Republican women to hear from candidates and about smart growth and national politics on Monday


Intermountain Republican Women Federated will hold its meeting on Monday, April 28, at Ramona Valley Grill at 5:45 p.m.

Speakers include:

•Ken Gosselin, is a candidate for San Diego County Superior Court Judge in June 2014. For nearly seven years, he has been a volunteer Judge “Pro Tem” in thousands of criminal and civil cases assigned by the San Diego County Superior Court. He received his legal education from the University of La Verne College of Law and he is a Harvard Law School trained mediator.

•Terri Wyatt, a candidate for San Diego County District Attorney. She was a career prosecutor for nearly 27 years with the San Diego County District Attorney’s office before she retired in September to run for district attorney.

•Mary Baker, who will talk about smart growth, a 21st century plan for America’s cities, suburbs, exurbs and rural communities. Its principles evolved from the United Nations’ idea that the 21st century global community is threatened by the inequalities between and within nations, poverty, deteriorating ecosystems and runaway global warming. President Obama’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities lists the 10 Smart Growth Principles.

•Michael Harrison, deputy chief of staff at Rep. Duncan Hunter office, will provide the latest information of what is happening in Washington.

Intermountain Republican Women Federated’s 2014 scholarship winners are Nicholas Massa, a senior at Julian High School, and Sarah Linthicum, also a senior at Julian High School. Both have been invited to the May meeting where they will receive their awards and tell us their plans for college.

Intermountain RWF welcomes members, spouses and guests from Ramona, Julian, Santa Ysabel and surrounding areas.

For more information, contact Nancy Frazee at 760-788-6342 or

Related posts:

  1. Republican women’s group hosts Candidates Night on April 23
  2. Republican women’s group hosts Candidates Night on April 23
  3. Republican women’s group to meet in Julian, hear about Julian history
  4. Smart Growth & Sustainable Development
  5. Barbara Decker is guest speaker at Republican women’s meeting

Short URL:

Posted by Maureen Robertson on Apr 26 2014. Filed under Clubs/Organizations, Government. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

36 Comments for “Republican women to hear from candidates and about smart growth and national politics on Monday”

  1. Ramona Baller

    Sorry I'll have to miss this one. Could be truly entertaining listening to the "global warming is a myth" lecture in the midst of 90 degree temps, 400 ppm carbon, and extreme drought. Who needs facts when myths and conspiracy pay on the lecture circuit?

  2. Guest

    Here we go again. I suppose you forgot about the record cold temperatures in the Midwest. Man made global warming is nothing more than a scheme to redistribute wealth through carbon credits and other taxes. At least you have higher taxes to look forward to when all your liberal buddies get together in Sacramento.

    At best, the facts on global warming are in dispute. For every scientist who claims global warming is man made (and likely receiving grant money to do so), I can show you another to refute it. John Coleman from KUSI founded the Weather Channel. He has debunked almost all of the man made global warming "science". He showed a number of instances of outright falsification of data, even to the point of changing weather recording station locations to skew the data .You should watch his special.

    • Ramona Baller

      No. Midwest cold in WINTER is a phenomenon consistent with rapidly warming climate. The jetstream has slowed, allowing the cold arctic error to escape south, while Nome, Alaska was warmer than many parts of the Midwest. If global warming is some international society of scientists' conspiracy, then why is the arctic ice disappearing? Are the scientists secretly spraying de-icing chemicals from all of the contrails? Did John Coleman prove that too?

      In what alternative scientific universe does the burning of billions of metric tons of fossil fuel not affect the climate? The health effects of the pollution alone are appalling, let alone the changes to the weather. California is in the worst drought in 500 years, but this is just some natural variation? Sun spots perhaps? Go rely on John Coleman and rest easy with the flat earth society. Liberals and moral conservatives will start making the changes that will help your grandkids survive the coming storms.

      • Guest

        It must be nice to have it both ways. Temperature goes up – it's man made global warming. Temperature goes down – it's man made global warming. Data doesn't give us the results we want – let's change the weather station locations by just a few miles (like move SD station to Ramona – still SD County but very different climates) and get the results that support your pre-ordained conclusions. Fraudulent and falsification of data to keep the grant money flowing is OK as long as you are on the "correct" side of the argument.

