LA County DA Nathan Hochman is Doing Good -- And Some Thoughts About Charging a Rogue Police Officer

Election 2020 was a disaster, not just because Trump lost the election (unfairly, I might add). In Los Angeles County, where I live, I witnessed the flagrantly pro “criminal justice reform” former District Attorney of San Francisco, George Gascon, carpetbagged down from the Bay Area and become the District Attorney for Los Angeles County.

His opponent, incumbent Jackie Lacey, wasn’t perfect. She called illegal aliens “undocumented”; she fumbled numerous public integrity cases, including against the infamous former LA County Assessor John Noguez; and she went out of her way to appease the left by dismissing a slew of marijuana cases.

All of that liberalizing did her no favors, as Black Lives Matter activists harassed her at candidate forums, town halls, and even her own home.

She lost to Gascon, and LA County lost any semblance of law and order for four years.

Mothers whose sons had been murdered by gang-bangers voted for the George Soros-backed insurgent, but within weeks regretted their vote and joined a recall effort to get the guy out of office. One mother was bulldozed by a felony juvenile offender driving his car down a narrow alley in Venice. A registered Democrat who had voted for Gascon, she went on Fox News and admitted that she had made a mistake.

But the damage was done. Smash-and-grab robberies proliferated across the county. Thieves even targeted the Del Amo Fashion Center in my home of Torrance, CA—that never happened before. Murders increased, homeless camps and all their vagrant crime spread. Juvenile offenders committing all sorts of crimes also skyrocketed, because Gascon had announced at the outset that he would go easy on “the kids,” refusing to try them as adults, and ordering no prosecutions for misdemeanor offenses.

This is criminal justice reform? Not one bit, and remember that Gascon rose to power at the height of the “Defund the Police” movement along with Biden’s open border atrocities.

Everyone woke up, in a good way, about Gascon, but after three failed recalls, LA County voters would have to wait for the next election.

And in came Nathan Hochman. In 2022, he ran for state Attorney General as a liberal Republican. He earned enough votes to get just above 40%, decent for a Republican in a deep blue state.

Then came the real opportunity to win and do good: he entered the race to replace Gascon, switching to Independent and backing away from all national politics in the process, aside from a tepid endorsement of Kamala Harris so that Gascon could not smear his opponent as a “Trump puppet.”

Hochman won, and things have never been better in Los Angeles County (at least compared to the last four to eight years. Remember that even Jackie Lacey was kind of a flop.)

DA Hochman is doing the right things. He has rolled back the pro-criminal polices of his corrupt progressive predecessor. He even hosted a town hall in Torrance, CA, urging the governor and the state legislature to provide more funding so that the county could fully implement the people-backed, real criminal justice reform in Prop 36.

I respect all this. For the first time in years as an LA County resident, I voted for someone who won in a county race, and he has exceeded expectations. He may publish some disagreements with the Trump administration, and he does attend a few liberal events here and there, but I don’t care: He’s getting the job done. He even reinstated the death penalty, something which Lacey as well as Gascon had refused to consider.

-------

With this immense and hopeful background, I want to drill into a recent controversy swamping Hochman’s office.

The SoCal News Group (which also provides news coverage for my South Bay home) reported: “D.A. facing criticism over charges against LAPD officer who secretly recorded colleagues’ derogatory remarks.”

Here’s a decent summary from the report:

Following the filing of felony charges against a Los Angeles police officer for recording his co-workers’ derogatory remarks, District Attorney Nathan Hochman is facing criticism from Mayor Karen Bass about that decision.

Officer Daniel Flores, 43, faces 16 felony counts of eavesdropping after the recordings were deemed by the District Attorney’s Office to have been obtained illegally. In those recordings, fellow officers in the LAPD’s Training Division were heard using slurs and making derogatory remarks about Mexican, Asian, and Black people, as well as women. The recordings were made in 2024.

If convicted, Flores could face up to 13 years in state prison.

Hochman is charging a police officer for recording his colleagues without their permission. What’s the big deal? Unlike most states, California requires the consent of all parties before any recordings can take place in private. Granted, I think it’s unfair to prevent citizens or employees from recording their colleagues or elected officials in one-on-one conversations. Why would we not want to expose our leaders or other government actors when they do something wrong? Mayor Bass—who should be focusing on her burned-out, hollowed-out shell of city—claims that Flores deserve whistleblower protection.

It’s not a crime to say mean things about people. There’s no justification for such an argument.

The law is the law, and a police officer cannot undermine the integrity and trust of his station, unit, or his partners.

