I am no drug warrior, but if a ballot measure is written badly I am always ready to challenge bad ideas. I would like reasonable safe access for marijuana in all cities in our state, but Measure U is no free market and will be just as destructive as prohibition.
Measure U is going to establish a monopoly where one business interest will control marijuana in the city of Upland. Namely the people who own T&A Video in Upland. Maybe they are thinking the digital market is killing adult video and they need to branch out in the marijuana business. They will want to concentrate the marijuana sector near Cable Airport in the city, but its going to lead to negative externalizes such as crime in the north west part of the city.
If the proponents wanted to try again, they should limit it to 1 marijuana business per individual or corporation. Also they could make set asides for ethnic minorities and even veterans to add some diversity to the marketplace. Maybe establish 2-3 stores in each quadrant of the city instead of just three owned by one owner. The San Bernardino County Republican Party is located above a marijuana dispensary and it leads to vandalism, loitering and other crimes around the business park where its located. I think a private security officer should be employed by the landlord to help facilitate the customers to get in and out of the business. I think when Proposition 64 happens, marijuana is going to be super saturated where the price of the product is going to be reduced which will hopefully kill down the value.
Monopolies suck, spreading the brunt of the establishments in one part of the city is also wrong.
The California Voter Rights Act is leading towards interest groups and trial lawyers suing local governments around the state to force them to elect members by districts. Many of the opponents who are against this because it only makes the district members care about their part of the city or school district than the good of the whole.
I think the main reason why they are wanting districts instead of an at large system is that progressives are having a hard time running locally and they want to stack the local government as how they have dominated state and federal elections in our state.
It should not matter what ethnicity, gender or even sexuality our candidates have. The main focus is the ideas our candidates carry through this upcoming election. As a challenger in the upcoming election the cost of a ballot statement is over five thousand dollars in my race. Although I would like the ability to purchase a cheaper ballot statement I would not want to sacrifice the function of the board either.
Believe it or not, its legal for people to run for more than one office in California as long as you are not running for two legislative offices. Paul Vincent Avila is running for State Assembly and Ontario City Council and two members of the Galvez family Sarah is running for Ontario City Clerk and Ontario-Montclair School District, while Richard is running for Ontario City Council and also on the ballot against me for the Chaffey Joint Union High School District this November.
When I ran for State Senate in 2014, I knew that I had to expend my energies only on that race. I could not splinter off in two directions and run for a local office as well. I know the Galvez family wants to build some name ID, but running for two offices makes people wonder which office will the members of the family want to keep if they ended up winning both races?
The only secondary office someone should be allowed to run for in addition to the local or legislative office should be is county party committee seats and President/Vice President.
Local politics watchers should also realize that the last man Christopher Agrella who did this in 2010 ended up being a last place finisher in Montclair City Council and Ontario-Montclair School District race.
This would be one piece of electoral reform I would like to see in the state legislature. This loophole should be closed in the next session.
I sent this email awhile back (May 31) to the general email box, but this was not forwarded to the chairman or the political director.
I know marginal races are not logical for the party to give 100 or even 500 dollar checks to, but perhaps after a candidate is endorsed the CRP could provide an email attachment of voter data for the primary if they are the endorsed Republican candidate (or if unopposed endorsed by at least 1 county party). The voter data would be something valuable and needed for a campaign and be just as good as a 100 dollar plus contribution. Then we could provide an attachment of updated data in August and October for the campaigns if they make it to the general election.
I understand with your presentations to local groups and the state party delegates that we can only fund races that have the best impact with our money such as the Clint Oliver special election, but small efforts to help our candidates would be a big morale booster.
Even if this cant be done in 2016, it could be considered in 2018.
This is one idea that would seriously would result in me paying for general member fees in addition to my delegate fees.
Welcome to another edition of Highlander Archives, these are pieces that were submitted to the newspaper. Many articles were printed, but this one was not.
In February 2003, the Berkeley College Republicans challenged the dominant political establishment on their campus by participating in a demonstration by having an affirmative action bake sale. The bake sale offered baked goods on a sliding scale price structure depending on what ethnicity and gender you are a member. The organization’s president believes that holding people to different standards based on their race is inherently racist. The demonstration at UC Berkeley and UCLA were inspired by the impending Supreme Court case in April regarding the University of Michigan admissions policy retaining affirmative action.
Demonstrations regarding wedge issues do not escape controversy unscattered. Former State Senator Art Torres, chair of the California Democratic Party took offense of the actions of the College Republicans of California. Art remarked that, “Once again we see hard working students of color subjected to racist Republican rhetoric for simply seeking a good education and equal opportunity” and that “These college Republicans have opted to perpetrate the legacy of Trent Lott.” However, Affirmative Action is indeed reverse racism because assumes depending on your race or status you need a leg up. Democrats are not perfect angels either where race relations are a factor. Our Lt.Governor used the n-word accidentally during a Black History Month presentation while presidential candidate Al Sharpton perpetrated racist and anti-homosexual remakes at Kean University in New Jersey. Continue reading Cookies for Admissions Equality (2003)→
Found this on Facebook from one of the political pundits in my area that was worthy to share. -Matt
Do you see how easy it is for you to get illegal, banned drugs? Did anti-drug laws ever stop you from using any illegal drug? Now, take that same exact logic and apply it to guns. You can ban and regulate whatever you want, but buying an illegal gun is as easy as buying any illegal drug. Why? Because government trying to control and ban people’s actions fails every time it is tried. For those of you who don’t know, it is much easier to get an illegal gun than a legal one. The more uncivilized and controlling legislation you call for, the more illegal guns will pop up. If safety is what you actually cared about, then more control wouldn’t be your answer.