        There is not a shred of evidence that proves man is responsible for global warming. One volcanic eruption produces more carbon in the atmosphere and has more of an effect on climate than years of human intervention. To believe otherwise flies if the face of logic and science.

        Again, this is nothing more than a grand scheme to redistribute wealth. Carbon credits, increased taxes, additional regulatory burdens, and all that other nonsense… You can name call all you want; that is the typical response of leftists when true, unbiased facts don't support their arguments. For those with and open mind, follow the money and you will find the truth.

  3. Mike

    It's colder because it's getting hotter? Sheesh, some people will believe anything…

    • guest99

      Yep! and there's an APP for it!

      • Ramona Baller

        Undisputed fact No. 1: March 2014 marked the 349th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th Century Average.

        Undisputed fact No. 2: 2013 was the 37th consecutive year of above average global temperatures.

        Undisputed fact No. 3: burning more carbon (and other gases like methane) icaused by industrial society traps solar heat, increasing global temperatures.

        The conspiracy theories that global warming is a coordinated myth by a cabal of scientists are exactly that – unsubstantiated claims controverted by the facts. To say the climate is stable because it was "cold in the midwest," is akin to those on the Titanic's stern claiming the ship was not sinking, because the stern was rising higher and higher out of the water before its final descent.

        • Guest

          Nonsense. My job revolves around statistics and if there is one thing that is universally understood about statistics it is the undisputed fact that statistics can be manipulated. The only way any of those stats are valid is if they were all taken from the same weather stations, at consistent times, and from calibrated equipment. I know for a fact that is not the case. A very close friend of mine works in the industry and I know first-hand (actually second-hand from him) that weather stations that report this information move all the time. Then again, he grew up in Ramona so that probably invalidates his 30 years in the industry and his PhD's in your mind.

          • Ramona Baller

            Right, because those things we have now called satellites don't accurately measure arctic ice depth, and extent, or earth's global temperatures. Most temperature gauges measure the daily high and low temperatures, regardless of time of day. Is the only way you can tell if you have cancer to take multiple CT scans from the same machine and hospital at the same time of day?

            How did we prove a hole in the Ozone layer caused by CFC's in the 1980's if all science is manipulated? Or that lead in gasoline harms children and adults? How could we prove cigarettes cause cancer, if, by your logic scientists only secure funding by manipulating data to attack entrenched industries? Which industry has more to lose/gain – scientists or oil companies? Take the Heartland Institute for instance (funded king's ransom by the petrol based Koch industry to deny man-made global warming). Last week Heartland falsified a meme by George Carlin and his wife had to issue a public statement rebuking the lie. Lots of integrity coming from right-wing climate denialists these days.

          • Guest

            And what would "these things we now have called satellites" say about the depth of ice over Chicago, or do you want to ignore the fact that the entire northern section of the continent was covered in ice a mere 20,000 years ago? Did that ice melt because of industrialization and man-made carbon emissions, or was it the grazing bison? Am I mistaken or was North America a tropical climate before that ice age? Seems to me fossils suggest it was. Did that shift in climate result from human intervention?

            President Obama said that the argument on global warming is over; it's settled. He said the same about healthcare and the economy. Is it so, just because the politicians say so? If that was the case, I suppose the future of this nation would have been settled when King George said so 250 years ago.

            Seriously, you people need to get your facts straight. If it wasn't so detrimental to everybody's financial well-being, all this rhetoric from the left would be comical…

        • Mike

          Undisputed by whom? Al Gore and his goofy crew?

          Undisputed fact No. 1: In one day, Al Gore spews more greenhouse gas out his mouth than is produced by an entire pasture of cows in the course a year.

          Quit your preaching, if we want a sermon from some zealot, we can join a cult… As you apparently have.

          • Guest

            Mike – you rock! Just when I begin worry that Ramona might be overtaken by a bunch of leftie nut jobs, you pipe in and show that there are intelligent and reasonable people left in this town. And, by looking at the +/- next to the comments, it looks like there are still more of us rational people than those drinking the MSNBC Kool Aid.

  4. Honest Resident

    It’s almost hard to believe the climate change-deniers on this comment thread!!

    But then again, it’s Ramona. This community is led by the tea partiers and the flat-earth society. The minuscule thimbleful of scientists that believe that humans do not influence climate change are laughable. Even more the subject of ridicule is the very uninformed belief that the exercise of good stewardship of the earth is somehow a “grand scheme to redistribute wealth”.