Hochman is facing backlash from pro-police forces, too. After all, part of Hochman’s restorative success included reversing the anti-police agenda of the previous administration. Gascon had pledged to prosecute rogue cops, and he even reopened a case against two Torrance police officers after they justifiably fired on a suspect who had what appeared to be a firearm in his lap. To his credit, Hochman has dropped the charges and moved to dismiss the case against those police officers.

Hochman is not anti-cop. He wants to support law enforcement across the country. LA County Sheriff Robert Luna joined him at the Torrance town hall last year in part as a show of solidarity and cooperation.

All of this and more should show us that Hochman is doing the right thing, and his integrity is only enhanced because of this action. No one is above the law, and for a rogue cop to record other cops to implicate them in anything, that lowers morale in the worst way.

Cops NEED to be able to discuss confidential matters without the risk of release of information. Sure, police officers say nasty things in private (who hasn’t?). Yes, they hold a position in society in which they should be above reproach. But should we allow law enforcement abolitionists to exploit these private moral failings, and allow a rogue officer to get away with betraying the truth of his department and violating state law?

No way. Hochman is showing his true colors and character by taking this case. I think he should work out a proper plea deal, but Officer Flores needs to face hard time for what he did.

That said, we do need to amend the consent-to-record laws in the state of California, as well. Hochman has remarked that the unprofessionalism of the specific police officers is a problem. I hope he takes the opportunity to call on the state legislature to amend those laws.

Letter to the Editor: "You're someone who gets Socrates! Hooray!

(Response to Los Angeles County DA Hochman Is Doing The Right Thing)

I live in L.A. so your D.A. story I read, although the American Thinker isn't a site I go to often.

I am overjoyed that you get the Socates/hemlock principle of upholding the law we ourselves make (until we ourselves change the law)

I don't think they teach Socrates anymore.  Washington would have disagreed with Civil Disobedience (unpeaceful) and nobody teaches this.  Rather they teach the Founding Fathers were bad people despite the fact they put together the most popular country on earth.  I guess we had some good teachers and parents.

I followed you on X, but I suspect you don't use that platform much.  Anyway, you are a breath of fresh air and it made my day to come across your article.

God bless you and yours,

Dan Hird

(@hirdman on X)

-----

Dear Daniel, 

Thank you so much for your kind words! 

Sometimes, I fear that people aren't reading what I write. As you may have already guessed, I am a Los Angeles County resident, specifically in Torrance. 

I am so thrilled with this new District Attorney. 

And as you read, I esteem and celebrate the fact that he had the courage to do the right thing based on the law, with no regard to politics, posturing, or propaganda. 

If you want to read any more of my work, check out these websites! 

TownHall.com

American Greatness 

2 Urban Girls

One more thing — I am using X more, so keep an eye out!

Thanks again for writing.

Oops, I realize that I did not answer your question.

Yes, indeed, I have read Socrates (through Plato), and I have read The Apology, which covers his trial, conviction, and sentence.

Great stuff!

Indeed, more people do need to read the classics, learn to think, learn to learn, and learn to work effectively.

Your letter was so uniquely welcome that I felt compelled to ensure I provided proper answers.

Thank you for your patience.

Book Review: Boss Lincoln, by Matthew Pinsker

 

Lincoln the Emancipator.

Lincoln the Liberator.

Lincoln the Martyr.

Lincoln the Republican.

Lincoln the Democrat.

Lincoln the Colonizer.

Lincoln the Traitor.

Lincoln the Southerner, Atheist, Compromiser, Racist, etc.

Our beloved, bellowed, hallowed, and hated Sixteenth President has endured a host of labels, from contemporaries to modern luminaries seeking to crystallize his legacy, for better or for the worse.

One of the most consequential, if not greatest presidents in our history, it’s no surprise that more books get published exploring the man, the myth, and the manifest destiny of this seminal figure of American history than any other.

Lincoln the politician is certainly well-known and well-read. If you want to make a difference in government, you have to get elected. Lincoln understood this obvious yet deceptively simple principle. Politics is the game if you want policy to hold your name.

Some negatives about Lincoln come from opportunists, some within his own party. Many have lingered from critical revisionists who have cast shade on his place in the presidential pantheon.

