Costa Mesa Mayor Pro Tempore Eric Bever provided us with a window into his narrow mind again with a commentary published in the Daily Pilot today. In that commentary, entitled "Mexico should offer concessions to the United States", Bever points out the disparity in the "rights" being proposed by some members of our government for illegal aliens currently living and working productively in our country and the lack of "rights" for Americans in Mexico. He cites the inability, for example, of Americans to own property in Mexico.

Bever goes on and on about how unfair it is for Mexicans to receive benefits here while Americans south of the border have none. I have no doubt that his position will strike a chord for many Americans who have been abused, both physically and financially, by the corrupt system south of the border.

Bever has been a major proponent of the plan put forward by his buddy, Mayor Allan Mansoor, to cross-designate Costa Mesa Police officers to become immigration screeners. The result of that move would be the accelerated expulsion of Latinos within this city under the guise of attempting to rid our streets of "dangerous criminals".

When Bever, in his commentary, says, "If it is imperative that concessions must be made, for God's sake, get something in return.", is he now saying it's OK for those folks to be here as long as Mexico gives us something in return? It seems to me we have a case of situational ethics here. Bever is saying that it's OK for our government to grant amnesty and a path to citizenship for undocumented workers currently in this country as long as we get something in return. What happened to the "dangerous criminals" stalking the streets? Is it OK for them to be here if we can own property in Ensenada? This sounds very much like the corrupt form of government we see in Mexico right now. Is that what our Mayor Pro Tem is advocating - the importation of the worst elements of Mexican society as long as he can buy a condo at Rosarita Beach? Sure sounds like it.

It's this kind of demented and convoluted thinking that forms the current leadership of this city. Hopefully, we can resolve at least part of that problem in November.

***

While we're on the subject, at last night's Parks and Recreation Commission meeting Chairwoman Wendy Leece - a candidate for city council in November, by the way - demonstrated for us just how in step she is with our young jailer/mayor and his other cronies. During the discussions about lighting two more fields at The Farm sports complex she, along with the other commissioners, listened to arguments on both sides of the issue, but she apparently didn't hear many of them.

At the end of the discussion, when it was time for the vote on this issue - which she asked to be removed from the broader agenda item of the Capital Improvement Project budget for separate consideration - she proceeded to read a statement on the subject. This statement, which had obviously been prepared long before the meeting without the benefit of the testimony presented at the meeting, explained just why she felt the views of a few citizens were more important than the needs of the city as a whole. She wasn't about to let the opinions of the dozens of speakers who addressed the subject sway her view - just as Mayor Mansoor ignores the wishes of the broader community. They both choose to be guided by the opinions of their small group of supporters and hangers-on to the detriment of the rest of us. This attitude will not be forgotten. Ms. Leece and our young jailer/mayor will be held to account for this come election time.

On March 17th of this year I wrote a letter to our young jailer/mayor, Allan Mansoor, asking him to withdraw his plan to cross-designate certain Costa Mesa police officers as immigration screeners. My lengthy letter was also posted on this web log that day and may be viewed by going to the bottom of this page and clicking on link 2006.03.12.

As of this date - five weeks later - I have had no response from the mayor to my letter.

I write this entry today because the mayor, at the council meeting on April 18th, went to great lengths to explain how he responds to all communications from residents of this city. Obviously, that was a lie... probably one among many fabrications that he tells us to bolster his position on issues he cannot otherwise justify.

With an election facing us in the not-to-distant future, I think it's important for the voters in this city to have a clear understanding of the character of those men and women who will be asking for their votes in November. While it will not be as easy to assess some of the candidates because they lack a clear, visible track record, such is not the case with Mayor Mansoor.

Since his election in 2002 our young jailer/mayor has demonstrated time after time that he lacks the intellectual capacity, integrity and leadership skills to justify returning him to the council. He has allowed a small cadre of angry supporters to take control of the agenda in this city and manipulate the process to meet their narrow, and sometimes bigoted, viewpoints. His actions have invited radicals into our city, including Jim Gilchrist and his frothing band of Minuteman cohorts, who have embraced the mayor as a savior and made him one of their own. They deftly massaged his ego, assuring him that his plan is noble, knowing full well that they - safely back at their homes in Aliso Viejo, Ontario, Fullerton, Anaheim, Ridgecrest and Barstow - have nothing to lose. Only the residents of Costa Mesa have something to lose as the mayor's ill-advised plan leads this city down the path of intolerance.

As we move toward the elections in November there will be opportunities to size up candidates and to voice opinions about their qualifications. I hope each of you reading this blog will take the time to do so, and make informed choices in the voting booth. It's time to take back our city from the radical, bigoted few.