I was hoping to present some profound analysis of the issues
and candidates in this year’s election, but alas, time has escaped me so I’m
just gonna share some very direct thoughts on what I think about those issues
and candidates which are believe are the most significant or relate to public
safety:
President of the U.S.
– I can’t in good conscience advocate voting for Clinton or Trump. I could go
on and on about the issues with each, but that would start its own debate. The
bottom line is this: We have a current vacancy on the Supreme Court (the swing
vote), and are likely to have others in the next 2-4 years. Vote for what you
want the complexion of the Supreme Court to be. Are you a flaming liberal? Vote
Clinton because she will pick a liberal for the current vacancy in the Court,
and the next ones as well. Are you a staunch conservative? Pick Trump, and he
will insure that the court is conservative, now and for the next couple of
likely selections. Selecting a POTUS based on the character of the current top
contenders? I can’t even think about it without getting a little bit of vomit
in my mouth! Vote for what you want the
complexion of the Supreme Court to be beyond the tenure of the next President.
U.S. Senator from
California – Vote for Loretta Sanchez.
Kamala Harris is of the Jerry Brown,
Gavin Newsome, Clinton, Obama ilk. I cannot let go of the fact that Harris
refused to seek the death penalty on a guy who shot two cops (killing one of
them) in San Francisco a dozen years ago. Also, she is the one that approved
the deceptive title of California’s Prop 57, which will release thousands from
prison if passed. Sanchez is a Dem too, but she only converted after she could
not get elected to office as a Republican. This makes me want to believe she is
at least a bit more toward the middle of the road.
U. S. House of
Representatives – YES, re-elect Doug LaMalfa
California Assembly –
YES, re-elect James Gallagher
Proposition 57 –
This is bad, bad, bad for California and it is opposed by every major law enforcement
organization in the State. The sole purpose of this proposition is to reduce
the California State Prison population. It is not about public safety and it is
not about rehabilitation of prisoners as the proponents have indicated. AB 109
and Prop 47 did not do enough to reduce the prison population to a level that
is satisfactory to the Appellate Court after California lost the Coleman-Plata
class action lawsuit from inmates, so this is next in the Governor’s effort to
comply with the order of the court.
Do you even know the history? Well, to make a long story
short, two lawsuits by prisoners were combined years ago – one related to
overcrowding and the other related to poor medical care in the prisons. After
years of going through the courts and being appealed multiple times, California
lost. The Governor needed to reduce the prison population very quickly, and he
decided AB 109 was the answer. In short, this bill simply took a bunch of
crimes that were previously punishable by imprisonment in State prison and
“realigned” them to make them the responsibility of the counties (which reduced
State costs, but increased county costs and provided no extra money).
Essentially, the State said, “We are no longer responsible for these people.” It
was a promise of AB 109 that serious, violent or sexual offenders would not be
released. Thousands were subsequently released from State prison, including
serious, violent and sexual offenders, but it wasn’t enough. Then came Prop 47.
Prop 47 essentially redefined a whole bunch of crimes in such a way that they
were no longer felonies or State prison eligible. It was sort of a
“decriminalization of crime” proposition. This one was a gut puncher because it
was blatantly misrepresented to the public as the “Safe Neighborhoods and
Schools Act.” The problem is that there were no provisions for either in the
proposition. Hoodwinked, the California voters, who of course wanted safer
neighborhoods and schools, passed it. Thousands more were released from prison,
but it still was not enough.
Then came Prop 57. This Prop indicates that it will change
the rules for whether or not juveniles will be prosecuted as adults, and it
will change the rules related to sentence credits and parole for “non-violent
felonies.” What the Proposition (and its proponents) don’t tell the voter is
that, by law (Penal Code 667.5) there are only 15 categories of crimes that are considered violent crimes in
California. By virtue of being excluded from the list, all other felonies are considered “non-violent.” Check out just a
few of California’s “non-violent” felonies for which Prop 57 will allow early
release from prison:
-
Assault with a deadly weapon (245 PC)
-
Corporal injury of a spouse – domestic violence
(273.5 PC)
-
Solicitation to commit murder (653(f)b PC)
-
Assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer
(245c PC)
-
Rape, sodomy, oral copulation of an unconscious
person or by use of date rape drugs (various PC sections)
-
Many other violations that are inherently, but
not legally defined as violent
The proponents also say this will save millions of tax
dollars at the State level. This is because the State will again be saying they
are no longer responsible for certain crooks – these people are likely to
become the responsibility of counties. The problem is that its impossible to
determine the anticipated millions of additional tax dollars it will cost
counties. In truth, this will not save any money for taxpayers.