Yet one of the latest books written describing the inner and outer workings of this commanding president, one of his most plenary, extensive roles throughout his political life was: Lincoln the Party Organizer, Lincoln the Hoss, or, to quote Matthew Pinsker’s latest book:

Boss Lincoln

Taking a unique, quieter biographical tour (and tour de force) of our nation’s greatest President through the view of his political workings, Matthew Pinsker reveals to us the quiet yet profound underpinnings of Lincoln the party man, who wanted to broker then build a movement, starting with his adopted state of Illinois to the national party campaigns, that would end slavery while also making room for internal improvements and ending the Jacksonian “democracy” hold on American politics.

Lincoln was a boss, a political operative who knew that you had to pick your fights to win, and that he was willing to win every fight.

Pinsker’s work is a godsend also because, through reviewing the Illinois rail-splitter turned Whig turned anti-Nebraska fusionist turned Republican turned 16^th President, Pinsker documents extensively Lincoln’s true committed principles to ending slavery, despite craven revisionists attempt to recast his commitment to “All Men Are Created Equal” as a mere cynical afterthought.

He wasn’t just a mere moderator interested in stopping its spread. From early in his political career, who was committed to a nation that lived up to its founding creeds. Unlike the cynical portrayals of detractors and woke scolds, Lincoln was a measured, mature patriot, one who wanted to end slavery, but recognized the difficult political terrain determined to prevent that new birth of freedom.

Sadly, in Lincoln’s day, many voters were starting to sour on the fundamental premise—and promise—of the Declaration of Independence, that indeed All Men Are Created Equal. What sense did it make for the American public, and its government, to deprive men enslaved throughout the country of those same rights?

Pinsker’s work takes a look at Lincoln’s local, even arcane or rudimentary attention to politics: how Lincoln organized county and state conventions; how he networked with former and current lawmakers to hone and polish a clear and convincing political platform for the Whigs, then the anti-Nebraska factions oppose the spread of slavery via popular sovereignty, and finally the Republican Party. From the early 1840s, when he rode circuit as a federal attorney, then ran and served one term in Congress, Lincoln was committed to freedom under law before God for all men.

Pinsker also provides in depth review and reporting on the legislative horse-trading that took place to get allied US Senators elected for Illinois. Lincoln was a prime candidate in 1854 as well as 1858. He was enough of a team player, however, that he pulled strings and twisted arms for a decent anti-slavery Democrat (later Republican) Lyman Trumbull elected.

It’s important to remember, as Pinsker reminds his readers, that state legislators, not American voters, elected US Senators until passage of the 17^th Amendment. In order for a party to get their man, the state convention would nominate their preferred candidate—as a directive to legislators once they sat for their first legislative session. Party bosses and grassroots paid close attention to legislative races, ensuring that they could get a necessary majority across both houses and get their man into the US Senate seat.

 

Pinsker gives us a glimpse into vote-counting, electioneering, and the all-too-frequent fear that non-citizens would vote in key elections to turn. Pinsker’s commentary on Election 1858 was particularly revealing, detailing how Stephen Douglas, the incumbent Democratic US Senator facing re-election, was possibly positioning Irish immigrants from Chicago (who mostly voted Democratic) to move into Central and Southern Illinois, to help decide key state legislative races.

Illinois’ election integrity issues were not strong then (just as they fail now, certainly), and faithful Republican Bossman Lincoln warned state party leaders and local precinct captains to watch out for illegal voting! The issue which dominates our politics today consumed the party faithful of all parties over a century and a half ago, too!

Lincoln followed voter rolls, kept tabs on who voted which way from election to election, too. He worked with statewide maps, working hard to ensure Republican majorities in the state legislature come Election Day, 1858.

Lincoln’s commitment not just to principle, but to practical application and pragmatic approach, are underappreciated as well as commendable. It’s no surprise that this “Dark Horse” candidate in the 1860 GOP Convention at the Wigwam scored an upset nomination victory, then took the White House in November For decades, Lincoln played an effective team player, supporting other presidential aspirants with due diligence during his political journey from Whig to Republican, from Henry Clay to John C. Fremont, with no shabby interest in his own well-being or ambition. Throughout his account, Pinsker recognizes Lincoln’s ambition, yet even the failed legislative candidate, House candidate, and US Senate candidate conceded that despite his political will, the way to higher office didn’t seem manifest, until it did, at just the right time.

Pinsker’s review of Lincoln’s wise yet subtle political calculations, from assembling his cabinet, to assigning military duties and appointing generals, reveal how the political calculations of a small-time party-boss from Sangamon County (a county which he would never win as President) had forged him into the necessary, essential, and irreplaceable leader who doggedly fought to keep the Union together precisely by focusing on the moral and political necessity of abolishing slavery.

