April 11, 2018

CALIFORNIA’S PRIMARY ELECTION SYSTEM IS FLAWED

Our system of selecting our representatives is broken in California.  In 2011, the State enacted the Top Two Open Primary System.  The Top Two impacts congressional and state elective offices.  It allows only the top two vote recipients to move onto the general election.  In 2016, 34 candidates competed for the U.S. Senate in California.  Because of the Top Two, only the top two vote recipients moved on and they were members of the same political party.  Thus, 5 political parties and 32 candidates were dropped after the primary election. 

Proponents of the Top Two claimed that it would provide for more ‘moderate’ or ‘centrist’ candidates from which to choose in the primary election.  In the 3 elections held since 2010, when the Top Two legislation was adopted, more ‘liberal’ incumbents retained their seats and more ‘liberal’ candidates won the plurality of their races.¹

In August of 2017, I filed an initiative measure (17-0020)² to repeal the State’s Top Two law with the Secretary of State.  The initiative is currently in the signature gathering phase.  It’s intent if to remove the language of Proposition 14 that created the Top Two from the State’s Constitution.   Because it is a Constitutional Amendment, a minimum of 585,407 signatures is necessary to place the initiative on the primary election ballot.  The last day to sign a petition to repeal the Top Two is April 23, 2018.

If approved by the voters in November of 2018, the primary election system would be changed to allow the top vote recipient of each Party to appear on the general election ballot.  This is representative government as opposed to ‘manufactured’ government under the Top Two Law.

by:  Tom Palzer

        U.S. Senate Candidate

        Committee to Elect Tom Palzer U.S. Senate

        P.O Box 2413

        Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­___________________

¹Ballotpedia

² Secretary of State filing dated August 23, 2017.

Among today’s hot topics from the 2016 presidential campaign is campaign finance reform. The list of monikers continues to grow: “Ending the corrupting influence of money in our political system,” “Getting money out of politics,” “Ending crony-capitalism.” Such a trend reflects the growing public awareness (75% to 97%, depending upon the poll) that our system is fundamentally broken in this specific way and people from across the political spectrum are fed up. Given these numbers, it is in fact quite likely that you, the reader, have a sense that our representative democracy is turning (or has already turned) into a plutocratic-oligarchy. But I’m not writing to tell you what you already know. I’m here to tell you about a solution.

As a former high-school teacher, I often taught my students to practice causal-analysis in order to determine how to solve a problem. I taught them that if one does not correctly identify the root cause of a problem, any perceived solutions will likely be misguided and, therefore, counterproductive. Spend a little more time to determine the root cause, and you will actually solve problems faster, not to mention actually solve them. Thankfully, there are countless scholars out there, from Professor Larry Lessig, author of Republic Lost, to Professor Peter Matthews, author of Dollar Democracy, who have done extensive research to prove what you and I have been sensing for quite some time: we are losing our democracy.

The reason that we are dealing with a crippling and growing imbalance of wealth and power in the United States is that the institutions with power are compelled in a number of ways to serve, not the public interest, but the private interests that can influence them with the most money. Public schools, prisons, police, firemen, military, healthcare — all of these are being systematically purchased and thus disseminated by powerful people for powerful people, without any interest (and often with a direct financial disincentive) toward helping anyone else. Not only is this terribly unrepresentative of the concerns and needs of the citizenry, it is also a breeding ground for such nefarious pursuits as corporate welfare, tax evasion, and monopolies that destroy small businesses. The entire phenomenon of these occurrences are closely related, and it is all unacceptable.

Studies show that wealth distribution in America is more extreme than any time since the Great Depression. One only has to Google the resources of monied interests gearing up for the 2016 election, which is still a year away, to see just an inkling of the problem. A 2014 Princeton study showed that over the course of 1800 policies since 1980, the “public will” had zero correlation to the policies implemented by our politicians, while there was a direct correlation between the richest one percent of the country and their preferred policies being adopted into law. Under no measure, technical or functional or visceral, is this a democracy. So how did we get here? How did we arrive at a system where laws are so heavily skewed to favor the extreme minority over the vast majority, even though everyone has a vote? The two-word answer is as simple as it is disconcerting: human nature.

