A Race in Commiefornia

 

I often say that when it comes to politics the only person I agree with 100% is… me.

I think that Ronald Reagan was the greatest President this country’s had in at least my lifetime – I’ll be seventy in a few months – and even he did things I didn’t agree with.

The same can be said for Steve Knight, our incumbent congressman for the 25th District, who is facing off against Katie Hill, a local Dem/socialist, in this mid-term election cycle.

To give you an example, I think Knight’s off base on his approach to dealing with our illegal alien issue; he’s a bit mushy. He’s not pro-illegal alien, but he’s also not firm in advocating an approach he endorses to address the broader aspects of the issue.

However, on many other issues, notably Second Amendment rights (an issue near and dear to my heart), he’s a hard charger, a true stalwart. He opposes Common Core in our schools; is a strong “law and order” guy (no surprise given his background as a cop); believes in election integrity and promotes it by supporting Voter ID laws and opposing “all-mail-in” ballots; he supported Trump’s tax plan, which has led to the economic boom we’re currently enjoying; has voted to repeal Obamacare; supports our alliance with Israel; and in general has proven himself to be a Representative who actually represents the values that I believe are held by a majority of the residents of this district and the SCV.

On top of that, Knight brings experience to the table. He’s an Army vet, former cop, and served in both the state Assembly and Senate. He’s completing his second term as our congressional Representative, and currently serves on three committees in the House: Small Business; Science, Space and Technology; and Armed Services.

Hill is a whole different ball of wax. She has no voting record to which I could refer, never having served in elective office at any level, so I had to refer to her web site (https://www.katiehillforcongress.com/home) to get any useful information about her. In other words, she’s an utter tyro.

Here’s what I found there: “Katie resides in Agua Dulcé with her husband and animals on a small farm… She openly identifies as bisexual… a new kind of candidate, who will work on behalf of all members of this community… is a proven leader… running for Congress to give a voice to the people of California’s 25th district… a proven track record as an advocate for progressive policies… She will continue to be an energetic progressive leader… healthcare that puts patients before profits and the 21st century infrastructure for a sustainable equal-opportunity economy. Katie is running to be part of a new generation of leaders in a new House majority…”.

A “proven leader” how? A “new kind of candidate” in what way? Why do I need to know she “openly identifies as bisexual”? In what way will she “work on behalf of all members of this community” that’s any different from any other partisan political candidate? How would that even be possible, when the chasm between the Republican and the Dem/socialist is wider than the Grand Canyon? Whichever one wins will be representing the interests of the people who voted for him or her. It’s called “winning” and “losing”. I can’t imagine any “progressive” representing any interest with which I agree. “Progressive” is Orwellian Newspeak for “socialist”.

This is borne out by her positions on certain key issues. She’s for “Medicare for all”, which means government-run healthcare. If you like your doctor, too bad. An absolutely budget-busting idea that promises to destroy our economy and medical system.

She’s anti-gun, touting her support of useless gun bans. She spouts the usual “Income Inequality” rhetoric of socialism and class warfare. She opposes school “privatization”, AKA vouchers. On a wide range of important topics, such as foreign policy, defense, and the military, she’s silent.

But the most important part of her message is that of being “part of a new generation of leaders in a new House majority”.

Ah, yes… that hoped-for “new House majority”. That’s the “new majority” that wants to impeach Trump, and that has as members Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison, among a host of other radical socialists. That’s poised to welcome the latest self-proclaimed Socialist crackpot in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – a woman whose sheer and unabashed ignorance is worthy of a column of its own, complete with laugh track – into its ranks. That wants to roll back the recent tax reform, and return to socialist wealth redistribution.

That’s the “majority” to which Hill wants to contribute and be a part of. Even if she objected to some of their policies – and there’s absolutely nothing on her site that suggests to me that she would – can a young first-term neophyte, with no previous elective experience, be expected to stand up to the likes of Pelosi, Waters or Sanders?

Are you kidding me? Are you ready to hear the words “Speaker Pelosi” again?

And in what way do any of those policies conform to the values of the majority of people in this district and valley?

When I started this column I wrote that I’ve never agreed 100% with any candidate. But I’m here to tell you that the inverse isn’t true. In Hill I believe there’s a candidate with whom I disagree 100%.

How about you? How will you vote this November? I know that I’m going for Steve Knight.

Please join me.

 

©Brian Baker 2018

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal)

Advertisements

After-Action Report: Mission Accomplished

As promised in my last column, Tuesday night (May 8) I attended our City Council meeting at which the topic of joining the federal law suit against Commiefornia’s “Sanctuary State” legislation was the main item on the agenda.

Our Council meetings start at 6 PM, but there was a lot of noise from both sides of the issue (thanks for the heads up, Facebook) that there were going to be activists brought in to flood the meeting, so I decided to get there early, arriving at 4 PM. True enough, by the time I arrived there was already quite a crowd, which continued to grow, representing both sides of the debate.

The doors opened at 5:15 and the mass flooded in. It was definitely SRO (standing room only) in the main chamber, and an overflow room with live video feed was opened across the hall, which was also filled to capacity. In fact, the main chamber where I sat was doubtless in violation of fire safety codes by exceeding legal capacity.

There were a couple of hundred speakers who’d filled out the cards needed to address the Council, according to Mayor Weste’s estimate, and statements went on for several hours. I’ve been to, and spoken at, many Council meetings over the years, and I’ve never seen anything like it before.

Emotions ran high, as was to be expected, but overall the over-capacity crowd behaved itself, and Mayor Weste did a great job of keeping things running in an orderly fashion. My turn to speak came at about 8:30, and if you’re interested, you can see it here:

http://santaclaritacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=1921&Format=Agenda

I show up at the 1:58:45 mark.

The Council ended up voting unanimously to join the Federal lawsuit against the state by filing an amicus brief, as well as sending a position paper to other elected representatives at the state and federal levels.

I know there are many – primarily, if not exclusively, on the left – who will denigrate this action as a meaningless gesture and in some respects that’s true. Will last night’s Council vote change one single thing about what takes place in this city? Not even a smidgen.

But its symbolic importance is huge, and symbols have meaning. After all, what is our flag but a symbol that stands for a country and its set of values? Or a crucifix, or Star of David, or Red Cross? They’re all symbols that convey some meaning.

The same holds true for last night’s Council vote. It’s a clear signal that not all of hard-left-blue Los Angeles County is on board the socialist train that is this state. That’s a very strong statement to make at a very nominal cost, a few hours of the legal staff’s time.

For me personally, it was also hugely symbolic. It means that this community, in which I chose to make my home after having spent what’s now the first half of my life as a nomad living quite literally all over the globe, is still the one I fell in love with, and still represents the values I hold dear.

The Council vote was very gratifying. My thanks to all of them.

 

 

©Brian Baker 2018

(Also published today in my local newspaper, The Signal)