I have gotten a few reuests from others asking me how I plan to vote on the upcoming ballot, from President down to the local issues.
Here are my recommendations:
President: Donald Trump
![]("https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uYZhB7HmcNM/WAQS4wfxbtI/AAAAAAAAJoE/5FV1AnA_sxILqF3i1NJOOPBT0MbG0mJCQCLcB/s1600/Trump%2BThumbs%2Bup.jpg")
Lewd comments on a recording from 11 years ago notwithstanding, his previous work and current plans for our country far exceed any bad language from the past. Furthermore, his efforts with The Remembrance Project really impressed me and command my trust.
I also agree that the Johnson Amendment, which has muzzled churches from speaking out on political issues for decades, needs to be repealed.
The Supreme Court matters a great deal and I trust his list of appointments to uphold the law and respect our rights as outlined in the Constitution.
Trump is a flawed man, but the alternative–Crooked Hillary–is not just worse, but evil incarnate. Gary Johnson is not a Libertarian (and would be a throw-away vote), and Jill Stein is to the left of Bernie Sanders.
Trump's blunt rhetoric and strength againts a corrupt media corroded by political correctness is very important to me, and will help conservatives to strike a more courageous tone against the Left in years to come.
Vote for Donald Trump!
US Senate: Write-in Congressman Dana Rohrabacher
Both candidates on the ballot–Korrupt Kamala Harris and Loony Loretta Sanchez–are so bad, so destructive, embracing left-agenda talking points, from open borders to gun confiscation, that I cannot vote for either one, and I do not see either candidate as the lesser of two evils.
I will write in Dana Rohrabacher, with the hopes that the California Republican Party forms a stronger grassroots and campaign effort to promote one candidate to compete for US Senate in the future.
Congress: Kenneth Wright
![]("https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eF0UXjwU91o/WAQTGszf6CI/AAAAAAAAJoI/958QpipnHc0-i1Lq19_wuzG8P84jKB6XQCLcB/s1600/Ken%2BWright%2Band%2BMe.jpg")
Ken is an impressive candidate who has accomplished a great deal, despite the limited resources currently avaiable to him. An eye surgeon, a humanitarian, philanthropist, and dedicated Republican who cares about national security and the rule of law, he is an excellent choice compared to the regressive and corrupt Ted Lieu.
State Assembly: David Hadley
![]("https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qQQkLHfEBUg/WAQTNZcakAI/AAAAAAAAJoM/bZgagkA-6aY-vpTE8Qf98HGe2bdk2rAAwCLcB/s1600/Arthur%2Band%2BDavid.jpg")
The Republican Miracle of 2014 has turned into a mission of broadened success for Republicans in the South Bay.
I am really impressed with all that Hadley has accomplished, and look forward to more legislative victories in the future.
No, we have not agreed on everything, but when times were tough and legislative pressure mounted, he has voted toward expanding economic opportunity, ending taxes and crippling regulations, to Protect Prop 13, improve education, and protect our liberties.
(And I don't give a damn if he votes for Trump or not!)
Vote for David Hadley!
La County Board Supervisor: Steve Napolitano
Janice Hahn has tarnished the once respectable legacy for her progressive father Kenneth Hahn, dragging the Los Angeles County Democratic political machine to its worst lows yet.
She already earns three pensions, has engaged in some of the lewdest attacks against opponents. She is a tax-and-spend, regulate-frustrate liberal cashing in on her father's name.
She has no business being anywhere near the Board of Supervisors, where she will drive more businesses out of the region, while joining with the other three liberals to hike up local taxes, fees, and spending.
She is a Big Labor puppet, too.
Steve Napolitano has earned the well-deserved endorsement of local officials throughout the South Bay and Southwestern Los Angeles county in general.
He is a pro-business Republican who cares about local leadership and respecting local control.
He is by far the better pick to ensure that the Board of Supervisors does not drive the county into ruin.
Water Replenishment District of Southern California
Robert Katherman
![]("https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_200_200/p/2/000/06a/277/2262773.jpg")
This one is tough, not just because of the obscure nature of the office, which is still influential, but because of the discouraging credentials related to the three candidates.
1. Jim Kennedy has been endorsed by uber-liberal Democratic Speaker of the State Assembly Anthony Rendon.
He was also featured in this video pushing the solar energy and sustainability craze.
He is dead to me.
2. Merrill Kruger was inspired by Bernie Sanders to run for this office.
What an endorsement, right?
Kruger, 36, grew up in Los Angeles and earned a bachelor’s degree in
environmental studies from UC Santa Cruz and a certificate in landscape
architecture from UCLA. After working for several landscape design firms, she
started her own in Brentwood, moving to San Pedro four years ago.
environmental studies from UC Santa Cruz and a certificate in landscape
architecture from UCLA. After working for several landscape design firms, she
started her own in Brentwood, moving to San Pedro four years ago.
She said Sanders’ bid for the presidency
compelled her to run for office, and that she felt the WRD
No way. We do not need a Bernie Sanders acolyte on any board or commission.
3. Who's left? The incumbent Robert Katherman.
Normally, I shy away from incumbents. He has served on the board since 2004.
And he was charged with public corruption related to illegal laundering of public funds .
They were eventually acquitted earlier this year, which either testified to their innocence or the incompetence of the Public Integrity division of the DA's office.
Whatever the cause, Katherman has a record of expanding water supplies in the area, plus the Replenishment district has received a $1 million grant to continue research, development, and exploration for expanded water use.
