Blog Archives

The candidate’s comments on news or life

Sometimes, Rape is Rape and Pork is Pork: On California Senate Bill 967

MaleKiss

Breitbart reported on this bill in a less than thoughtful way here.

This bill is not worth getting worked up over, although I would not vote for it if I were in the legislature. Libertarians should avoid the appearance of opposing a reasonable consent standard for rape, and see the bill for what it actually is.

Although I am glad to see coverage of the CA legislature, the story as reported lacks important details.  Breitbart’s headline is misleading as to the marked-up SB 967.  The bill’s revised consent standard is not inconsistent with the Penal Code’s definition of rape anyway. It’s standard of affirmative consent is not unlike the existing CA Penal code, which states at 261.6:

“In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289, in which consent is at issue, “consent” shall be defined to mean positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved.
A current or previous dating or marital relationship shall not be sufficient to constitute consent where consent is at issue in a prosecution under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289.”

The purpose of this bill, at least after its revisions, is not to redefine rape on college campuses, but to force state-funded schools to “implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking” as detailed in the bill. In other words, it’s just a form of good old-fashioned pork to constituents who will provide the required programs, dressed up in the usual clothing of victim protection, with the added benefit of paying for more political-correctness indoctrination of students of state schools: “If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.”  The Commission on State Mandates is thus handed a tool for increasing state funding of political indoctrination by state schools and client organizations, virtually all of whom support the Democratic Party political machine.  Smart politics by De Leon.  That guy is a sharp cookie, keep an eye on him.

Posted in News & Views

2014 Primary Election Is Over

Thank you

The 2014 campaign is over.   Full election results for the Attorney General race are here.

THANK YOU to everybody who contributed in various ways to the campaign, and to the approximately 71 thousand people (2.4%) who voted for me.  Not bad considering the underlying factors, but libertarians in California can do, have done, and will do better.  I have no regrets, and have learned things by running that I hope to put to good use in the future.  To change things, we must believe that change is possible, and take actions to make change happen.

I will build on the good energy and information received  during this campaign to continue striving for a freer, fairer, more prosperous and safer California for all of our children and grandchildren, inside and outside of politics.  I look forward to working with all of you.

Posted in News & Views

Splash Babies

Free As Possible

I’ve had only one person complain about the splash babies – he thought they made me seem like candidate who is not serious.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I am unconventional, but lack nothing when it comes to gravitas.  If elected, I will do my utmost to serve the people of California, and use the power of the office to fulfill the promises I’ve made while running.  The babies illustrate my commitment to a future California, to a cause greater than myself.  I will serve the little people, all of us, and those to come.

Posted in News & Views

Campaign Poster

JaechSign2014PDF Version Here.  This is formatted for 11×17 inches, but can be re-scaled.

Posted in News & Views

Libertarian Counterpoint May 22, 2014 : Six More Issues

Kermit Cintron vs Walter Mathysse

A prerecorded episode of “Libertarian Counterpoint” for broadcast on May 22, 2014 at 8 pm, with hosts Richard Field and Amy Lee, features one of my Republican opponents Ron Gold and I.  Libertarian Counterpoint is broadcast on Comcast Sacramento channel 17, which is streamed online here.  A link to an archived version of the show will be posted here once the archive is available.  Full disclosure: the level of competitiveness and combat between the candidates did not approach that shown in the accompanying image.

During the show, the hosts posted a series of questions to the two candidates. The questions and my positions on the issues raised are provided below. This is not a transcript of the show. My answers here may be somewhat different from what I said on the show, but my positions are substantially the same.  In some cases I have provided additional comments after further consideration.

1. Proposition 209, the California Civil Rights Initiative, was passed in 1996.  It prohibits state governmental discrimination on the basis of race in employment, contracting and public education.  None of the Attorneys General in California since its passing have taken an interest in defending it.  Would you?

Prop 209 has stood the test of time, and withstood various attacks over the years.  Prohibiting governmental discrimination on the basis of race is fully in accord with libertarian principles, with the understanding that government should preferably be so limited that such discrimination would not have a wide impact.  To the extent that Proposition 209 faces legal attacks during my term, I would defend it gladly.

2. California Proposition 8, prohibiting same sex marriage was passed by the voters in 2008.  No Attorney General has defended it.  Would you?  If you wouldn’t, would you try to stop the initiative’s backers from defending it for lack of standing?