Pinsker enlivens an otherwise dry, oft-ignored academic subject. Pinsker reviews and responds to the marginal political notes and subtle posturing and policy-making of Lincoln in his early days, then weaves together a compelling account which enhances the myth of the man, while also showing the humble means of a rail-splitting railroad attorney who had sustained multiple political losses would build a strong and enduring Republican Party and become the 16^th President of the United States.

If the machine of politics interests you, this book is a “boss” of a read.

If you enjoyed Spielberg’s film Lincoln, you will definitely enjoy reading Boss Lincoln.

Even if you care little or know nothing about politics, Pinsker’s detailed account of Lincoln the Boss will guide you without losing your way.

Mayor Sharon Kalani Morning Meeting at Torrance Bakery (Full Videos)

 

Mayor Kalani wouldn't provide specifics about how she would bring in more police officers. She stated during the campaign that the previous mayor had failed to bring in more police officers. I wanted to know what specifically the previous mayor had failed to do, and she wouldn't speak to that.

On a positive note, she announced her opposition to red light camera ticketing and all the other schemes.

Big win! This is great, and I sense that this whole scheme is going to crash and burn. Don't let this issue slip by!

She provided everyone an opportunity to introduce themselves. Some of the people attending the meeting were city commissioners. I think that more residents should be attending. With all due respect, I think that commissioners attending is not the most representative for the city.

This was a bigger discussion, for sure. The deadline for filling councilwoman-turned-mayor Kalani's seat on the council was today at 5:00pm.

The city council will appoint the next councilmember on August 25th, 2026.

I brought up that the city needs to change the charter and the process so that the voters get to choose the next city councilmember. It's unfair for the city council to make the first choice and set up the successor with an election advantage on the council.

Either we allow a special election to fill the seat, or we should change the policy so that whoever is appointed cannot run for election for a full term. I am open to other suggestions, but this is wrong.

I recall in 2014 how local leaders were hoping to put Ray Uchima in the seat. They had had numerous discussions behind the scenes to make this happen. It was really dirty. Ultimately, the city council appointed Mike Griffiths to fill the seat vacated by newly elected Pat Furey as mayor.

I am glad that Sharon wants to change this process, too, but we need to organize the elections so that the successor election will take place in November after the city elections in March. Those are my thoughts. Another lady at the meeting agreed with me that we should figure something out.

Homeless issues came up. If anyone wants to challenge the points made, I am listening. For my part, I am glad to see far fewer homeless people wandering and loitering about. There are still issues here and there, but it's not nearly as bad as it used to be. Commissioners at this meeting also shared that the homeless moving into tiny housing have gotten care and training so that they move into housing and off the streets.

It costs less to replace sidewalk pieces than to clean them. Who knew? Is there another way to fix these issues?

Another resident asked why the city is taking control of all of Hawthorne Blvd. This is a big issue, but at least the city will have more say on how to run and clean and reorder the whole thoroughfare.

I have not been following the Hawthorne Metro takeover as closely as other issues, but the LA Metro Board has voted to shove this project onto our city, and there's nothing we can do about it ... so far.

There have been so many legal and political delays, however, that we may never (have to) see any Metro trains coming down Hawthorne Blvd. That works for me!

Rebecca: Flip-Flop Leftist in Wisconsin

 

RNC Statement on WI-03 Primary

Washington D.C. – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Joe Gruters released the following statement on Wisconsin's 3rd Congressional District primary: “As a 26-year Navy SEAL, Derrick Van Orden has spent his life serving this country, and in Congress, he’s delivered for Wisconsin’s farmers, manufacturers, small businesses, and veterans. Rebecca Cooke built her career as a far-left Democrat fundraiser and political operative before manufacturing a phony ‘farm girl’ persona to fool Wisconsin voters. Republicans will expose Cooke’s working-class charade for what it is and send this coastal-elite-backed political operative packing in November.” Rebecca Cooke: Called her own hometown of Eau Claire “racist” Has been exposed as a longtime Democrat political operative Supported defunding the police Supports socialist NYC Mayor, Zohran Mamdani Endorsed by Bernie Sanders Called ICE “disgusting” and “wrong” Flip-flopped on conversion therapy Wants to take away rights from law-abiding gun owners Called her own hometown of Eau Claire “racist" Raked in thousands of dollars shaping the campaign of a leftist lunatic who fantasized about assassinating President Trump and Republicans Campaigned with the architect of sanctuary cities, Rahm Emanuel Endorsed by AFSCME, which sued the Trump administration to let illegal aliens have CDLs and aided businesses on how to evade ICE Endorsed by the NRDC, which pushes the Green New Scam Endorsed by WEAC, a teachers union backing sex changes for minors and supports allowing men to play in women’s sports Wants to sell Wisconsin farmland to China

