Simi Valley Politics

Site Search:

It is quite interesting running for an elected position. You get to encounter all sorts of interesting people, but unfortunately many of them show their true colors when you say things that they don't want to hear.

Mark Lewis is a prime example of this. He has the Facebook group Simi Valley Politics , but when I was running for Mayor of Simi Valley he refused to allow me to join the group. I mentioned to him that this is censoring me, but he did not care and by doing this he blocked me.

After the election he posted the following:

Mark Lewis

So the election is over and the next one is not for two years. I have a challenge for everyone who has blocked someone else on this page.

Not saying everyone must do this but would you be willing to unblock those members and give it a 2nd go at it?

Sure some members are complete opposites of other members and this might only last a day or two with some groups but lets give it a try.

lets all work together to make Simi a better place to live, work and have fun!

November 8 at 3:58pm via mobile

So, I again attempted to join to take him up on his challenge. Unfortunately, he failed his own challenge since he approved my request to join, then completely blocked me so that I can not see it from my account, although any other Facebook member can see it.

I wonder what exactly he is afraid of, but he is clearly showing himself to be a hypocrite. If he can not be honest with himself, I am sure he can not be honest with anyone else.

This is really not surprising for many people since they really don't want to hear anything which might affect their egos. Other examples of small people are things such as one woman, June, who claimed that 50% of the males in Simi Valley had a first strike. When asked about it, she admitted that she made it up. She was trying to support Prop. 36 and it seems that she was willing to do anything in order to do so. When I called her on what she was doing, she claimed I was attacking her on her Facebook page. Quite dishonest. It seems that many people are willing to attack people when they tell the truth about their choosen candidate. Most attacks are on the level of what you would hear on the grade school playground. When you confront them, they tend to either attack more, with more lies, or they make false personal statements against you and say that they are not going to respond anymore. Quite typical for someone who can't defend their position. There are many others who have made false statements as well. I guess the concept of ethics and honesty are lacking in our society.

Update: After quite some time I was finally allowed to re-join the group. It seems that others talked to him to get him to add me back.

The selective seeing is amazing.
It seems that people tend to see others how they want to, ignoring all the bad and just seeing what they want if they are a friend of the person. I saw reference to Humanitarian Honerees and noticed one person's name in particular: June Ewart. This is the one who said the following:

June Ewart commented on her post in Simi Valley Letters to the Editor

When you think about over 50% of the male population in Simi have at lest 1 strike...do you have one too?

I asked her where she got that information from and this was her first response:

June Ewart commented on her post in Simi Valley Letters to the Editor

well let's just say I work in the trenches with these fellows.... so from where I stand it seems to be about 50 percent.... remember you can just threatening bodly harm to someone is a felony....

So, I asked her about it and she admitted that she made it up by saying that it was a guess, that means that she really had nothing to base it on:

June Ewart commented on her post in Simi Valley Letters to the Editor

yes that is my guess

So in other words, she made it up just to push her agenda of getting people to vote for Prop. 36, which to me is dishonest.

When I asked about whether she would be responsible for the crimes of those people that she wants to get out of prison due to the change in the 3 strikes law, she said:

June Ewart commented on her post in Simi Valley Letters to the Editor

I do not take on others guilt....

So, the "new" concept of humanitarian is one that tries to get repeat offender criminals out of jail, knowing full well that many of them will continue with the criminal activities and thereby creating more victims. This person also does not feel the least bit guilty that others could be harmed by her agenda. She refused to answer my question as to when you give up on a criminal. After the first strike and the criminal does not learn, then the second strike and the criminal still does not learn and so on. It seems that some people like June either don't care that some criminals will never learn or she will never learn. The funny thing is that my pointing this aspect out to her is considered to be attacking her by her. Personally, I think that others need to be aware of where these "humanitarians" are actually coming from.

There was a person who stole pizza from children and that was a third strike (eventually reduced and he was let out), but it is commonly cited as not being violent. Personally, I consider the stealing of pizza from children for the fun of it to be violent and the claim that he did not even eat the pizza just makes it worse since he did not steal it to eat it. I would not consider a person who wants such criminals out of prison to be a humanitarian due to all the harm that can and will come to others because of it.