Strictly speaking, Prop 8 didn’t prohibit same-sex marriage.  It says, more exactly, that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.  By its terms, Prop 8 does not require the state to stamp out alternative forms of marriage, including same-sex marriage, as if it were prohibited contraband.  Regardless, like many libertarians I believe that defining marriage is not the proper role of the state.  California should endeavor to always avoid interfering with the voluntary arrangements of its citizens, whether those arrangements be traditional or alternative.  For these reasons, I would not defend Proposition 8 from legal attacks.  In the interests of preserving judicial process, and conserving taxpayer resources, I would not seek to exclude those who would defend it from their day in court.  Those attacking Proposition 8 do not need the support of the Attorney General to raise arguments based on lack of standing.

3. An Ohio court has ordered a man to stop “reproducing” until he pays the $100,000 he owes in child support to the kids he already have.  Would you support that kind of action in California?

No.  Such an order is absurd and unjust, and impossible to enforce without forced sterilization.   Parents, including fathers, have an obligation of support for their minor children.  But reproduction is a basic human right that cannot justly be conditioned on the state’s determination that a father should pay a specified sum, regardless of the identity of the creditor.  If a wealthy woman were willing to conceive a child by the man, the man’s debt would be irrelevant to the woman’s right to choose the father of her child, because the father’s income would not be needed to support the child.  Would we then deprive a woman of the right to determine the father of her child, because she is not wealthy?  That would plainly be unjust.  Such an order against a man is, in reality, an order against a hypothetical future woman who desires to conceive the man’s child.   A man cannot reproduce without a woman, and cannot legally reproduce without a willing woman.  

4. Alex Baldwin was arrested and handcuffed for riding his bike in the wrong direction on Fifth Avenue in NYC.  Is this a good use of police resources?

It’s hard to imagine how it could have been.  Traffic laws have their purpose, and should mainly be for public safety.  All too often the laws are enforced for improper reasons, such as generating revenue or to relieve the boredom of an officer.  This kind of enforcement (assuming Mr. Baldwin wasn’t being terribly reckless) simply undermines the legitimacy of law enforcement, and should be minimized.

5. Would you try to stop Uber to protect existing taxi companies?

Absolutely not.  I have sympathy for cabbies that have paid high fees to obtain a license while being tightly regulated.  Unfortunately, such cabbies are both victims and exploiters of government over-regulation and taxation.  My greater sympathies however are with the free market; services like Uber provide great consumer benefits and should be encouraged, even if this hurts entrenched special interests.  If Uber diminishes the value of taxi licenses, so be it.  Cabbies can follow the Uber model or come up with something better.  Government should get out of their way, and let them compete fairly for business with Uber.

6.  Are there any existing California laws that you would not prosecute?  For instance drug laws of any kind?

Most definitely.  There are so many laws on the books, that if all were fully enforced, everybody in the state would have to be prosecuted if not imprisoned.  Prosecutors must exercise discretion in the selection of laws to prosecute.  I would exercise that discretion to not prosecute any law in which there is no victim or discernible threat of harm to another.  This will eliminate a lot of wasteful, unnecessary and oppressive police action, and free prosecutors to focus on crimes that actually involve a victim.  Examples of victimless crimes include drug or gun possession, prostitution, and non-fraudulent business license violations.

Posted in News & Views

LA County Campaign Flyer

LPLAC Campaign Flyer 2014

Please copy and distribute.  For write-in candidates to succeed, it’s important for as many Libertarians as possible to know about them.  In LA County, the write-in candidates are Ted Brown, running for AD 41 and Jose E. Castenada, running for BOE Dist. 3.  You can write in their names on the June 3, 2014 primary ballot.  If enough people do it, they will appear printed on the November ballot — without having to pay a filing fee — because there is only one candidate on the primary ballot in those races.

The same situation exists in Central California, where Gail Lightfoot is running a write-in campaign for 23rd Congressional District.  More information here.  If you live in CD 23, write her name in to put her on the November ballot.

Posted in News & Views, Write-in Campaigns

Libertarian Counterpoint May 15, 2014: Six Issues

Libertarian Counterpoint

I appeared on “Libertarian Counterpoint” on May 15, 2014, with hosts Richard Field and Amy Lee, and one of my Republican opponents Ron Gold. Libertarian Counterpoint is broadcast on Comcast Sacramento channel 17, which is streamed online here. A link to an archived version of the show will be posted here once the archive is available.