Katherman counts breaking ground on a Pico Rivera water treatment
facility, approving a 20-year Groundwater Basins Master Plan, doubling the size
of the Goldsworthy Desalter in Torrance, and keeping water rates low compared
to other agencies during the drought as accomplishments.
facility, approving a 20-year Groundwater Basins Master Plan, doubling the size
of the Goldsworthy Desalter in Torrance, and keeping water rates low compared
to other agencies during the drought as accomplishments.
He wants to expand a pilot program helping water districts in
low-income communities obtain funding to remove contamination from drinking
water wells.
low-income communities obtain funding to remove contamination from drinking
water wells.
Katherman said he is not opposed to live-streaming meetings, but that
most work gets done in committees.
most work gets done in committees.
I will vote for Katherman, with tepid support.
Judges
Office No. 11: Steve Schreiner
Office No. 42: Efrain Aceves
Office No. 84: Susan Townsend
Office No. 158: David Berger
The following rankings are based on the research from Craig Huey and His Judge Voter Guide. Please contact his office at (310) 212-5727 if you have any questions.
Propositions
Prop 51: No
Bonds are wasteful and corrupt. The debt on bonds, which taxpayers have to cover, can end up doubling the cost of the bond. There are better ways to raise funds for local projects. This proposition is so bad, even Governor Jerry Brown opposes it.
Prop 52: No
This measure has been very confusing for me. Initially, I had supported it because it would reuire a two-thirds majority for shifting and raising fees.
Then I learned that this proposition would resurrect and extend a tax which is set to expire in 2019.
End the tax. Vote No on Prop 52.
Prop 53: YES
Before any bonds are floated, the legislature should reuire voter approval. Ads on TV claim that this stop-gap measure will prevent much-needed public projects, especially in teh case of emergency.
Don't buy into the hype. Demand more consideration for statewide bonds. Vote Yes!
Prop 54: YES
Charles Munger's transparency measure would reuire publication of all proposed bills on line 72 hours before a vote, unless a bill is deemed an emergency bill. This measure would ensure that private citizens could record public legislative hearings without cost or injury, too.
Some critics contend that the legislature will abuse the emergency provision. I am not inclined to agree.
This is a great idea, which should have been adopted long ago. VOTE YES!
Prop 55: NO!
This proposition will extend the temporary Prop 30 taxes from 2012.
They should have never been raised in the first place, no matter what the budget shortfall facing the state of California schools. Businesses are already taxed at too great a rate, which is eliminating available employment for your people, including recent college graduates and professionals.
We already have the highest gas and incomes taxes. This tax needs to sunset. No on Prop 55.
Prop 56: No
A $2 cigarette tax will not fund the priorities purported outlined in print and advertising. A higher tax on cigarettes will only fuel an underground economy. Government bureaucracies in the state of California do not need more money either.
Prop57: NO!
This measure will create more "crimes" reduced to misdemeanors, incluing violent acts. Prop 47 has been an unmitigated disaster. This legislastion will only make it worse. We need enforcement and incarceration for high risk offenders, not a Get Out of Jail Free card.
Prop 58: No
Ending bilingual education in 1998 ensured that English Language Learners learned English.
Reintroducing bilingual education will hurt student acuistion of English. Learning another language is worthy goal and can extend student and professional success, but Engligh immersion, not bilingual ed, is the way to go.
Prop 59: No
This measure is a waste of space and resources.
The liberal legislature wanted an initiative which would drive up Democratic turnout. If passed, this measure would serve as a resolution demanding that the Supreme Court repeal the Citizens United decision.
I support that decision. We need to allow more individual voters and activists to contribute their own funding.
Prop 60: No
The adult film industry is sordid and immoral. But a government bureaucracy with a rigid set of strictures will not stop with pornography. This is a waste of time and money.
Prop 61: No
Statutory regulations to lower costs for anything … do not lower costs. This proposal would drive up costs through rationing and immoral distortions in the market place. It will hurt the people it's intended to help!
Prop 62: No
I support the death penalty. Period.
Prop 63: No
Say not to Gavin Gruesome's Gun Grab. Shame on him, and protect the Second Amendment.
Prop 64: No
I support decriminalizing marijuana. But the regulatory schemas incorporated with this proposal would not end the underground economy. The tax burden is too high, as well, and the measure creates a host of new crimes and sanctions.
Not good enough. The proponents of decriminalization need to research where Colorado and Washington did the right thing, and where they went wrong.
Prop 65: No
Any initiative which forcibly diverts money accrued by a company or industry–for whatever reason–is wrong.
Prop 66: YES
I support the death penalty, and want justified expediency to see the full enforcement of law and order, truth and justice. Law-abiding taxpayers should not continue to foot the bills for room and board, medicine and recreation for hardened criminals who have committed the most heinous of offenses.
Prop 67: NO
I like plastic bags, and the micromanaging state legislature, following a corrupt bargain between the labor unions and the grocery industry, agreed on a scheme to take away plastic bags, and charge a fee on all California consumers who want a brown paper bag.
Banning plastic bags will cost thousands of jobs, and rob consumers.
Protect the plastic bags. Vote No on 67.
Los Angeles County Measures
Measure A: No
The county is floating this measure to hit up county property owners for more money for parks.
South Bay residents will not benefit from the redistribution of wealth. The city of Torrance has some of the best parks in the county.
Measure M: No
Same argument. This proposal to draw up more transportation funds will not serve South Bay residents.
Vote No.