Here is another comment from this wonderful humanitarian:

June Ewart

Since its launch in 1971, when President Nixon successfully branded drug addicts as criminals, the war on drugs has resulted in 45 million arrests and destroyed countless families

This is yet another example that she is willing to push her agenda and ignore reality. It is clear that she does not get that it is the drugs, not the laws, which has destroyed countless families. Alcohol is legal and it has destroyed countless families. Actually, it is not the drug, including alcohol, which has caused the problem, it is the person who has abused the drug. I think it is fine if she wants to help people, but instead of stealing tax payer's money for her cause, she should create a non-profit so that people can donate by choice. Unfortunately it is easier to take tax payer's money.

A Sexist can't see that they are sexist?
There is another thread which is quite interesting. This "issue" has been brought up in other discussions as well. I do have to wonder if it was completely reversed if it would go over as well.

Cherié Lynnae Whitaker

Im really uncomfortable about not having a woman's voice on city council....Ok ladies what are we going to do about it? Did any of you think about that when voting? Note: In another thread, I asked for an example of where this would make a difference, but these sexists refused to answer. They also refuse to see that they are sexist.

She went on to add:

Peter, really...you cant see where women balance the equasion? ask your wife Peter, what she thinks and who runs your household? ying/yang the balance. male/female is a natural balance, even in politics, even in the Supreme court, my friend.. I don't take kindly to men making decisions in my life or my community, without a woman (women) on the team. That's all I'm saying. As a woman, I can say that and mean it, and hope its respected by men, if they want my respect. Works both ways. If we are all in this together, dont you think together we should be represented? this should be mandatory in city council. I believe it should be 50/50. Update: It seems that besides the other issues that Cherié Lynnae Whitaker has, she is also a dishonest person. Her long time friend, Jared, informed me that she posted on a Facebook group that I had blocked her. This is false and I proved it was false to Jared. The question comes why would she lie about this? Why would she not admit that she is the one who blocked me? I guess she has an agenda to try to make me look bad, but the reality is that she is one dishonest person and should be avoided.

Here is a good response to the issue/thread:

Wayne Evans

Just let me ask a simple question, will you? If it is all important to have a woman's voice on the Council, does it matter who the woman is? Could she be someone with no standards, no maturity, no common sense, but hey! she's a woman. Then should we say why isn't there an Asian voice on the Council? Or a gay voice? See what I am trying to ask? Why does it make a difference what the gender is? Or skin color? Or sexual orientation? IT SHOULDN'T! Barbra lost in a fair election. Let's move on. If women think that we should have a quota for elected offices, then perhaps that shows that there is a problem and instead we need an intellience test for voters, as well as for politicians.

The reality is that if they want to have more women on the Council, then they should do something about it, such as getting good female candidates to run. They also need to understand that voting for or against someone based on their gender or race is just plain wrong.

Ted Mackel
Well, now, Ted Mackel just showed his true colors and banned me from the Simi Valley Letters to the Editor group on Facebook. In doing so, he abused his position and showed me exactly what kind of person he is. Based on his statements and his actions, I have to consider him a dishonest person. It seems that he can't handle the truth and in the discussion I raised regarding real estate disclosure, he made things up in order to attack me. In my opinion his arguments were not based in reality.

It is really amazing how he can not read and just jumps to conclusions. I guess he just can't handle the truth and it is clear that he does not want to make disclosure statements available to potential buyers to make it harder for a seller to commit fraud. I asked him why and he refused to answer and instead brought up all sorts of bogus statements. In part, he did not like that I mentioned that an agent in the real estate office that he now works had refused to disclose information about a property, which is a serious ethical issue. This agent said that because he had not been informed in writing, that he did not have to disclose it, which is false, but it does make it harder to prove that he knew it.

Based on this, I lost all respect for him and I certainly would not want to have any business dealings with him. If he can not understand that a buyer of a property has a right to know what was previously disclosed, he seems to be just about making the sale. I guess he then can claim that he didn't know anything negative about the property, kind of like putting your head in the sand.

It is interesting that he claims to be ethical and then he abuses his position like this.

Index for Save Simi Valley

Written: 12-Nov-2012

Updated: 06-Nov-2016

If you want to submit your own article, please read the first article and send email

Send Mail

Anti Spam