If someone does something to help me, I will naturally feel inclined to help them in return, especially if this cycle leads them to helping me once again. We spend much of our lives thinking idealistically, and much of the rest of the time thinking pragmatically (or selfishly, sometimes), and the idea of helping others in order to help ourselves lies at the nexus of the two. Unfortunately, politicians do not rise above this basic human instinct.

This natural tendency to become corrupted by our own self-serving interests is what leads to political dysfunction and it begins with the way our campaigns are funded. The process can be summarized as follows: candidates raise money as they run for office (as much money as possible), then get elected, then write and vote for laws, then raise money again for their next election. If they don’t please the people who give them the bulk of their campaign money, they usually don’t win their next election; therefore, knowing this reality, they are beholden toward using their time in office to curry favor with those who are most likely to extend their careers with a future donation. What do people with a lot of money and power want in return for their donations? To keep their money and power, usually, which means to keep their potential competition (i.e. us) from getting their money and power as a result of would-be beneficial public policy. Institutions (healthcare, education, prisons) are structured by their laws, which are written by legislators, who seek campaign money. Period.

What this means is that in order to solve the problems in our country that you and I care about most, we have all got to talk about the boring details of how we finance our political candidate’s campaigns. As long as we can remember that those boring details end up ruining lives and our democratic republic as we know it, perhaps we can remain interested in this rather boring and opaque subject compared to the pet political issues we all have (mine include education, net neutrality and the environment, among others). Thus, despite its lack of flashiness, this is the most important issue on which to concentrate. It is the door that needs to be opened before any further progress can be made because everything that comes after that is what builds the house we live in: democracy or oligarchy.

In order to move forward, what we need to remember is that we do have the power to fix this. Voting is power. Knowledge is power. And these are powers that we cede to others with interests that may not match ours if we get so frustrated by the system that we decline to vote or learn about the issues we’re voting on. So, what you need to know is this: campaign finance is simply the way in which candidates fund their elections, be it for their staff or for expenses like ads, billboards, flyers, plane tickets, and so forth. The question we need to address is: How should campaigns be funded?

The reality is that there is more than one answer. We should and must overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision (and related cases), instill strong transparency laws, limit campaign contributions and expenditures, and fund our elections publicly. And we must employ a combination of these plans. The details of these solutions are a lot to cover, each of which deserves their own article, but the following is easy to digest:

· Transparency has been proven to cause the wealthy to reduce their contributions at least by a little, and to at least spread out their contributions so they don’t look like they’re favoring one politician over another. Transparency alone, however, simply serves to expose the problem, not fix it. Candidates who propose transparency as an answer to this problem are going in the right direction, but not far enough because it is not the root cause of the problem: how we fund our campaigns.

· Limits on individual contributions are also helpful, but can be easily circumvented, and thus are also not sufficient to tackle this problem. Limits also have another problem since Citizens United, alongside other Supreme Court decisions (the 2014 McCutcheon vs. FEC decision is one), made placing limits on some contributions and all expenditures unconstitutional, which means that a true fix would require a reversal of these decisions.

· The option of publicly funded elections directly deals with how campaigns are funded, thus providing a real solution to the root cause. Such elections level the playing field and allow average people like you and me to be able to run for office — usually people who share common experiences with us have ideas that relate to our lives more tangibly than the ideas of billionaires.

· Publicly funded elections can incorporate both transparency and caps on contributions and expenditures, even in the wake of Citizens United and McCutcheon.

· Publicly funded elections allow candidates to spend more time with the citizens who will be electing them since they–since we–are the ones funding their campaigns.

Unlike some common stereotypes, most politicians are not terrible people. They are people who want to keep their job and do as much good as possible within the broken system they are forced to operate under. It is up to us to fix that system. Like any other job, politicians work for whoever pays them, which means that they either work for their wealthy donors, or they work for the public. If we want strong transparency laws, and if we want to empower legislators to be able to stand up to Washington, we must change the way their campaigns are funded. If their human nature is to scratch backs in order to get theirs scratched, we must make sure that the citizens are the ones on the other side of that transaction, not the plutocrats. By changing the way elections are funded, we can free our elected officials from the corrupting influence of money in our political system, making elections fair enough that anyone can run for public office, not just millionaires and their allies. This is what publicly funded elections will do for us.