    There can be no educating a person who thinks that there is not a “shred of evidence”. In those cases perhaps they also believe Google is part of the conspiracy because when I look up proof of the changes we’re having on the earth, I find a few million references with facts to back them up. I don’t think they’re all lying, do you? Maybe a mass-brainwashing is being perpetrated by the scientific community?

    Just keep tuning into the RWNJ industrial complex. Carry on.

    • Guest

      Honest Resident? Based on this post and others I've read from you a more appropriate name would be DNC Mouthpiece…

      For the record, I know some of those posting that you call RWNJ's. All are educated, intelligent, and I personally know of two in very high level management positions. Doesn't quite fit your portrayal as ignorant. Unfortunately, I have come to expect nothing more from your kind – resort to name calling for any who dare disagree with the leftist religions of man made global warming and redistribution of wealth. Oh, and by the way, I found some of the Google stories that referenced debunked and fraudulent studies. University of East Anglia anybody?

      Lastly, if Ramona residents are so beneath you, why do you continue to grace us with your presence? There are a lot of communities that will welcome you with open arms. The Bay Area comes to mind…

  5. guest99

    Climate is a long term thing. Weather, is day to day. What many might see as Global warming, or global cooling, might only be a normal climate cyclical variation. be careful about the Henny-Penny phenomenon!

  6. Mike

    Dear Mr. Honest;

    Al Gore alone has a bigger carbon footprint than half the countries in Central America, yet he and his ilk tell us to be “alarmed,” and his predictions of gloom, doom, and global catastrophe have not materiized.

    Science is political, it always has been… There is a finite amount of research money, so toe-the-line or find another occupation.

    The Whirling Dervish mentality of the climate alarmists is similar to a brainwashed bunch of goofy religious zealots, and it pretty much makes me roll my eyes at just how gullible people can be.

    Enjoy your little preachy religious rants about the coming catastrophe, but don’t expect people to listen, this is no longer high on the lists of concerns of a vast majority of Americans.

    • Guest

      Mike – Well said and I couldn't agree with you more. My only concern is these, I'm going to use Honest Resident's vernacular, LWNJ's will continue to push their agenda, despite the facts, and it will result in even more restrictive regulations and increased taxation. The more these crazies screech their doomsday message to the ignorant masses who get their information from leftist news sources, the more we get leftist politicians who implement their crazy plans to keep themselves in office.

  7. Honest Resident

    The ‘Al Gore obsession’ of some folks is quite a riot. Obviously, these people are getting their facts from that pillar of morality, 4-time married, convicted oxy-abuser, Rush Limbo.

    Here’s another knee-slapper, “Science is political, it always has been.” Last time I checked, gravity isn’t impacted by which party holds office in the United States. Evolution and human-impacted global climate change are fact.

    Please, all readers, learn for yourself. People need to simply Google these subjects and make up their own minds. As you can see from the responses to my first post, they have only petty insults to throw in reply.

    These poor folks very incorrectly equate science to religion. That is the mistake they always make. They simply “believe” that climate science is fiction. A blind-faith based on vocal naysayers. A quick check is all it takes anyone with internet access to make a laughing-stock of those faith-based arguments.

    Search “facts about human-impacted climate change” and be your own judge!

    • Ramona Baller

      You can’t confuse this crowd with the facts, Honest Resident! For instance, if you told Mike and “Guest” that solar power is being adopted globally faster than cellphones once were, that Royal Dutch Shell endorsed a tough cap on carbon emissions, or that a majority of Republicans under age 35 tell pollsters that denying climate science is “ignorant, out-of-touch, or crazy”, they might just shoot the messenger!

      • Guest

        Or, maybe you would be surprised to know that "Guest" and very likely Mike, would be 100% behind the expansion of solar energy, not to mention wind-turbine generated energy. It isn't a matter of being confused on the facts; the fact of the matter is a single volcanic eruption emits more carbon into the atmosphere than years of man-made carbon. It is a fact that the climate is continually changing and it is also a fact that temperature monitoring did not begin until the mid-1800's, coincidentally at the beginning of the technical revolution. We should also consider the fact that Mesopotamia was not always a desert and that they have discovered civilizations along dried up river beds in the Saudi desert. Perhaps global warming began then? As I recall, most of North America was covered by glaciers until about 20,000 years ago. That would suggest to me that the climate has been warming since. But, then again, that line of thinking would dry up the grant dollars for the environmental scientists. No crisis = no $.