The bottom line? This proposition will release more very bad
people from prison, and contribute significantly to the already increasing
crime rate. VOTE NO ON PROP 57!!!!
Proposition 62 – This
is all about the death penalty. Do you want to keep it like I do? If so, VOTE NO!
Proposition 63 –
There is no state in the nation that has tougher gun laws than California. The
additional laws proposed in this measure do nothing but target the law abiding
citizen and diminish 2nd Amendment rights. Most importantly, this
Proposition does nothing to enhance public safety or keep weapons and ammo out
of the hands of crooks. As a sidenote, as written this bill will even make it
so a young person who decides they want to put themselves through a police
academy as an unsponsored recruit cannot buy ammunition in the volume needed to
complete the program or train with the weapons they would utilize as a peace
officer…..ridiculous!!! My thought? VOTE
NO ON 63!
Proposition 64 –
If passed, this Proposition will legalize recreational marijuana use in
California. The problem with it is that when Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome and his
dope smoking buddies promised 4 years ago that they would bring forward a
legalization proposition that was comprehensive and addressed all of the
associated legal and social issues, they actually failed to do so. I, like
many, believe in the inevitability of the legalization of marijuana in
California eventually (which I also predict we will ultimately
regret)…..but…..this Proposition still leaves too many unanswered questions.
Additionally, by the way, all this crap about the sick people needing their
medicine is absolute BS. The sick people that really need marijuana can get it
now. The truth is that all the chatter about increasing access by way of
legalization is about money. Most of the illicit growers are making unreported,
undocumented, untaxed money hand over fist. This Proposition will do nothing to
reign that in. Also, the suggestion that legalization is going to result in
lots of revenue for the State is also BS. This is a sham. I say VOTE NO ON 64!
Proposition 66 –
This is another death penalty initiative. This one is intended to reform the
currently screwed up death penalty process in California. It is supported by
law enforcement, prosecutors and crime victims. My opinion: VOTE YES ON 66!
CHICO CITY COUNCIL
Karl Ory - Nice older gentleman. Uhhhhh…..NO!
Sean Morgan - Part of the team that dug Chico out of the hole the
last liberal majority left. RE-ELECT
SEAN MORGAN!!
Tami Ritter - Tami has been an occupier of space at the front of
the Council Chambers, and nothing more. Time for her to move on. NO!
Jeffrey Glatz - A newcomer to Chico’s political scene, not
beholding to the nasty partisanship of Chico politics, sincerely passionate
about doing what is necessary to support public safety…..I like this guy, and I
think he would be great for Chico! VOTE
FOR JEFF GLATZ!
Ann Schwab - I have not always agreed with Ann, and truthfully she
disappointed me greatly when she was Mayor and did not assert herself more to
support public safety……but……in her 12 years on the Council she has remained
singularly focused on serving Chico in a very passionate way. She has not
engaged the bitter politics or mudslinging, she conducts herself with dignity
and she is in my estimation one of the most appropriate to be on the Council to
insure that there are diverse political perspectives. I say VOTE YES FOR ANN SCHWAB!
Mercedes Macias - Seems to be a very nice, albeit unrealistically
idealistic, young lady. Maybe in a few more years once she figures out how
things really work in life and the world. NO
for now!
Randall Stone - A well established narcissistic liar……more on him
in a couple days….but in the meantime: NO,
NO, NO….HE HAS GOT TO GO!!!
Lisa Duarte - I’m sure that she too is a very nice lady.
Unfortunately, she is clueless. NO!
Loretta Torres - I am mindblown at all of those, including the
Chico ER, who have endorsed her. Again, appears to be a very nice lady, but I
just have a hard time taking her seriously. NO!
Jon Scott - Seriously? NO!
Jovanni Tricerri - What a
breath of fresh air to Chico politics….a demonstrated and respected community
leader, not a puppet of partisanship, an experiential history that suits him
well to represent and serve as a Chico City Council member!! VOTE YES FOR JOVANNI!
Measure J - Butte
College Bond Initiative. Passage of this measure will support critical
infrastructure repair, new facilities for welding, public safety and the
sciences, and will help the college in their support of vets and the regional
job market. This is a definite YES!
Measure L – This
is brought to you by marijuana growers with illicit marijuana money, and it is
all about them having more freedom to grow more weed to make more illicit
money. The rules Butte County has work, and they work well. No changes needed. VOTE NO!
I have only shared my thoughts and opinions about measures
or campaigns I have strong feelings about. You’re gonna have to figure out on
your own which direction to go on condoms in porno videos, Chico Unified’s
request for a bond and all the others. Good luck!
PS - Stay tuned for more on why Randall Stone needs to go……
No comments:
Post a Comment