To come

In the last 45 years over 60 million innocent, defenseless human beings who have no ability to speak for themselves have been slaughtered in this country. This is a crime against humanity. This is an atrocity of the same magnitude as the American slave trade or the Nazi holocaust. Thousands more will be killed today, and tomorrow, and every day until we put a stop to it.

If there’s no Creator who has given us unalienable rights as human beings, and if there’s no Judge to Whom we’re ultimately accountable for our actions as individuals and as nations, then we have no real grounds for defending the right to life or any other human right. But if there is such a Creator and Judge, I believe we ought to be trembling right now because of the just punishment that awaits our nation if we don’t rise up and put an end to this atrocity that has already saturated our land with the blood of the innocents.

To bring an end to this slaughter a law must be passed defining that human life begins when human parents conceive human offspring. To permanently protect the innocent and defenseless from future threats of slaughter there must be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution making the same definition.

I recommend that every American who desires to protect these innocent and defenseless victims who cannot speak for themselves should write, e-mail, and call their Senators and Representatives in Washington respectfully but firmly demanding an end to the slaughter. Here's a suggested letter:
"Dear Senator or Congressman _______ :
Please end the destruction of innocent, defenseless human beings that is taking place in this country. Please sponsor legislation defining that human life begins at conception. Thank you."
You can find the contact information for your U.S. Senators and Representative at this link: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials.

"Open your mouth for the mute, in the cause of all who are appointed to destruction." (Proverbs 31:8)
"Rescue those who are being led away to death! Indeed, hold back those who are staggering to the slaughter! (Proverbs 24:11)

Many women experiencing a crisis pregnancy have been pressured to have an abortion. If you are being pressured to have an abortion, please consider the following link for counseling and assistance: 
http://www.theunchoice.com/pregnancyhelp.htm.
If you have already had an abortion and are suffering post-abortion trauma, please consider the following link for help and healing:
http://afterabortion.org/help-healing/.

Thank you and God bless you.

One of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution is to “promote the general welfare.” A key aspect of promoting the general welfare of the American people must be to enact government economic policies that will enable us to prosper. From the beginning of our nation, we have had a free-market economy. According to one definition, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

I believe the following discerning statements quoted from Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt [pages 191-211] are instructive for good government economic policy.

“Economics is the science of tracing the effects of some proposed or existing policy not only on some special interest in the short run, but on the general interest in the long run.”
“…when we study the effects of various proposals, not merely on special groups in the short run, but on all groups in the long run, the conclusions we arrive at usually correspond with those of unsophisticated common sense.”
“There is no more certain way to deter employment than to harass and penalize employers. There is no more certain way to keep wages low than to destroy every incentive to investment in new and more efficient machines and equipment.”
“…[increased] taxation has not brought revenues to keep pace with ever more reckless government spending and schemes for redistributing wealth. The result has been to bring chronic and growing government budget deficits, and therefore chronic and mounting inflation.”
“[Many] politicians continue to ignore the necessity of profits,…to denounce unusual profits anywhere, to tax them excessively, and sometimes even to deplore the very existence of profits.”
“More and more people are becoming aware that government has nothing to give them without first taking it away from somebody else—or from themselves.”
“There is a real promise that public policy may be reversed before the damage from existing measures and trends has become irreparable.”

I believe that our government has an essential responsibility of making provision for the poor. Such provision must be made, however, not by penalizing productivity and profits, but by encouraging and rewarding them. Government economic policies that enable individuals, businesses, and corporations to thrive and prosper will promote national wealth and increase the resources from which the poor may be provided, both through private charity programs and public welfare programs. The wealth from which the poor will be provided must be produced—it does not appear out of thin air. Government cannot produce wealth—it can only manage wealth with which it is entrusted through tax revenues.

If I am elected to the United States Senate, I will promote and vote for economic policies that give incentives for productivity and profits, because I believe this is the most effective way to fulfill the Constitutional mandate to “promote the general welfare.” There will no doubt always be some, both rich and poor, who abuse the system by taking as much as they can while giving as little as possible. But this can never be remedied by punishing the vast majority of honorable citizens through economic policies that hinder the general welfare rather than promoting it.