During the show, the hosts posted a series of questions to the two candidates. The questions and my positions on the issues raised are provided below. This is not a transcript of the show. My answers here may be somewhat different from what I said on the show, but my positions are substantially the same.  In some cases I have provided additional comments after further consideration.

1. Do you support law enforcement use of drones? Commercial use of drones?

I support both commercial and law enforcement use of drones subject to essentially the same limits. Law enforcement officers should not have a greater license to use drones than non-officers. Limits on drone use should include protection of natural rights such as the right to privacy, right to quiet enjoyment of one’s own property, and freedom from trespass and assault. If elected, I would seek to develop guidelines and laws to protect drone use subject such limitations. I would like to help California become a world leader in the beneficial and ethical use of drone technology and other promising new technologies for improving the quality of our lives.

2. Should libertarians support the Libertarian Party or should they try to take over the Republican and/or Democratic Party . . . or all three?

All three.  And more.  Libertarians should do whatever they can to move culture, society, and politics in a libertarian direction.  Inside of electoral politics, and outside of it.  For me, being active in the Libertarian Party is fun and energizing.  But I don’t limit myself to that, nor should anyone else.  Although I would like the Libertarian Party to be more effective, and we sure could use more support, I don’t want to discourage all the great work being done by people working outside of the party, too.

3.  Do you support jury nullification, allowing juries to rule on the law as well as the facts in a case?

Yes, absolutely.   Judges and prosecutors often don’t like it.  But jury nullification is an indispensable part of the common law justice system, on which our legal system is based.  It is a crucial safeguard against prosecutorial abuse and tyranny.  Restoring jury nullification in California is one of my highest priorities for this campaign.

4.  Would you support California State Lands attempt to grab beach land at Lake Tahoe and the exorbitant fees and regulatory overkill for buoys and docks?

No.  I support public access to public lands, including beaches, and would defend existing easements that enable public access to public beach areas.  However, private property owners should not be coerced into providing easements where none currently exist and none are required by law.  Private charities, cooperatives, and foundations should be encouraged to acquire such easements at fair market value or acquire easement bequests by non-coercive persuasion.  I support allowing tax deductions for the fair market value of granting access easements to public lands.  Where structures such as docks and piers involve private use of public lands, fees and regulations may be imposed.  Such fees and regulations should be reasonable, in my opinion, but such fees and regulations are generally beyond the reach of the Attorney General if legally imposed.

5. Debbie and Chico Jimenez of Daytona Beach have been fined $2238 and threatened with jail for feeding the homeless.  Should that happen in California?

Absolutely not.  Providing gifts of food to the poor is a basic human right of both the giver and receiver.  It’s part of the First Amendment right of free association, among other things.   I elected, I will defend the right of charities and ordinary citizens to serve the poor against efforts by municipalities to drive homeless or disadvantaged people into neighboring areas.

6. Do you support open and/or concealed carry of firearms?

I support both, so long as safe and responsible.  However, the reality is that California prohibits open carry, and the vast majority of people here do not understand or believe it to be beneficial.  Therefore I would focus my efforts at supporting the granting of concealed carry permits on a reasonable “shall issue” basis, consistent with the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Peruta v. San Diego.  This contrasts with the current Attorney General, who is seeking to overturn the decision in that case.

 

Posted in 2014 Platform, News & Views

Libertarian Write-In Campaigns Commence

Write-in

A message from Mark Hinkle, LNC At-Large, Retired LNC and LPC Chair:

Dear California Libertarians,

As you know, the June 3, 2014 primary will be coming up shortly.

Due to the passage of Proposition 14 (Top Two) in 2010, we only have 6 partisan California candidates running for office as Libertarians this year.

They are:
> Attorney General – Jonathan Jaech
> CD 7 – Art Tuma
> CD 25 – David Koster Bruce
> CD 33 – Mark Matthew Herd
> CD 51 – Michael Benoit
> AD 8 – Janice Bonser

Because “Top Two” only allows the candidates with the two highest vote totals to go onto the November primary, without an almost unprecedented degree of support from voters, none of these candidates will make it onto the November ballot.  If these candidates are eliminated at the June primary, you will have NO Libertarian choice on the ballot come November’s general election.

However, there is another way that could allow up to 21 additional candidates, running as Libertarians, to appear on the November 2014 General Election ballot.

