Mountain Views News          Saturday, September 29, 2012

16

ELECTION 2012

 Mountain Views News Saturday, September 29, 2012 

ONLINE VOTER REGISTRATION 
LAUNCHES IN CALIFORNIA

The Office of the Secretary of the State of California announced 
it will launch the much anticipated California Online 
Voter Registration by noon (PST) Friday. Online Voter 
Registration will offer increased accessibility for the 6.4 million 
unregistered eligible voters in California; 3 million of 
which reside in Los Angeles County.

Dean Logan, Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters, will 
be available to provide comment and expert insight into the 
impacts of California Online Voter Registration for Los Angeles 
County and California voters and elections.

Benefits of Online Voter Registration:

• Paperless online voter registration will save tax payers 
money by reducing the need to process paper forms.

• Approximately 80 percent of Californians already use 
the internet, making Online Voter Registration a fit for the 
Golden State.

• Online Voter Registration will improve the quality and accuracy 
of County Voter Files. Less manual data entry means 
more quality assurance and time to confirm and process paper 
forms.

• The convenience of online voter registration would provide 
for more up to date records, which might also reduce 
the number of provisional ballots cast.

• Online Voter Registration benefits the environment by reducing 
waste.

• Online Voter registration will provide increased registration 
security by ensuring instant delivery.

How does Online Voter Registration work?

• The online registration portal can be accessed at www.
lavote.net or at www.sos.ca.gov

• The process uses your California Driver’s License or Identification 
number to match your voter registration information 
to Department of Motor Vehicles records.

• The Secretary of State obtains the registrants’ signature 
image on file from the DMV. This information will then be 
provided to the counties and added as the official signature 
of record on the voter file. The applicants’ information must 
match in order to complete the registration process providing 
increased registration security.

• Individuals who do not have a California Driver’s License 
or an Identification number can still use the online portal 
but will be required to print the form, sign it and mail it 
back.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO VOTE ONLINE GO 
TO: www.lavote.net

NOVEMBER 2012 LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES 

Measure A Appointment of County Assessor -- County of Los Angeles (Advisory Vote Only - Advisory Vote 
Only) 

Do you support seeking to change the California Constitution and the Los Angeles County Charter to make the 
position of Los Angeles County Assessor an appointed position instead of an elected position? 

Measure B Safer Sex In the Adult Film Industry Act -- County of Los Angeles (Ordinance - Majority Approval 
Required) 

Shall an ordinance be adopted requiring producers of adult films to obtain a County public health permit, to require 
adult film performers to use condoms while engaged in sex acts, to provide proof of blood borne pathogen 
training course, to post permit and notices to performers, and making violations of the ordinance subject to civil 
fines and criminal charges? 

Measure J Accelerating Traffic Relief, Job Creation -- County of Los Angeles (Continuation of Voter-Approved 
Sales Tax Increase - Majority Approval Required) 

To advance Los Angeles County’s traffic relief, economic growth/ job creation, by accelerating construction of light 
rail/ subway/ airport connections within five years not twenty; funding countywide freeway traffic flow/ safety /
bridge improvements, pothole repair; keeping senior/ student/ disabled fares low; Shall Los Angeles County’s 
voter-approved one-half cent traffic relief sales tax continue, without tax rate increase, for another 30 years or until 
voters decide to end it, with audits/ keeping funds local? 

Measure ALF Density Limit re Assisted Living Facility -- City of Sierra Madre (Ordinance - Majority Approval 
Required) 

Shall an Ordinance be adopted to amend Sierra Madre Municipal Code Section 17.35.040 (“Core Density Limit”) 
of the People’s Empowerment Act (aka Measure V) to permit development of an assisted living facility consistent 
with the Kensington Assisted Living Facility Specific Plan not exceeding two stories, thirty feet in height and 
seventy-five assisted living suites, for the parcels located at 33 North Hermosa Avenue an 245 West Sierra Madre 
Boulevard? 

STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE

QUICK-REFERENCE GUIDE

30 Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. 
Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. 
Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

31 State Budget. State and Local 

Government. Initiative Constitutional 
Amendment and Statute.

32 Political Contributions by Payroll 
Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. 
Initiative Statute.

33 Auto Insurance Companies. Prices 
Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. 
Initiative Statute.

34 Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.

35 Human Trafficking. Penalties. 

Initiative Statute.

36 Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony 
Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

37 Genetically Engineered Foods. 

Labeling. Initiative Statute.

38 Tax to Fund Education and Early 
Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

 39 Tax Treatment for Multistate 

Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy 

Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

 40 Redistricting. State Senate Districts. 
Referendum.

WHO IS ON THE BALLOT?

President/Vice President of the United States 

Gary Johnson/James P. Gray, Libertarian 

Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan, Republican 

Roseanne Barr/Cindy Sheehan, Peace and Freedom 

Thomas Hoefling/Robert Ornelas, American Independent 

Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala, Green 

Barack Obama/Joseph Biden, Democratic 

United States Senate

Elizabeth Emken, Republican 

Dianne Feinstein, Democratic

US Congress - District 27

Judy Chu, Democratic 

Jack Orswell, Republican

California Assembly - District 41

Chris Holden, Democratic 

Donna Lowe, Republican

California Senate - District 25

Carol Liu, Democratic 

Gilbert V. Gonzales, Republican 

District Attorney; County of Los Angeles 

Alan Jackson 

Jackie Lacey 


LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN


HOWARD Hays As I See It

GRAMMA IS SMARTER THAN 
PRESIDENT OBAMA BELIEVES

“Sorry People of America this 
not the Pehavior of our ESLAM 
and Profit.” - Sign held by protester 
in Benghazi, Libya (spelling 
copied from sign)

 It’s tough when there’s a deadline 
for your column, but you 
procrastinate because you 
just know some late-breaking 
event will flash in the headlines 
right as you hit the “send” button. Perhaps that 
happened to Greg Welborn last week when, after 
writing of Libya being a nation “out for our 
blood”, we had news of another massive Libyan 
demonstration, another compound stormed by 
protesters and another building set on fire.

This time it was 30,000 in the streets of Benghazi 
– protesting Islamic militias of the sort that invaded 
the U.S. consulate a week before. The compound 
this time was the headquarters of Ansar 
al-Shariah, the group thought to be behind the 
attack on our consulate. In an A.P. report, the 
militiamen first tried to scare the protesters away 
by firing rifles in the air, but soon gave up and 
took off in whatever vehicles hadn’t already been 
torched.

It doesn’t look like they’ll be back. The Libyan 
military took over the compound after the protesters 
left.

Those 30,000 in the streets of Benghazi weren’t 
there just to proclaim “No to the militias!” They 
were also there to express solidarity with us in 
mourning the loss of our ambassador, Chris Stevens. 
“Libya lost a friend” was seen on one of the 
banners, as police joined with, rather than stood 
against, the protesters.

 The report told of the situation in Darna, an East 
Libyan city which had been a headquarters for 
Muslim extremists and a point of departure for 
many of the jihadists heading off to fight in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.

“The killing of the ambassador blew up the situation”, 
says a young Muslim cleric there, who himself 
has received death threats for speaking out 
against extremists. That was the tipping point, 
he explained, convincing the masses that unless 
they stood up and did away with these yahoo jihadist 
militias, their revolution might be in vain. 
Another Muslim resident explains his own piety, 
“We are not infidels for God sake. We have no 
bars, no discos . . .” but “we don’t want the flag of 
al-Qaida raised over our heads.” 

The cleric conveyed his fear of what could happen 
if the Libyan people failed to take care of the situation 
themselves. If the militias grew and were 
perceived as a threat to the United States, then 
the U.S. military might become involved. If that 
happened, the people would side with the militias 
– and the extremists will have won. That, unlike 
what you’d hear from Greg and the war-profiteers 
from the Bush Administration now advising Mitt 
Romney, is the way it works in the real world. 
(Bill Maher suggests that if the embassy protests 
in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen had happened 
during the Bush Administration, they would’ve 
known just what to do – invade Iraq.)