I believe it is a mistaken and dangerous notion that our American liberties can rest on any other than a moral foundation. This was the belief of the founders of our nation.
Two days after the opening of the First Continental Congress in 1774, they began the practice of beginning each day’s session with prayer, a practice that carried over to the United States Congress and has continued to this day. Here is the first prayer of the Continental Congress (offered by Reverend Jacob Duché, Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania):
“O Lord, our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings and Lord of lords: who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all kingdoms, empires and governments; look down in mercy, we beseech thee, upon these our American states, who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves upon thy gracious protection, desiring henceforth to be dependent only on thee.
To thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to thee do they now look up, for that countenance and support which thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in council, valor in the field. Defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause; and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, O let the voice of thy unerring justice sounding in their hearts constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!
Be thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the counsels of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation, that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that harmony and peace may effectually be restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety prevail and flourish amongst thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and the vigor of their minds; shower down upon them and the millions they represent such temporal blessings as thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ thy son, our Savior. Amen.”
The Declaration of Independence, signed by delegates to the Second Continental Congress in 1776, begins with these words:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
and ends with these words:
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States… And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
The Constitution of the United States was signed by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. 
Article 6 prohibits religious discrimination in the qualification for any public office:
“… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article 7 acknowledges that our civil calendar is dated from the birth of Jesus Christ:
“Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven…”
The First Amendment to the Constitution places two specific restrictions on Congress in regard to religious liberty:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
There was a compelling reason why the people demanded a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution. The liberties addressed in these first ten amendments had been denied to them or their ancestors over the course of the preceding centuries. And there was a very specific reason why the First Amendment begins with the issue of religious liberty. Many of the inhabitants of the colonies, or their ancestors, had fled to America to escape religious persecution. Many in England (and other countries) had been imprisoned and even put to death simply because they belonged to the “wrong” church or worshiped in a manner that was not approved by the state. 
The intent of the founding fathers in regard to religious liberty, as clearly seen in the First Amendment, was to prevent the state from dictating compulsory religious observance, and to protect the free exercise of religion. The founders of our nation were strongly against religious persecution and religious discrimination. But they were strongly for religion and morality.
Here are a few representative statements of the founders:
John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
George Washington: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”
Benjamin Franklin: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
Samuel Adams: “While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued, but when once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties.” 
Our founding fathers believed in a higher law to which men and nations are accountable. They appealed to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. They held certain truths to be self-evident; in particular, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. They appealed to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions. And they proceeded with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence to secure our cherished liberties. It befits us to acknowledge and appreciate the faith and courage of our fathers that have secured for us these liberties.
George Washington proclaimed: “…it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor…”
Our American liberties rest on the God who alone has the unchallenged authority to grant them. If there is a living God who is our Creator and Judge, and we choose not to acknowledge Him or give thanks, then we will proceed at our own peril to build on a false foundation that cannot sustain the liberties with which we have been entrusted.

See website http://www.derrickmreid.com/

Mario Nabliba for US Senate

OUR VETERANS

By working for several years with the VA I have come to a high understanding of how to help our Veterans which would include ending homelessness. My first priority is to end veteran homelessness. I would work closely with Housing and Development to create a program to give affordable housing to Veterans. It breaks my heart to see someone fight to protect our nation and to then see this person homeless. This is the true reason I am running for the US Senate. 

JOBS FOR CALIFORNIANS

One way to support everyone in California is to help this state look beyond the tired old school leadership of the past and embrace practical progressive and conservative policies that help everyone prosper and generate jobs for everyone who wants one. We together can move from being the 10th largest economy on the planet back to the 5th and better.  We also have the highest poverty rate in the nation.  How will we handle this?  Entrepreneurs, small businesses, and tax reform are the issues to address. 

IMMIGRATION

Focusing on our security is a priority. This means using the highest technology for the security of our airports and borders. Consider in this equation that our first responders have all resources in order to accomplish the safety of our nation. For example, increasing drone technology for surveillance of our borders and improvement of drone technology.

All immigrants that come to the United States are handled on a case by case basis. So what do we do with illegal immigrants? They also need to be handled on a case by case bipartisan basis. We can create a path to citizenship where only productive, non-criminal individuals are allowed to take this path. 