Save California, Voter Guide for CA Propositions 2026

 

Hi Arthur, For the sake of your moral, social, fiscal, and constitutional values, here are SaveCalifornia.com's positions on California's 14 propositions on the November ballot. The short version: We encourage you to vote NO on most, except YES on Propositions 39, 41, 42, 43, and 45. SaveCalifornia.com has been helping moral-values Californians vote with confidence since 2000. Please share our info with your family and friends!

SaveCalifornia.com Recommendations on 14 California Ballot Propositions  NO Prop. 1: Would borrow and spend at least $13.75 BILLION (in loan and interest payments) for "affordable housing" projects. A bond is always more expensive than a tax. If the Democrat Party politicians who put this on the ballot really cared about our housing crisis, they'd repeal all the rules, regulations, and policies that suppress developers and jack up costs. NO Prop. 2: Would create a "slush fund" for more big-government spending by California's Democrat-Party-controlled State Legislature (which deceptively calls Prop. 2 a "rainy day fund"). This bad idea eliminates the current state spending limit and functionally denies taxpayers future tax rebates. NO Prop. 3: Would extend the highest-in-the-nation personal income tax, which has been hurting the economy, the state budget, personal responsibility, and individual merit. These higher taxes would unjustly punish a single filer with a marginal income tax rate of $361,000 and up (remember, these are the job providers), without any requirement to improve school performance. California's economy and job situation could improve if Prop. 3 is defeated. NO Prop. 4: Would permit state and local governments to provide candidates with taxpayer funds "under spending limits and eligibility rules." In addition to creating bigger and worse government, it opens the door to fraud. New York State's experiment with government-funded candidacies has been a failure. As NY election law expert Joseph T. Burns wrote last year, "Programs that funnel taxpayer dollars into political campaigns invite abuse, and scandals are not anomalies—they are the norm...For statewide campaigns, the amounts at stake will be exponentially higher, increasing the temptation for abuse. It is difficult to imagine that the system will not continue to attract candidates and operatives willing to game its rules for financial gain." NO Prop. 5: Would eliminate the successor election when a state officer is recalled, letting the governor decide. No, we want the people to decide who replaces the politician they just recalled. As Election Integrity Project California observes, "On the rare occasion when a recall of a sitting state Governor is qualified, it is the people's right not only to vote to oust the person in question, but to choose a replacement." NO Prop. 37: Would create a government-run, second-mortgage homebuyer program for qualified homebuyers to buy new construction or first sale of converted nonresidential property, priced below about $1 million–$1.5 million. The proposal would issue $25 BILLION IN bonds, which will purportedly be repaid by the homeowners' mortgage payments (but if they default, California taxpayers must pay the difference. Prop. 37 also establishes a cushy relationship with the Legislature and Governor, permitting them to amend the proposition in the future in ways that "are consistent with and further the purposes of" it. What's more, saying Prop. 37 solves California's housing crisis is like putting a band-aid on cancer. Instead, the elected officials backing Prop. 37 should support a) lower caps on what cities and counties can "charge" developers, b) eliminating environmental lawsuits against new housing, c) expelling illegal aliens, who are inflating house costs, and d) allowing logging to lower the price of lumber (and to prevent "monster" fires from developing and spreading). NO Prop. 38: Proposes a bond of at least $11 BILLION (loan plus interest) for "immunology and immunotherapy research." While this type of cutting-edge research is a worthy goal for treating cancer and other diseases, Prop. 38 deserves your opposition. Because it's another expensive, deceptive bond, which is always more expensive than a direct tax. What's more, it's unlikely that the grant recipients can generate enough economic returns to offset billions of dollars in bond repayments. And Prop. 38 is replete with unfair favoritism, giving more than half of the funds to the University of California. Listen to Dr. Robert Kaplan, a senior scholar at the Clinical Excellence Research Center at the Stanford School of Medicine, who opposes the initiative: "As written, Proposition 38 is deceptive. It will funnel billions of dollars to benefit its billionaire donor. Voters should reject a measure that channels half of the state funds to one institution based on arbitrary criteria chosen by the proposition authors. Grants for medical research should be awarded through a competitive process that gives all competitors an equal chance." YES Prop. 39: Promotes election integrity by requiring voters to provide some form of identification to vote, something that is sorely lacking in California. The voter must choose among thirty “proofs of identity” that California recognizes; that “identity” must go on the voter registration form; then that must match the identification the voter presents when voting in person or by mail. Plus, it's a constitutional amendment, which is above the Legislature. And where the proposition text is specific, it could even be upheld by the corrupt