 One of those who well understood the dynamic 
was Osama bin-Laden. In a document taken 
from his compound when he was killed, he reportedly 
complained about the new line from 
Washington. With President Obama emphasizing 
it’s not a war on Islam, but on al-Qaeda, it was 
much harder to get recruits. 

 Many of those now condemning our Mid-East 
policy under President Obama are those who 
warned that supporting rebels fighting Gaddafi 
would hand Libya over to jihadists. Instead, we 
saw moderates trounce fundamentalists in elections 
last July. A survey last month shows 54% of 
Libyans approving the leadership of the United 
States, “among the highest approval Gallup has 
ever recorded in the Middle East and North Africa 
region, outside of Israel.”

Our approval in Egypt is 16%, but that’s still ten 
points higher than it was when Bush left office. 
As Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch was 
quoted in the NY Times, “Part of what we’re seeing 
is the residue of support for 30 years of the 
Mubarak dictatorship”. There’s also the balancing 
act of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi of the 
Muslim Brotherhood (USC grad and former professor 
at Cal State Northridge, with two of his five 
kids born in California).

 “We are taking heat from both sides”, the Times 
quotes a spokesman for the Brotherhood. When 
they sent out a Twitter message (yes, the Muslim 
Brotherhood uses Twitter) in Arabic expressing 
solidarity with the protesters, then another in 
English in sympathy and support of the embassy 
staffers, our embassy Tweeted back, “Thanks. By 
the way, have you checked out your own Arabic 
feeds? I hope you know we read those too.”

It was after a late-night call from President 
Obama that President Morsi went on national 
television to remind it’s a “religious duty to protect 
our guests and those who come to us from 
outside our nation . . . I know that the people attacking 
the embassies do not represent any of us.”

Some have dealt in other ways with countries 
struggling into democracy. In the aftermath of 
the 9/11 attacks, one of the more moving expressions 
of sympathy and condolence came in a candlelight 
vigil at Tehran’s Mohseni Square. President 
Mohammad Khatami issued a statement, 
"On behalf of the Iranian people and the Islamic 
Republic, I denounce the terrorist measures, 
which led to the killing of defenseless people, and 
I express my deep sorrow and sympathy with the 
American people."

 A few months later, President Bush declared Iran 
part of the Axis of Evil, and spoke of increasing 
our naval presence in the Persian Gulf. Iranians 
turned to the Mullahs, and the Mullahs turned to 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We aren’t aware, of course, of most of what’s happening 
in foreign affairs. Around the time Defense 
Secretary Leon Panetta was in Beijing offering 
those conciliatory remarks that upset Greg, 
we were conducting joint maneuvers with the 
Japanese off Guam. Perhaps Greg wasn’t aware of 
them. But I’m sure the Chinese were. 


Did anyone notice that Team Romney addressed 
the AARP meeting last week and weren’t chased 
off the stage, tarred and feathered, or even pelted 
with tomatoes? In fact, there was actually some 
strong applause, which evidences a lot more 
common sense among our seniors than the press 
and the liberal elites grant them. The liberal 
narrative is that Romney wants to push gramma 
off the cliff, gramma’s mad, and gramma’s going 
to vote for Obama. That narrative seems to be 
losing its sticking power with seniors, and for 
good reason.

First, let’s deal with the issue of the AARP’s 
credibility, or should I say lack of credibility. 
Recently released emails from the House Energy 
and Commerce Committee show that the 
AARP worked hand-in-glove with the Obama 
administration to push Obamacare despite 
knowing that the overwhelming majority of 
their membership despised the legislation. The 
emails show AARP leadership telling the White 
House that phone calls were running 95% against 
the legislation and then asking the White House 
to keep that information “close” so that seniors 
wouldn’t realize they were being sold out. 

