The following list are all my recommendations for the 2012 Election including California propositions.
As I have stated in previous posts, Obama is an anti-imperialist who believes in a weaker America and that it needs to be brought down to the level of all other nations…and he is doing this by making our generation and the next debt slaves to the world by making us spend the next 200 years paying back all of the debt we owe to all the other countries that Obama is accumulating. He also believes in Corporate Fascism, which is the partnering of corporations and government to the benefit of both and the detriment of The People. By working together, Government guarantees chosen corporations protection from foreign and domestic competition, protection from collapse, and participation in any Government schemes or programs. Corporate Fascism is a way to Socialize the economy without actually saying that that is what you are doing. Clearly, Obama is a Corporate Fascist, and unfortunately so is Romney, only to a lesser degree. And when it comes to enslaving us to debt, Romney is also no different.
Here is how I look at it…if someone asks me why I did not vote for Obama and voted for Romney instead, I would have reams of data, facts and references to support my strong position against Obama. Positions they could not overcome. As for voting for Romney, the only thing I could say without lying is that I did it because he’s not Obama, because the reality is that the reasons that I would not vote for Obama are the same reasons I should not vote for Romney because they are so similar in all that they believe that there really is no material difference. Therefore I could no more ethically, intelligently or convincingly support a vote for Romney any more than I could for Obama.
Therefore, the only way for me to stay true to my convictions and to not “sell out” is to vote for Gary Johnson. I can defend Gary Johnson. I can defend voting for him. I can not do that with Obama or Romney because to me, voting for either is just a vote for Obamney.
Some will say I am splitting the vote and that may cause Obama to win and that Libertarians have no chance. Both of these are true, but the reason they are true is only embarrassing for the person who says them. In the first case, they are saying I should vote for an absolutely atrocious President in Romney who will continue to destroy the economy, add debt, inject Government into social issues where it does not belong and do only superficial reforms that will lead to nothing only because, Obama is worse? That is an embarrassing reason for you to vote for Romney. In fact, isn’t that what many people said when they voted for Obama in 2008? That they did it because it was really a vote against Bush (against Republicans in general because of Bush?). And look what that got us! So now we are going to use the same stupid logic…again?
As for Libertarians not having a chance. This too is correct, but again, only because people refuse to take the time to learn what Libertarianism is. That it is the original doctrine of The Founders. If Washington and Jefferson and Adams and Hancock registered to vote today, it would be as Libertarians. Just because you allowed yourself to be stupefied by our dumbed down pro-Big Government educational system and bought into the mainstream media re-educational brainwashing of what the purpose of our Government is, that is no excuse for not voting Libertarian, just because you can’t be bothered to learn what it means and why it is The Founders choice.
If you want a country that is different from the way The Founders envisioned it, in a much worse way, then go ahead and vote Republican or Democrat…but I can not do that and be proud of my vote. I can not do that and defend my vote as a vote for the Constitution. A vote for Obama or a vote for Romney are both you voicing your dissatisfaction with the Constitution and that you desire a new form of Government; a bigger, personal life encroaching, liberty decaying, business destroying, social welfare promoting, BIG Government.
And I can promise you this, that over the next 100 years, as you and your children continue to sell out your vote by voting for the “lesser of two evils,” the only thing you’ve done is delay our arrival at our inevitable singular destination…a fascist state of corporatist socialism where half the population only works to provide highly taxed income which is used to pay for the other half of the population to live on. Where the economy neither grows nor contracts, where unemployment is steady and structurally high, where innovation and invention and American individualism are only read about in banned history books. That is our destiny. It is inevitable because swinging back and forth between a “little bit of evil” and “a lot of evil” still only gets you to Hell.
United States Senator (CA): Elizabeth Emken
Anyone is better than Dianne Feinstein. Dianne is cut from the same cloth as all the other ultra-liberal corporate fascist nanny-state promoting politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Obama. She is an enemy to The People and a close, intimate friend to Big Government.
United States Representative (CA): 45th District: John Campbell
John Campbell is the current Republican incumbent running against Democrat Sukhee Kang. Unfortunately, John voted for TARP which exposed his Big Government political colors. I wrote John a letter prior to discovering this about some other topic, to which he responded favorably. I then wrote him a letter about his TARP vote and he did not respond.
Sukhee Kang however, is a member of MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns). Doesn’t MAIG sound so noble? Who would not be against “illegal” guns? But MAIG was founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who is a notoriously rabid anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment advocate. Most recently the group has focused on an effort to defeat a bill in Congress that would require each state to recognize carry licenses issued by other states. What does interstate gun licensing recognition have to do with illegal guns? Not a damn thing, and neither does MAIG.
