by breathing really is not. (2) You hear all the time about the "green jobs" that will be created. These "green jobs" will be funded by your tax dollars and losing your job as more of the economy moves to cheaper countries that doesn’t have these ridiculous restrictions. This bill subsidizes inefficient energy sources by taxing efficient ones. You will never create jobs without creating productivity gains or wealth gains. This actually causes productivity and wealth losses with no measurable benefit to anyone currently living.

If you really want to reduce carbon dioxide production, then we should be building nuclear power plants and hydroelectric plants like crazy. Both of those sources of energy are CHEAPER than current energy sources, are carbon neutral, and are 100% domestically sourced. If we did that, along with developing all of the untapped domestic oil and gas resources we have, while introducing more bio-fuels into the mix of gasoline and diesel, we would save people money, create jobs, reduce greenhouse gases, reduce pollutants, and become energy independent.

I was very proud of our Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) on Friday when he spent 1 hour on the House floor reading excerpts from a 300-page amendment that had been added to the bill at 3:00 AM the morning of the vote. Just like the stimulus bill earlier this year, no one had read this amendment before they voted on the bill. The stuff Leader Boehner read out of it was frightening. It is almost all new government agencies, bureaucracies, and restrictions. I was particularly taken by a requirement that real estate appraisers be federally trained to add value to an appraisal for federally recognized "green" features. And I thought an appraiser was supposed to tell us what a property would sell for. Sheesh.

I remain respectfully,
Congressman John Campbell
Member of Congress
Posted at 09:01 AM By Administrator | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Friday, July 3, 2009

American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.  I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. 

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms.  We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement: 

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion.  That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement.  After that, it should be relatively easy!  Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.  You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.  Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.  You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens.  We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.  We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.  You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.  When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security. 

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.  You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain.  You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill. 

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars.  You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. 

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.  We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.  We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem.  I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World. 

We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot.  Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.  

Would you agree to this?  If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete.  In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years. 

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S.  Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

P.S.S.  And we won't have to press 1 for English.


Posted at 08:30 AM By Administrator | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Login Login
Email Address* :
Password* :

New Registration Forgot Password?
Categories Categories
Al Fonzi
Andy Caldwell
Ashly Donavan
Bill Glynn
Dan Logue
Darin Selnick
Dr. George Watson
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.
Dr. Mike Tabor
Dr. Wendy James
Gary Beckner
Gordon Mullin
Gretchen Hamel
Harris Sherline
Janet Cronick
Jerry Scheidbach
Joe Armendariz
Judson Phillips
Lowell Ponte
Matt Barber
Matt Kokkonen
Mike Brown
Mike Gorbell
Mike Stoker
Phil Kiver
Richard Cochrane
Richard Fryer
Richard S. Quandt
Robert Jeffers
Robyn Hayhurst
Roger Hedgecock
Rooster Bradford
Santa Barbara City Watch
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.
RSS Feed RSS Feed
Top 10 Recent BlogRSS Feed
Al FonziRSS Feed
Andy CaldwellRSS Feed
Ashly DonavanRSS Feed
Bill GlynnRSS Feed
Dan LogueRSS Feed
Darin SelnickRSS Feed
Dr. George WatsonRSS Feed
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.RSS Feed
Dr. Mike TaborRSS Feed
Dr. Wendy JamesRSS Feed
Gary BecknerRSS Feed
Gordon MullinRSS Feed
Gretchen HamelRSS Feed
Harris SherlineRSS Feed
Janet CronickRSS Feed
Jerry Scheidbach RSS Feed
Joe ArmendarizRSS Feed
Judson PhillipsRSS Feed
Lowell PonteRSS Feed
Matt BarberRSS Feed
Matt KokkonenRSS Feed
Mike BrownRSS Feed
Mike GorbellRSS Feed
Mike StokerRSS Feed
Phil KiverRSS Feed
Richard CochraneRSS Feed
Richard FryerRSS Feed
Richard S. QuandtRSS Feed
Robert JeffersRSS Feed
Robyn HayhurstRSS Feed
Roger HedgecockRSS Feed
Rooster BradfordRSS Feed
Santa Barbara City WatchRSS Feed
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.RSS Feed
Archives Archives
Skip Navigation Links.
Tag Cloud Tag Cloud                      
Validator Validator