But you clearly aren’t interested in gun control or safety. What you’re really interested in is people control and forcing your emotional, baseless opinions on millions of unwilling participants. Next time your brain tells you it is a good idea to believe in something that includes controlling the actions of other human beings you don’t even know via government force, take the time to realize that it is not a problem with guns or any other controlled product, but a problem with your own thought process and behavior. Stop being a control freak. Thanks!
Yes I am a moderate leaning member of the Republican Party and I am supporting Paul Chabot. Some in the establishment may think Chabot is a crazy lunatic, but compared to the other candidates running Chabot is the best candidate we have running right now.
If Joe Baca started to run earlier instead at the last minute I might of been supporting him instead, but Baca starting in March instead of January did hurt him. I think Joe Baca is more known and established and has voted more than part time politico Sean Flynn where the moderates should of backed him instead.
When people run for office people do look into your history such as your political donations. Back in January I was looking into if there was an alternative to Paul Chabot and I was intrigued by Sean Flynn. I wanted to know what candidates he backed so I looked into the campaign finance records and I was wondering if he supported far right politicians like Louis Gohmert or moderates like Mark Kirk. Instead I found out he donates 80% of the time to Democrats, but if one is a registered Republican he should of put his money into people like Mark Kirk. If Flynn is almost exclusively a Democratic Party donor then he should reconsider his partisan affiliation and become a member of the Democratic Party.
It is ironic that Dianne Harkey, San Bernardino Young Republicans and their friends are backing Flynn. They would just be as livid if someone was running for congress or state senate in their area and they were funding their opponents. Flynn did back an affordable care act supporter as late as 2014 and now he is attacking the affordable care act now what made him change his mind after he invested almost 8000 bucks to Senator Gary Peters (D-MI)? Establishment activists should of vetted their choices.
I find this personally offensive when a school board candidate wanted the county party endorsement and then one of its endorsement committee members found out that he endorsed my opponent in the 2014 general election. Why ask for the Republican Party endorsement when you have backed Democrats in partisan races?
The problem is Sean Flynn has barely voted. Even the mayor of Ontario Paul Leon got attacked by the Democrats for his lack of voting record where his voting history was spotty when he ran for the open seat in Assembly District 52.
Paul Chabot has served the community and is not afraid to go in neighborhoods that Republicans rarely visit. He wants to make sure the neighborhoods in San Bernardino are safe and small businesses in Rancho Cuccamonga are protected and treated with respect just as much as big established companies like Lewis Development. If you want immigration reform and the Second Amendment defended Chabot is your man.
I may not be comfortable with Chabot’s policy positions such as foreign policy and his love of the drug war, but he is a man of bold colors as what Ronald Reagan alluded to in the past.
Yes, you may have gotten a flyer from a PAC ran by Charles Munger Jr. stating that these individuals may be good picks for central committee in San Bernardino County’s 4th Supervisor
District. However I have an issue with one of those members on this slate mailer, DO NOT vote for Steve Davey, he has had a horrific attendance record in 2015. If you want a conservative member to represent you, there are other quality individuals you can consider such as Ben Lopez or Earl DeVries.
If people do not regularly attend central committee meetings they should not be running for central committee. I am not against conservative people representing my county party, but people need to be active participants and Ben Lopez has done more for the county party than Steve Davey has ever done.
UPDATE: Steve Davey failed to show up for the May meeting.
Look at the recommendations from the Chino Tea Party or the Redlands Tea Party group for ideas.
Proposition 50: NO
The California Federation of Republican Women have something to say about it.
You will find one ballot measure on the June Primary Ballot- Prop 50. The CFRW recommends a “NO” on Prop 50! This proposition is titled, “Suspension of Legislators”, so many voters will think that this is a good measure protecting them from bad legislators. This bill was authored by Senator Darrell Steinberg in the wake of three Democrat Senators being either indicted or convicted of multiple felonies last legislative session. All three Senators were suspended with pay during the ordeal. At the time, Senator Steinberg was Senate President Pro Tem and attempted to save face with this proposed ballot measure. But Prop 50 does nothing to protect constituents, instead it perpetuates the culture of corruption by not allowing the legislature to expel indicted or convicted felons, but instead suspend them with or without pay. Californians deserve better. Prop 50 is also written so that members of the majority of the legislature could suspend a col-league just for disagreeing over legislation. This is potentially dangerous and unethical. The CFRW does not agree with this smoke and mirrors measure.