EDUCATION

I am running for Senate so I can implement those policies to support you and your children as you work to become more educated, more prosperous and better off as individuals, families and communities. We need top-quality Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. As the most developed nation in the world, our educational system must raise up to our development level, not be falling behind. 

GOALS

If I am elected and as a Scientist I will approach each issue with a viewpoint that what has worked in the past will work again and ineffective programs and individuals will be trained or eliminated. Improvement can be made in any area if the right actions are taken. When one sees success in areas like more jobs, one needs to continue those actions which caused the improvement. Governmental benefits to illegal immigrates/sanctuary cities needs to end and this money will be used to support education for all Americans including our Veterans. There are individuals in this world that can make a difference and I have chosen to do this in all areas I address as a Senator.

I’m not running to legitimize this system or the election process or give any false hopes that being in office allows you to change anything. Change takes the power of the peoples movement independent of the influences of the ruling class. And, in order to stay in office you have to play to the tune of the ruling class because it’s their structure and their laws. They prohibit any revolutionary changes that make a real difference in the progress of society. However, just in case I do get elected I can, as any politicians who say they are progressive can, use the amplified voice I would have to expose, expose, expose - not only the influence of the financial and industrial monopolies who run the politicians, but the war crimes, crimes against humanity and against our class both here and abroad. For example, I’d expose the fact that 8 million people from Yemen are expected to starve to death directly because of the U.S. war in cooperation with Saudi Arabia, while every few hours Black and Brown people are murdered by racist genocidal police who should be jailed immediately along with the police chiefs who enable them. And, I'd expose the real reason jobs and livable wages are being kept from us and the simple solutions to these problems that are not allowed by the banks and corporations. In other words, I’d use that position to motivate the movement to take over the reins of power.

I’d probably be able to do that for a very limited amount of time – but it is the only thing I should be doing. Stopping global warming, endless wars by the police, ICE and pentagon, and stopping racist, sexist and homophobic violence all begins by exposing the forces that allow them to continue and empowering the people to act outside of the boundaries of what’s acceptable. It’s the only thing these so-called progressive politicians should be doing in office – but instead they are enabling and encouraging compliance with this system.

For instance, here’s an example of what could be done. Perhaps my first day in office could be to start the groundwork amongst grassroots and progressive organizations on the left to work on mobilizing an occupation of the White House that was sustainable and could last for months. After the groundwork was laid maybe I’d call a press conference to the 100’s of millions my voice could reach from that platform and make a public call for the occupation. That would probably be my last day in office but that short time in office and the grassroots organizing I would have done would make a greater contribution to our struggle than any of these enabling politicians in office today, whether they be in office for 10 or 1000 years. And, who knows – depending on the state of the movement in the streets maybe I’d be able to stay a little while longer. That’s just one for instance, there’s many more.

In thinking about any electoral struggle, it’s important to understand that the executive and legislative branches of government have been rigged to ensure the status quo since the late 1800’s. That’s when the money of the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Mellons and Morgans, to name a few, locked up the system with the enormous profits they gained from cotton production – in other words slavery. Over 90% of the time whomever the majority of the largest financial and industrial monopolists favored with their donations won. Even in this election of Trump where he was supposedly outspent (not if you count the free media he got), the ruling class could have used the electoral college any way they wanted to change results - but I think they liked those promised tax cuts. Likewise in history, the electoral collage was used for that purpose, and was also used to help end Reconstruction.

The electoral struggle has to be used as a means to a revolutionary end - not in a way which enables acceptance of this unacceptable system of capitalism. The electoral struggle should not be a struggle for a career, it should be seen as one of the many tools that can be used to expose and abolish capitalism, not enable it. The measure of my success is not winning the office of senator, if that could happen – and I guess in an infinite universe, anything that can happen, will - then so be it. But, I’m not running for that purpose, I’m running to win our future. I’m running to quicken the pace of the revolutionary process liberating humanity from exploitation, oppression, poverty and war. I need your vote to do that. Let’s show others that our numbers are large and the revolutionary waters are warm, so they will feel compelled to come on in and start swimming.

Whatever we do, we can’t continue to accept and enable the unacceptable.