One of the unintended consequences of Top Two is that there are 21 districts where only one candidate has files for the office.

Welcome to Soviet Style one party rule!

Fortunately, there is a way we can use this to our advantage.  As we have noted, only the Top Two candidates get to proceed to the November election.

Luckily for us Libertarian, Write-In ballots in the June primary are still legal (by the way, write-in votes will not be counted in November!!!).

This means we can run Write-In candidates, which require only 40 valid signatures, and NO filing fee, and assuming they are the second place finisher in the June Primary, their names WILL appear on the ballot in November as Libertarians.

The Peace and Freedom Party used this tactic in 2012 to get 3 candidates who did appear on the November General Election Ballot.

It is possible that we could get Libertarians on the ballot with as little as 1 write-in vote.  To be safe, we’ll try for many many more.

The purpose of this message is to see if you’re willing to be a candidate in one of these 21 districts where either no Republican or no Democrat has filed for office.

If you’ve been a candidate before, you know it’s an ideal way to spread the Libertarian message, which is SO needed these days, especially here in California.

A recent nationwide Rasmussen poll indicates that 53% of likely voters “Think Neither Political Party Represents the American People”.

Here’s your opportunity to give the American people an alternative to the status quo!

Here is the web page that lists the seats where only one candidate has filed for partisan office:

http://www.libertarianpartisan.org/2014-primary-one-candidate.html

If you’re willing and if you live in one of these districts, please contact Ted Brown @ tedbrown1776@hotmail.com to either volunteer to be a candidate, find out what’s required, and/or help another Libertarian to become a valid write-in candidate.

If you want a real choice in November on your ballot, here’s your opportunity to make that happen.

Please consider becoming a Libertarian write-in candidate.

Yours in liberty…………………….Mark Hinkle

Posted in News & Views, Write-in Campaigns

Capitol Campaign Rally April 22

Capitol Rally

There will be a rally for all Libertarian candidates in the June primary, at the State Capitol grounds behind the Capitol building on the L Street side, April 22, 2014, starting about noon.

Bring your signs and passion.  I’ll bring a rousing speech, as will many others.  See you there!

Posted in News & Views

Let’s Protect Women’s Right To Privacy in Childbirth

Stand By Midwives
If you are dubious about freedom, can we at least agree that everybody has a natural (God-given if you prefer) right to control what is done to his or her own body?  A free society cannot possibly exist without this basic right, which is recognized by the 4th and 10th amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, and Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution, to name but a few.  Despite this, the State of California is perfectly willing to ignore self-sovereignty when it comes to a woman’s right to choose the place, manner, and persons present when she gives birth.

Ongoing cases in point can be found here.  Consider also the case of Katie McCall, a midwife who was prosecuted by the State of California for doing what was right, rather than what the State dictates, telling her story here.­  Such cases have a tremendous chilling effect on the provision of midwifing services in California.  State prosecution for technical violations of midwife licensing laws must stop.  Immediately.  Besides working a great injustice on the midwives who have done no harm, prosecuting midwives for technical license violations lowers the supply of midwives and raises medical costs.  For more information about natural child birth and state prosecution of midwives, see my blog post here, references and awareness kindly provided by another.

A woman has an absolute right to make an informed decision where, how and with whom to give birth.  Whether the birthing mother freely chooses a licensed midwife, an unlicensed midwife, no midwife, or an ob/gyn doctor, the choice must be hers, and hers alone.  We need not fear chaos in the free market for birthing services: if we cannot trust mothers to make the birth decisions that are best for them and their babies, who can we trust?  Certainly not bureaucrats hired by politicians.

Nothing raises my ire like unwarranted prosecution of competent, caring midwives willing to assist mothers in the difficult and sacred process of child birth.  Birthing service providers have an obligation to be honest regarding their training and experience when being considered for hire, and to perform according to the standard of care that they have contracted to provide.  That’s just about it.  Any claims against midwifes or other birth service providers must be initiated by the mothers they serve, not by State licensing bureaucrats.

If elected as California Attorney General, I’ll stop all prosecution of home birth midwives under my control for mere licensing violations, without delay — whatever the political or legal consequences to myself.  That’s my solemn promise to all mothers, soon-to-be mothers, and midwives in California.  It’s the least I could do for the life you bring into the world.

Posted in News & Views, Protecting Freedom