California Supreme Court. So, where Prop. 39 has specific mandates, it will likely increase election integrity in California. NO Prop. 40: Proposes to levy a one-time 5% tax on the accumulated wealth of taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued over $1 BILLION, purportedly to "fund state health care programs, food assistance programs, and public education." This foolish proposition would eviscerate the state budget. Because approximately half of California's budget is funded by personal income taxes from top earners, including billionaires (expect a new exodus if Prop. 40 passes). For this reason, even liberals should oppose Prop. 40. Yet everyone with a moral conscience should oppose it because Prop. 40 is against equal opportunity, against personal merit, and is blatant theft of other people's money. YES Prop. 41: Would require pre-election audits for ballot initiatives proposing special taxes. As CalMatters explains, "This proposition would make it harder to pass new special taxes by requiring the state auditor to review any special tax proposal before it goes to voters. The auditor would assess whether the program that would receive funding could cut spending by at least 10% annually. Any new special tax approved by voters would count toward California’s spending limit, potentially triggering automatic refunds that reduce funding for other state programs." Prop. 41 should be supported by anyone who wants government efficiency and transparency. As Robert Gutierrez, president of CalTax, explains, "The Transparency Act gives voters the chance to have a transparent, unbiased analysis of a proposed tax and the programs it would support, ensuring a clear understanding of how that program will benefit communities before they cast their vote. And the public audits that follow will ensure continued oversight -- so that tax dollars will be spent efficiently and as intended on programs that are meant to provide essential support to children, families and vulnerable communities across the state." YES Prop. 42: Would prohibit the enactment of new taxes after January 1, 2026 on ownership or accumulation of retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings. In other words, Prop. 42 will protect your savings and assets from money grabs by a covetous state government. Taxpayer advocate Tom Hudson, explains: "It’s not surprising that voters support protecting their retirement and savings from new taxes. History shows that taxes sold as narrow taxes on the wealthy often end up reaching working and middle-class families. Californians want our state to do better with the money they already have. They shouldn’t get to take more money from Californians if they saved responsibly." YES Prop. 43: Would require "a two-thirds vote by the electorate to enact, extend, or increase local special tax initiatives and prohibit local governments and ballot initiatives from enacting ad valorem property taxes except those authorized elsewhere in the state constitution" (source: Ballotpedia). Prop. 43 is supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, despite it not being as tough as their original initiative. As HJTA president Jon Coupal said on June 25, "Today the Legislature voted to make it harder to raise taxes by advancing a constitutional amendment, ACA 22, to close a loophole that had allowed some special taxes to pass with less than the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13." NO Prop. 44: Would prohibit federally-qualified health centers and related organizations from spending less than 90% of their annual revenue on mission-related purposes. Specifically, Prop. 44 "imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on "program services" advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services" (source: Prop. 44 ballot summary). This seems unfair and unrealistic. Because what if, to be effective, 12% or 15% needs to be spent on "non-program items"? Spending standards are good, but Prop. 44 seems like overkill, and could result in the closure of some clinics that can't both operate and pay penalties. YES Prop. 45: Would restrict environmental wacko group lawsuit power that drags out reviews of housing and other infrastructure projects. This anti-people agenda is empowered by California’s environmental review law (CEQA), which is in sore need of reform. As Ballotpedia explains, "The initiative would make changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) as it relates to essential projects. Essential projects would include the following list of projects and associated infrastructure: housing, water systems (excluding Delta conveyance facilities), clean energy, medical treatment facilities, public safety (including first responder facilities and wildfire risk reduction; excluding jails or prisons), broadband internet access, education facilities, and transportation (excluding high-speed rail)...The initiative would set a 30-day time limit for lead or responsible agencies to determine whether an essential project application is complete. This would apply to projects needing local general plan or zoning changes. If the lead or responsible agency does not make a determination within 30 days, the application is automatically considered complete."

The Church must take right ground in regard to politics... Politics are a part of a religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as part of their duty to God... God will bless or curse this nation, according to the course Christians take in politics. Charles Grandison Finney, U.S. Christian evangelist and college president (1792–1875)