MAIG is blatantly anti-2nd Amendment. MAIG’s mission statement of being against illegal guns is only achieved by first making as many guns illegal as possible and then being against them. I wrote Sukhee a letter asking about his involvement in MAIG and requesting that he withdraw from this gun-hate group to which his reply letter stated he was very supportive of the 2nd Amendment. Say what? How can you support the 2nd Amendment and support MAIG at the same time? You can’t. The two are completely incongruous. As usual, politicians simply say what you want to hear because as citizens of a civilized society, we assume people don’t lie to us, especially people in positions of semi-authority. This is a mistake. Politicians use our civility against us by talking out of both sides of their mouth in order to obscure their true belief. Sukhee is simply aligning himself with other Democrats in such a way as to show he’s willing to fly the whole liberal Democrat flag at full staff. That he is one of them and wants them to know it. In the meantime, he will lie whenever he needs to in order to get whatever votes he needs to get wherever it is he wants to go. If Sukhee Kang truly supported the 2nd Amendment, he would withdraw support for MAIG.
Since John supported TARP and Sukhee supports MAIG, they are both terrible choices, therefore all I can do is support the theoretically conservative candidate knowing that as a Democrat, Sukhee will have to tow the Democrat line and expand Government, increase taxes, expand the welfare state, take control of guns, etc… As a Republican, John might have a change of heart and become a true Conservative, but as a Democrat I know what Suhkee is, and what he can never become.
State Senator (CA): Mimi Walters
I am holding my nose while I make this vote because my options are limited.
Member of the State Assembly: Donald Wagner
PROP 30: No
Anything that increases taxes will always be a no. I don’t care if it’s for teachers, firefighters, police, kittens, puppies or endangered tree frogs. California is broke. California has a $15.7B budget deficit. More than half of California’s revenue is spent on education and yet this State ‘s educational ranking is almost dead last in the nation. We could spend 100% of our revenue on education and it wouldn’t move the needle one inch. Why? Because the Unions control the education in this State and the Unions make sure that they, and the teachers they represent, and the politicians they financially support and pay for receive the lion’s share of the money. Increasing taxes for education will only increase the lion’s share, the kids will see nothing.
PROP 31: Yes
I am voting YES on Prop 31 because in reading the detail on the proposition it made sense to me. However, I also wanted to check who was supporting the YES and NO vote on this Prop because you can learn a lot by who is paying for it.
Here is the “NO” argument:
Proposition 31 is a badly flawed initiative that locks expensive and conflicting provisions into the Constitution, causing lawsuits, confusion, and cost. Prop. 31 threatens public health, the environment, prevents future increases in funding for schools, and blocks tax cuts. Join teachers, police, conservationists, tax reformers: vote no on Prop. 31.
First off, that is a terrible argument that does not tell me why or how any of these bad things are going to happen. Then I saw the classic liberal scare tactics of something hurting the “public health” and the “environment” and the children (“funding for schools”). Classic, typical, predictable Liberal BULLSHIT.
Second, it appears that teachers, police and conservationists are against it. What that translates to is that teacher UNIONS, police UNIONS and conservationist LOBBY GROUPS are against it. I will never vote for anything that UNIONS or LOBBY GROUPS want.
Lastly, while the YES side has two websites to visit for more information, the NO side does not. That tells me they don’t actually have any intelligent arguments to make so they are hoping that smelly line of dog vomit above will be enough to convince you to vote for them.
You can click here for information on this Prop.
PROP 32: Yes
This prop stops the Unions from using forced member contributions for their political war chest which is spent on making sure politicians that keep the Union gravy train coming are elected (See Prop 30). The Unions will still financially support their political lap dogs, but at least members of the Union will not be forced to support political candidates they don’t agree with and it will make it slightly harder for the Unions to use this stolen money from their members in their political battles. I mean think about it…can you imagine being required to give up a part of your salary to your employer so they could spend it on whatever political hack they wanted to and you don’t have a say in it? This is just nuts. It needs to stop.
Prop 33: Yes
This Prop overrides a State government law that was telling insurance companies how to rate drivers. Anything that replaces a bad state law that restricts free market economics is a good thing.
