Christine Rubin is Soft on Second Amendment Rights

Jim Kelly Jim Kelly 16 Comments

Share

Second amendment rights are important.  They are important because they are rights granted to us by the Constitution,  from the very inception of our nation.  For years now liberal progressives have sought to chip away at those rights.  Christine Rubin, candidate for State Assembly in the 77th District, has recently declared publicly in the Family Values Voter Guide that she is in favor of the registration of those who own firearms.  How does this make Rubin anything other than an anti-second-amendment-liberal?

This disturbs me, but I am more disturbed by the disingenuousness of Rubin.  If you listen to her stump speech she makes a big show of her conservative credentials.  When you are in favor of degrading the rights of Americans to own a gun, without the watchful eyes of the government, there is no way to honestly portray yourself as a conservative.

We have seen what happens when a liberal, all dressed up as a conservative, is elected.  The result is that you have a conservative district that has an elected official who governs like a Democrat.  At this critical juncture, the state of California cannot afford to lose any Assembly seat.  Rubin has raised very little money, yet has put over $58,000 of her own money into this race, trying to buy the seat.  Her own answers to the questions of the Family Values Voter Guide tell us that she is liberal on gun rights and that she is liberal on hate crimes legislation.  I believe that this is a good indication that she is what she appears to be: a liberal.

Jim Kelly is a Grossmont Union High School District Trustee

Share

Comments 16

  1. I would really like to see her answers as to the voters guide and not just a few selected ones. She is holding an Open Carry event and is an avid shooter who supports CCW’s and opposes bans on military look alike semi-autos. None of the people she has worked for, neither Mark Wyland or Bill Jones has ever been an enemy to gun owners.

  2. This is really stretching it to the max. Why hasn’t anyone mentioned Bill Wells record on The CBOC for the GUHSD. He had to be forced to step while on the Board and asked the Board to violate state law. Went on to say only reason he wanted on that Board and the El Cajon Planning Group is so his resume would look good when he ran for Council. His tenure on the CBOC almost got the GUHSD sued by the San Diego Tax Payers Association. They decided not to proceed because we made some changes and brought the CBOC into compliance. Now he has been in office a little over a year in a City that is poorly managed and he wants to be an assemblyman.

    Bill Wells is not yet ready for this seat or even the seat he holds on the El Cajon City Council.. If you haven’t noticed El Cajon has a problem or two or many that nothing has been done to correct. East County can do much better than Wells and I have full faith that the voters will act accordingly.

  3. Why hasn’t anyone mentioned it? It seems you just did.

    People, if you you feel something is important for Rostra readers to know, mention it! The comments are viewed at the same level as the main posts!

  4. Mr. Urdahl,
    Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with the Second Amendment (which is the topic).

  5. You are correct on that, however it is important that people know who Bill Wells really is? Christine is very strong on the 2nd amendment and has been proven over and over by her actions

  6. Bill, You know exactly what happened. In fact you were probably at the same meeting when Harvey Goodfriend with the San Diego Taxpayers Association stated he was ready to file suit against the CBOC for being out of compliance with prop 39.

    If you want to make your record of service appear other than it was with the CBOC you go right ahead. The people who follow Grossmont and especially the people of Alpine know better.

  7. Bill was endorsed by the NRA. Christine was not. There was a reason. The NRA doesn’t like to split the vote in a primary between two strong candidates. So there must be a reason she did not get the endorsement.

    Bill, congratulations on getting Larry’s award!

  8. BS, Larry! The Taxpayers Association would not sue a Citizens Bond Oversight Committee for being out of compliance, because CBOCs have NO authority to be in or out of compliance. The School District does via it’s Trustees. It is up to the elected Trustees to ensure the district and its CBOC are in compliance, not the group of volunteers making up the CBOC. A Prop 39 Bond REQUIRES that a representative of a legitimate taxpayer organization sits on the CBOC. The Grossmont Union Trustees appointed (you were on the board) someone that didn’t fit the criteria, and thus the DISTRICT was not in compliance with the law. Thus, why the SDCTA was upset. Now, if you want to say that as a trustee you were not part of the board majority refusing to ensure the CBOC wasn’t appointed correctly or following other requirements, that is fine, we understand the 3-2 votes in your district. BUT, to say that any volunteer that was asked to serve on the CBOC, said yes, was appointed by the school board, then not given appropriate direction by the board or the district as to their correct role is somehow “not in compliance” is absolute SPIN and obfuscation of the highest order. I am truly sorry that you either didn’t have the votes or the wherewithal to ensure the appropriate things happened at Grossmont, but DO NOT place it on the shoulders of any serving volunteer. I will call you out every time.

  9. Bills Award was a participation award which everyone receives, who does any volunteer work and Harvey Goodfriend was an individual that was prepared to take action. You can call me out all you want, but first you need to have your facts straight. No spin on my side sir, just telling you what happened. Besides, I never said the CBOC was almost sued. I said the District came very close to sued.

    Perhaps you are not familiar with the comings of goings of the GUHSD during those times, but they are well documented.

  10. Mr. Urdahl, a couple months ago you scolded me for not respecting Reagan’s 11th commandment and here you are saying this kind of stuff about Bill Wells even though the thread is about guns? Wow.

  11. Larry’s most recent comment: “I never said the CBOC was almost sued. I said the District came very close to sued.”

    Larry’s previous comment: “…Harvey Goodfriend with the San Diego Taxpayers Association stated he was ready to file suit against the CBOC…”

    I’d call that a DOH! So, which is it Larry?

    Obviously, based on my comments above, I’m “not familiar with the comings of goings of the GUHSD…”

    Why don’t you simply say that you don’t like that Bill Wells was supported by the board majority (while you and Schreiber were supporting a liberal Dem for a board seat), and that you dislike Wells as a result?

    And, please don’t call me sir. Do you also believe that women can’t be knowledgeable?

  12. 1st of all I like Bill Wells. He is a nice guy. We attend the same Church. I just would never vote for him due to experience’s I have observed. If you want to vote for Bill that is your right and that is your choice and I respect your right to vote for whomever you chose.

    I even support your right to attack me if that makes you feel better. Soon the election will be over and one of us will be disappointed. I will support whoever wins the primary and would hope that you do the same. The fact that I have endorsed and support Christine I believe answer your last statement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.