I happen to live in what I call Occupied Fornicalia, behind enemy lines.
It wasn’t my choice; it just happened. Just as with the truism that “I didn’t leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me.” Hence the fence and all.
Now that I’ve vented for a moment, please allow me to focus on something of a “localized” issue despite the fact that primarily I tend to accent posts of a more generalized, national nature.
But this post is critical for Californians. Trust me: critical.
I make it now for those who are either filling out their absentee ballots and for those who are about to step into a voting booth in less than two weeks.
That is to say, addressing California propositions on the ballot for the coming Tuesday, November 8th.
I can summarize things this way: vote NO on EVERY proposition except:
- YES on Proposition 53;
- YES on Proposition 54;
- YES on Proposition 66.
Remember: 53 – 54 – 66. Vote yes. All others vote NO.
53 – 54 – 66. Vote yes. All others vote NO.
That said, let’s examine each proposition with a bit more detail. Tom McClintock and I vary on only a few of them.
Prop 51: NO
Right. Let’s just add $1,400 to your debt with one swipe of a vote. Sound borrowing be damned. Our children will pay off these “educational” bonds. They will not benefit from them.
Prop 52: NO
This is essentially a tax extension for Medi-Cal. Hospitals like it because it passes taxes to the patient, not them. It’s a permanent tax on sick folks.
Prop 53: YES
This is a public vote for revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are repaid from the state’s general fund; revenue bonds are repaid by users of a project (e.g. tolls to repay a bridge bond). This measure requires revenue bonds over $2 billion to be approved by voters, and is backed by taxpayer groups across the state. This is called accountability for your tax dollars. Uh, yeah.
Prop 54: YES
This primarily says: “read the damned bill first before you vote on it.” How could anyone disagree? This forbids the legislature from voting on a bill until it has been in print for 72 hours and available to both legislators and the public to read. It stops the dangerous practice of having to “pass a bill so we know what’s in it.” Duh.
Prop 55: NO
In 2012, Californians made a mistake in approving the highest personal income tax rate anywhere in the country on the “very wealthy people” who make over $250,000 a year. It is due to be phased out in 2018. This proposition would make it permanent. What’s wrong with soaking the rich? For openers, a lot of these “very wealthy people” aren’t wealthy and they aren’t even people. They’re struggling small businesses filing under Subchapter S. The really rich folks just re-arrange their schedules so they’re not legal residents and don’t pay the tax. As Arthur Laffer has often said, “There’s nothing in the world more portable than money and rich people.” Bingo. Thank you.
Prop 56: NO
Good God, another tobacco tax that just gets schluffed off into the CA general fund? Are you Fornicalia voters really this stupid? Apparently yes, you are, according to your Leftist rulers. Excessive taxation increases the incentives for black markets. Permanent spending programs are being funded with a declining revenue – and eventually taxpayers will end up funding the difference. Hello? You? Me? You imbeciles — shall I remind you — are the dimwits who voted for the “train to nowhere.” Hey, it’s not “your” money anyway, right? Except that, yes, you ignorant morons, it is. Taxes? Hello? Oh yeah. Except taxes on the illegal.
Prop 57: NO
Not just NO, but HELL NO. This is “clever” beyond belief. It is Leftists wanting to minimize the definition of a “violent crime” so that those who have committed — wait for it — manslaughter and rape can be considered “non-violent.” This is Jerry Brown’s — who has onset dementia (go ahead and ask Jerry Brown what day it is) according to people who work around him — latest measure purporting to release only non-violent felons from prison. But as the law works, this would include rapists, child molesters, gang-bangers, arsonists and human traffickers to name a few – and not to mention violent criminals who plea-bargained to lesser crimes. What in the holy hell?
To my mind this is the most craven, disgusting and abominable proposition suggested in the history of this state.
Let me make something clear: whilst Jerry Brown and Leftists throughout the state make their finest attempt to kick criminal felons out of prison — actually trying to keep violent felons out of the system in the first place — simultaneously they are the first to restrict your First and Second Amendment freedoms. You, the law-abiding, legal, tax-paying citizen. The politicians of this state have their own well-armed personnel as escorts — but you do not. The CHP protects the primary politicians. The Sgt At Arms protects other appointees in Fornicalia. That’s because they matter and you do not. You need to be disarmed for your own good. But wait; there’s another proposition (63) coming to address that specific issue. Might it go well for you? Likely not.