Prop 34: Yes
I love the death penalty. I think people who have committed atrocious crimes deserve to die, burn, be boiled in acid. I think the victim’s family should decide the manner of death, SAW style. However, I am concerned about individuals who have been exonerated by DNA evidence. Fifteen such cases since 1992. I know the system is not perfect, but the idea of innocent people being sentenced to prison and spending decades waiting to die, or actually be killed, only to be proven innocent is a gross miscarriage of justice, only doubled up by the fact that the real criminal was free and enjoying life that whole time as well. This is a change in thinking for me, so perhaps, in a civilized society, especially when there is evidence of innocent people spending decades behind bars, we should only commit them to life sentences. At the same time, I know that if someone hurt or killed someone in my family, and I could find a way to get at them, I would kill them myself. So my YES vote on this Prop is a troubled one.
Prop 35: No
While the idea of this law is to increase prison sentences and fines for human trafficking, it also expands the definition of what it takes to require someone to register as a sex offender. For example, if this Prop passes, if two college kids were having consensual sex in a car at the end of a street and they were caught they could be required to register as sex offenders and be listed on the sex offender mapping website. I am sure most of us have already committed this crime and are now on notice that we would have to register as sex offenders. I don’t think turning normal human nature that most of us have done into felonies that make it hard to get jobs, vote or register for guns and label you as a child molester for life is what we want here. If they want to re-write this Prop so the net cast is not so wide, and submit it in a future election, then they should.
Prop 36: You have to decide for yourself
The following (below) is from Wikipedia. The most important element to me was that violent offenders will still be held to life sentences even if the third strike was non-violent. My only real concern is making sure violent offenders are let go, and I do not believe this proposition will allow that so I am okay with it.
Proposition 36, specifically, will if enacted:
- Revise the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when the new felony conviction is “serious or violent”.
- Authorize re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.
- Continue to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for “certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession”.
- Maintain the life sentence penalty for felons with “non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation.”
If Proposition 36 is approved by voters, approximately 3,000 convicted felons who are currently serving life terms under the Three Strikes law, whose third strike conviction was for a nonviolent crime, will be able to petition the court for a new, reduced, sentence. Reducing the sentences of these current prisoners could result in saving the state somewhere between $150 to $200 million a year.
Prop 37: No
What I have read so far is that the definitions of what is genetically modified or not are so loosely defined that this would do almost nothing in actually creating any labeling that a consumer could use. I have also read that many studies have been done that show there is no effect on humans from genetically altered food. I could not find any negative studies. That said, I agree with people who it just doesn’t seem right to eat food that is not “natural,” so I can empathize with that sentiment.
However, as a Libertarian I believe in the free market and if people in sufficient numbers are not interested in eating genetically modified food then farmers will produce and label their food “GM FREE” or equivalent. If you are such a person, then you will buy that food which of course will cause the store to run out of it, which creates orders for more and the farms will expand their “GM FREE” operations and so on. There is already food labeled this way at the supermarket. You can buy milk that is “hormone free.” Ben & Jerry’s puts on their ice cream label that they only buy milk that is hormone free. There is already chicken meat and eggs labeled “free range” or “cageless” and we did not need any laws to be passed for any of these to come into existence. There are still eggs that are not “free range” however and there is still milk that has hormones which shows that some people will care, and others will not, but the market will meet the need of both in proportion to the demand. That is why Capitalism, undistorted by government, is a beautiful thing and it is not our job to tell people what they can eat, or can’t eat.
Prop 38: No
It raises taxes, so hell no. Again, the YES side is UNIONS while the NO side are taxpayer protection groups. So again, NO, NO, NO.
Prop 39: No
OMG. Hell no. California politicians are a bunch of money-grubbing whores. All of these tax hike Propositions are because the State is broke and billions of dollars in debt. The Politicians in Sacramento have to keep the Union Thugs that spend millions of dollars of money they extort from their members happy so the Unions will keep supporting the Politicians at election time.
So here is how politics works in California; create a Proposition that raises taxes, then say the money is for something snuggly like schools, the environment, police, fire fighters, etc…, then after the law is passed use the money for whatever the Politicians want to use it for. To make sure people vote for it, the politicians tell the people that all those snuggly things will burn to a bloody crisp in hell and the blood of millions of withering and agonized dead souls will be on their hands if it doesn’t pass.
That is how f’d up politics is in California. Promise Heaven. Then Use Hell.
“No!” I say, to you California political whores, we will not tax businesses to allocate “some” of the money to “green projects” of which the remainder will, and I quote here, “likely be spent on schools.” Likely my ass. Likely in your pocket. Likely to your dialed in Government contract buddies to be likely kickbacked to your pocket.
Prop 40: Yes
The No side withdrew their argument and actually wants everyone to vote Yes. This is really just an administrative thing related to redistricting that doesn’t change anything, so just vote YES so you don’t look stupid.