      • Mike

        Wow Ms. Baller,

        You continue to amaze me with your anecdotal evidence and random-access trivia!

        Where did the solar argument come from? Solar energy accounts for .2% of the world's energy produced… In the United States, it's .1%… This means that 99.9% of our energy comes from sources other than solar (and wind energy numbers are much lower). Again, 99.9% of our energy comes from sources other than solar.

        So, if the world was to go from from .2% to .3% solar (and I'm not saying this is happening), you could probably say "solar power is being adopted globally faster than cellphones once were"… Am I supposed to be impressed with this 50% increase?

      • Mike

        To continue, the State of California initiative to reach 30% solar/ wind/ green/ renewable energy is not going to work; but it is going to send all our electric bills through the roof… The Toyota plant in Torrance looked at future operating costs, and moved to Texas last week; and there is another major auto company that will announce their move to Ohio very shortly…

        Royal Dutch Shell endorsed a tough cap on carbon emmisions? Really? And? Can you give any reason why, or did you think you'd just throw that in? It's pretty random. Here is my response to your random bit of trivia: If the men in Holland all decided to wear womens underwear, should we join in?

      • Mike

        To continue, is this a Democrat versus Republican issue? You seem to be the only one making that point. That aside, "the Republicans under age 35" you cite was a half-truth:

        1. The poll was conducted by an eco-group,
        2. There was no differentiation between natural climate change and man-made climate change,
        3. There was no differentiation in the severity of climate change,
        4. "ignorant, out-of-touch, or crazy" was the only response available if the person asked believed the earth was undergoing climate change, of any severity, man-made or natural,
        5. When asked to produce the polling data, the pollster declined.

      • Mike

        To continue, the final word on your "Republicans under age 35," my kids were forced to endure "An Inconvenient Truth" five separate times at the Ramona schools, all during class-time; and although they understand the film is mostly hogwash, they also understand the scientific record supports natural climate change. All things considered, I am surprised the number of responses for "ignorant, out-of-touch, or crazy,” which was 53% for Republicans under age 35, was so low. Perhaps our children should be made to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" ten times, during class-time, to get your numbers up.

        Anyway, like "Honest," your arguments have grown both predictable and stale. And your fascist attitude toward those that disagree with you alarms a lot of people. I think maybe you should try a more reasoned approach, and quit with the inflammatory, over-the-top rhetoric.

        • Ramona Baller

          Like a powerful Koch brothers' internet search engine stirring to life, Mike responds with a barrage of purported factual counter-points. Of all his attempts to explain away the reasons for conservative youth acknowledging climate change, however, he remains silent on the major point of fact: is carbon at 400 ppm or is it not? Is it his position that carbon concentrations (and other gases like methane) have no affect on climate? Of course, this is a rather precarious position.

          Mike might be able to convince his children that their minds are cruelly manipulated by documentary films, but the dear readers on this blog are entitled to more fact-based evidence. When Mike's children see the disappearance of earth's air conditioner (the arctic) in their life-times, one can only hope they will be understanding of his principled positions.

          • Guest

            The Koch brothers? If there was any doubt that you are nothing more than a DNC mouthpiece that gets his "facts" from MSNBC and other leftist media outlets, it is now no longer in doubt. Mike presents facts, with background, and all you do is lob out more partisan insults. That alone speaks volumes to whose argument is more sustained by fact rather than partisan rhetoric.

            By the way, when will you and your leftist compatriots explain the disappearance of the polar ice sheet dating back to the last ice age? Seems to me global warming has been happening a lot longer than the past 100-150 years.

            Finally, was carbon 400 ppm 20,000 years ago? If it is now, is that the natural state; is it historically high, or low (and I don't mean 100 years of data)? Neither you nor any scientist knows, so the entire premise of that argument has no baseline on which to compare, and is thus invalid.

          • Ramona Baller

            You just admitted carbon levels affect the climate, have done so in the past, and are presently at levels greater than any point in the last 20,000 years at end of last ice age. Congratulations for embracing fact-based logical reasoning. Now consider whether all of those ancient changes, repeated in the coming years might affect modern society and its 7 billion inhabitants?