Perhaps you might ask: how’s that Proposition 47 and AB 109 working out for you right now? Property and violent crimes skyrocketing? Perish the word. Clearly it’s time — like Virginia’s Terry McAuliffe — to let felons vote here in Fornicalia. I wonder how they’d vote? Demorat, perchance?
Prop 58: NO
In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 227, which forbade the practice of segregating Spanish-speaking children and teaching them in Spanish-only classes (a practice with the Orwellian title, “bi-lingual education.”). It didn’t work. It wasn’t enabled in reality. The measure would stop this vital assimilation program and return classrooms to Spanish-only instruction. Goodbye English, hello Spanish. NO.
Prop 59: NO
That damned First Amendment has simply got to go. Right? This proposition calls on elected officials to overturn the Citizens United decision and in so doing repeal the First Amendment. Most of our elected officials are leftists who are doing so anyway. I‘m not and I won’t. Remember: Leftists abhor free speech. Unless it is theirs.
Prop 60: NO
Here we have condoms and porn. Excuse my bias, but it isn’t about “porn.” This is about the minutiae of a controlling state government. Expect that “Little Lending Libraries” will be targeted next. Oh wait. They already are.
Prop 61: NO
Price controls for drugs sound great, right? Except that price controls always sound good in theory – but in practice they always create shortages of whatever commodity is being controlled. Calling common sense. What occurs with shortages? Oh, right. Prices skyrocket. On top of insurance costs.
Prop 62: NO
Let’s eliminate the death penalty, shall we? Makes sense, right? Uh, no. Here is the sum total of the Leftist ballot measures on crime: release dangerous felons from our prisons (Prop. 57), disarm law-abiding citizens (Prop. 63) and provide old-age retirement plans for murderers (Prop 62). Yes, California’s liberals really are out of their minds. Insanity rules. Next question?
Prop 63: NO
This measure requires a PERMIT from the state of Fornicalia to purchase ammunition within its realm. In other words, the time and background check required for a firearm would equate to the time and background checks required for ammunition purchases.
The Heller decision infuriated Leftists, Obama and Hillary Clinton. This is the first step – requiring a permit (renewable every four years) to purchase ammunition, accompanied by fees and background checks (of people who have already passed background checks to purchase their firearm in the first place).
Prop 64: NO
Here, in terms of marijuana legislation, Tom McClintock votes yes. I stridently disagree. As a recently-retired peace officer of 41 years here in Fornicalia, why haven’t the DUI stats been checked of both Washington and Colorado? The collision rates? The death rates in traffic accidents? Hello? Going up. New and facile ways to craft a FST — or not? The persons and children overdosed on THC? Does the word “gateway” mean anything? Tom, you got it way wrong on this one, buddy. Please check how the marijuana laws are currently negatively affecting people in Colorado and Washington, sir. All this does is make not only people but government beg like doggies for their own piece of the lucrative cash pie. That’s not what government should be about.
Prop 65: NO
Grocery bags. Those terrible, terrible grocery bags. What to do? The law was part of a corrupt bargain that imposes these charges on grocery store customers and lets the grocery stores keep the revenue as extra profit. What part of NO does the average American Taxpayer not understand?
Prop 66: YES
This is a pro-death penalty measure sponsored by law enforcement and victims’ organizations that streamlines California’s death penalty and puts it back in play. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that a death penalty, consistently applied, suppresses the murder rate and saves innocent lives. And it has a guaranteed ZERO rate of recidivism. Guess what? Once convicted, twice shy.
Prop 67: NO
Your nanny state strikes once again. Tom sums it up wonderfully: A yes vote means no more disposable plastic bags at the grocery store (with certain exceptions for meat and other perishable items, and paper bags will cost you 10-cents each). A NO vote means much more than just preserving this one little convenience – it means repudiating the nanny state that California has become. Voting this down means saving yourself from the aggravation of cans rolling around in your car. But saying no to the nannies? Priceless.
And with that, ladies and gentlemen, exists my recommendations for Fornicalia’s propositions.
Thanks to Tom McClintock for his original thoughts.