Recently an online source published a pro-Tony Strickland commentary that made statements that need some sunshine.

By the grace of God, we still have some semblance of America, and within that framework we get to choose our political candidates and vote accordingly. The smart way to execute that right is to do research, ask questions, be informed and be a smart voter.

The aforementioned commentary stated “facts” and opinions as to the race for representation of California’s 25th District in the U.S. House of Representatives. The two candidates are Steve Knight and Tony Strickland. Knight is a sitting California senator and Strickland served in the Legislature in the past.

One: There’s a dust-up being nurtured to bash Knight for his vote on AB 2444. In short, the bill mandated that the state of California not sell or display the battle flag of the Confederacy, a similar image, or tangible personal property inscribed with those images, etc.

There’s a ton of history to explore about the many Confederate flags (multiple names, changes of dimensions, etc.), the true cause of the North-South Civil War and the many erroneous “thoughts” that abound – however we cannot digress here. The sad fact is that the “Confederate flag” remains solely in the negative connotation of black slavery.

Knight was a “no” vote and the predictable, illicit debauchery materialized. Knight’s reasoning be damned; he was swiftly and conveniently branded, irrespective of being thoughtful in questioning the constitutionality of such a ban.

Flags are banned today; what next? Anyone could contrive a list of chosen offenses, authentic or not.

I want my representative actually thinking about a vote and questioning proposed legislation. I’m overly saturated with the mindless, feel-good, go-along-to-get-along crowd, gutless votes.

The commentary said Strickland’s “camp had largely stayed out of the fray.” Bull. Debunking that foolish absurdity with evidence takes mere seconds.

Two: Much is made of the big bucks in Strickland’s war chest. Research it. Some weighty sources are not from the 25th District. For one, Strickland waged a campaign to run in the 26th District – where he lives. Denying he would switch and after garnering hundreds of thousands of dollars from those voters, he leaped into the 25th race and kept the money.

Three: Along that line, the commentary issues the not-so-subtle threat that if a local (big) business wrote “a check out to Knight, they would lose business.” That’s another statement that was repeated in a pro-Strickland email.

The comment seems strikingly unwise. Could not it be viewed as everything relative to coercion, threats or backroom deals? Is something afoot that gives rise to the mention? Forewarned is forearmed. The subject is worth surveillance and evaluation.

Certainly, a “check” going the other direction may have the very same effect.

One thing is mandatory for me. My chosen representative must live in my district to get my vote. Certainly, geography questions loom. For instance, how would a candidate vote if a garbage dump location were on the table? Would the candidate vote for it to be in his and his neighbors’ residential district, or in the district he “represents”?

Tony Strickland does not live in the 25th District and has not done so for many years.

Again: This is America. Study up, get out and listen to the candidates. Ask them questions, and then ask yourself if they actually answered your questions or trailed off somewhere with a bunch of meaningless words that distracted you.

Be observant of superficial glad-handing. Easily accepting shallow posturing leads to bad decisions.

Seek out these two candidates. Do you have their personal cell phone numbers? A lesson will be learned when you find out who is (timely) available and who tells you what you want to hear as well as what you don’t want to hear.

It would be silly to believe anyone reading this should blindly adopt my choice. I simply urge any voter to assess the candidates prudently and know why they are voting as they are.

Betty Arenson has lived in the SCV since 1968 and describes herself as a conservative who’s concerned about progressives’ politics and their impacts on the country, her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. She says she is unashamed to own a gun or a Bible, couldn’t care less about the color of the president’s skin, and demands that he uphold his oath to protect and follow the Constitution of the United States in its entirety.