The reason this strategy didn’t, hasn’t and won’t 
work is because seniors are smarter-than-the-
average-bear. With some intuition, and common 
sense fine tuned over the course of their lives, 
they’ve figured out what Obamacare will really do 
to them, their families and healthcare in general. 

For example, there’s that pesky little McKinsey & 
Company study which concluded that upwards 
of 80 million Americans will lose their healthcare 
plans and be forced into the government’s 
program as Obamacare is phased in. That of 
course directly contradicts the president’s solemn 
promise that “if you like your healthcare plan, you 
can keep your healthcare plan”. If this were just 
one study, we might be justified in questioning 
the conclusion; after all, 80 million out of a 
total American population of 300 million is a 
whopping 26%, and almost sounds unbelievable. 
Unfortunately for the administration, it may 
well be that McKinsey & Company was actually 
taking it easy on Obama.

It turns out the McKinsey report was at least 
the fourth study which has documented and 
predicted staggering losses of coverage. The 
National Center for Policy Analysis concluded 
that employers would be forced to drop healthcare 
coverage on 87 to 117 million Americans because 
of Obamacare. That pushes the percentage up to 
39%. The other studies have all verified similar 
amounts and cited the same cause and effect.

It’s really a matter of simple economics – even 
simple math. The average annual premium cost 
to employers for a single worker or a worker and 
his family runs about $4,100 (single) or $9,700 
(family). Obamacare will impose additional 
burdens and costs on the employer. Should 
the employer decide to drop health coverage 
for employees because of these extra costs, 
the employer only pays a penalty of $2,000 per 
worker. In a tight economy or in the face of 
competitive pressure 
from abroad, many 
employers will drop the 
coverage and pay the 
measly $2,000 fine. 

The insidious nature of 
Obamacare is that it is 
both increasing the cost 
of medical coverage and 
driving more people into 
what will be second-
rate, government run insurance policies. Some 
commentators have argued that this is precisely 
the goal of the Left, that they want Americans to 
have essentially equal coverage, and the best way 
to accomplish that is to force everyone into the 
same policy. We may never know the truth of 
their motives, but it’s pretty easy to figure out the 
truth in the projected results.

Sadly, the devastation doesn’t just stop with the 
degradation of healthcare coverage for 1/3rd of 
our population. Obamacare will cause a fiscal 
disaster which will make the current budget 
troubles look like a proverbial stroll in the park. 
At the time of its passage, the Congressional 
Budget Office estimated Obamacare would cost 
the taxpayers $511 billion if 24 million people 
were pushed into the government plan. That 
means we’re really looking at somewhere between 
$1.7 trillion (if “only” 80 million Americans lose 
traditional coverage) to $2.4 trillion (if upwards 
of 117 million do). All that would be on top of 
the $1 trillion dollar deficit the government runs 
now. 

As bad as all this is for gramma’s family, it’s going 
to be even worse for gramma herself. The fine 
print of Obamacare reveals that the 15-member, 
unelected Payment Board is specifically directed 
to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals. 
There is no provision in the law for the Payment 
Board to allow increases to doctors and hospitals. 
The law also strips $716 billion from Medicare 
in order to push it down to fund increases in 
Medicaid. Right now, without the affect of the 
payment board, more than 50% of the doctors 
in this country refuse to take more Medicaid 
patients. When their Medicare reimbursements 
are further reduced, gramma has figured out that 
it’s going to be tougher, if not impossible, to find 
a doctor.

The bottom line, which seniors are realizing in 
droves, is that being given a new government 
health insurance policy (or being forced to take 
it) isn’t the same as actually receiving medical 
care. Obamacare will reduce the supply of 
doctors, decrease the quality of care for seniors 
and ultimately bankrupt the country. Gramma 
has figured out that Romney is trying to pull 
them from the brink, not push them over a cliff.

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a freelance writer 
and has spoken to several civic and religious organizations 
on cultural and moral issues. He lives in the Pasadena area 
with his wife and 3 children and is active in the community. 
He can be reached at gregwelborn2@gmail.com