          • Guest

            Typical of the brainwashed – you totally missed the point. IF carbon is 400 ppm the question is was it 20,000 years ago? At no point have you answered a single question. Why is that? Because the facts don't support your argument, so you continually regurgitate either unsubstantiated points, disproven as fraudulent claims, and DNC talking points?

            The question is simple: has the climate warmed for the past 20,000 years since the last Ice Age? And, finally, IF carbon is 400 ppm now, what data do you have to substantiate that 400 ppm is not the norm – and by norm I mean not just readings from the past100 years because I think we have established that temperatures MUST have been increasing for at least the last 20,000 years. It's all logic. Maybe you should go, or go back to, college and take a course in logic (and maybe a course in statistics would be good also).

            Quite frankly, it is tiresome to argue with those who lack the capacity to evaluate facts and apply reason. I only do so because this issue is important and implementing plans to alleviate changing climate will cost us all when it is all natural and not the result of human intervention.

          • Ramona Baller

            According to Scripps (a world renonwned institute) carbon concentration in April 2014 was an average of 401.33 ppm – the highest level in 800,000 years. In 1958, the level of carbon was 313 ppm. Thus, carbon concentrations have increased 88 ppm in 56 years – an average increase of 1.57 ppm/ per year. Even neanderthal man (600 – 350,000 years ago) never lived under the conditions you and I did in April 2014. Just as Chamberlain claimed "peace in our time", you may attempt to rationalize away the facts (or attempt to discredit the messengers) but the simple truth remains: we have massively disrupted the climate to our great peril.

    • JimC

      Did you seriously bash Limbaugh as a 4-time married pillar of morality… Maybe we should ask Tipper about Good 'Ol Al's morality. Talk about being selective in your facts!

  8. Mike

    Dear “Honest,”

    You need to settle down just a bit before you have a stroke. I hope you are not exposing your loved ones to your annoying sky-is-falling screed.

    So, now it has come down to ad hominem attacks? If someone calls your facts BS, you claim their argument should be rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact, such as a radio host somewhere that suffered a human failing? Seriously, we don’t all walk on water like the high-minded climate alarmists seem to think they do. But seriously, what does a radio host’s human failings have to do with supporting your rants?

    Science not political? Really? Have you read the NASA Mission Statement as of late? Through out history, when scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with political goals, EVERY administration has manipulated the processes through which this science enters into legislative decisions; the United States is not alone in this phenomena, all nations do it.

    The rest of your argument follows the same course… “Google it!” My Gawd brother, are you really that naive? Do you believe something because it’s on the Internet? Really now!

    Again, you should probably stop with your arrogant rants, and perhaps go get some exercise or something…

    • Honest Resident

      Dear Mike,

      So you must have a deep paranoia of space exploration based on your NASA criticism. I went and read the Mission Statement and found nothing political. You see political demons where there are none.

      I am very able to distinguish fact on the internet from right-wing talking points. Too bad you cannot. Just FYI…

      What Does NASA Do?

      NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.

      To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world — and off of it — for more than 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth? ——

      If you've already answered all of these questions, please let NASA and the People of the USA know, already. We could save a lot of money. Thank you.

  9. Dennis

    Amid all this debate, did anyone happen to attend Ms Bakers' presentation?

  10. guest

    Maybe I can speak at next month's meeting. I will describe how the smog in L.A. is really just a soft cushiony blanket of love dust that improves lung function and contributes to long life. I believe that Earth was designed intelligently 7000 years ago as an indestructible sphere of goodness in the center of the universe that filters the inherent evil of mankind like a catalytic converter on a turbo charged corvette.

    • Mike

      Dear Guest,

      Maybe you can design a car that runs on butterfy breath and unicorn farts, and the world will then be just peachy.

      By the way, a catalytic converter is not designed to "filter" anything, it's a device that uses a catalyst (in the form of platinum and palladium coated onto a ceramic honeycomb) to convert harmful compounds in car exhaust into harmless compounds. Oh, and very few corvettes were ever turbocharged.

      Something tells me that if you spoke to this group you NOT be the smartest person in the room.

      • guest

        That is something we agree on. I'm pretty sure my IQ would wither away with every step I took past the entrance. In fact I'm pretty sure I'd rather breath the harmless compounds coming from my exhaust.

Leave a Reply