How I'd Vote on the 9 MA Referendum Questions

Here’s how I would vote on the nine MA referendum questions on the Nov. 3 ballot if I were still “legally domiciled” in the Commonwealth.

Question 1: YES. Public audits of the hackerama. Vote YES but obviously, this question means less than nothing, because the legislature has ignored the 72 percent vote in 2024 to audit themselves. They used to tell us that MA was lucky because during Progressive era in early 20th century we approved the option of passing referenda if legislature balked at public will. That worked for almost a century, until GOP went out of business & MA became a corrupt one-party thugocracy. So now the hacks don’t give a bleep about what we want, 72 percent or not. What we really need is a two-party system to (maybe) make the referendum system work again, because the hacks no longer fear payback at the ballot box from American taxpayers. YES.

Question 2: NO. Allowing unionization of public defenders, i.e., the illegal-aliens’ taxpayer-funded free lawyers who get the cholos off after they commit crimes against us. NO. All strikes by public workers should be against the law. Just ask two presidents. Calvin Coolidge, then gov. of MA, 1919: “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, anytime. FDR, 1937: “All government should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service.” That’s a big bipartisan NO.

Question 3: NO. Setting up “jungle primaries,” so-called, where the top 2 finishers, regardless of party, advance to final election. NO. If we’d had that process in 2014, Charlie Baker would have never become governor. He would have finished third in a jungle primary. Stipulated, he was a terrible governor, the worst ever until Maura Healey. But Martha/Marsha Coakley would have been an even bigger catastrophe. (Baker has gotten so terrible that he’s now endorsed Question 3.) This is yet another attempt to end all opposition to The Party. As worthless as MA GOP has become, it might at least theoretically someday rise from the ashes to become a real force for opposition to Democrat tyranny, however unlikely that seems today. That slightest of possibilities is why the fluffers want to get rid of the GOP permanently. NO.

Question 4: NO. Would allow even more election-day cheating by Democrats. NO.

"Question 4: NO."

Question 5: YES. For once in MA, would allow people who work for a living (possibly, under certain remote circumstances) to keep some of their money, rather than giving still more to the non-working classes. YES.

Question 6: WHO CARES? It’s allegedly about $$$ for green spaces, “earmarking” funds, which means nothing to the parasitical vermin running this state. They’ll do with our hard-earned tax dollars what they damn well please, which is squandering it on themselves and criminals, both foreign and domestic.

Question 7: NO. Giving state even more control over local zoning laws, which means free public housing for low-income, i.e., no-income communities. What could possibly go wrong? Just ask the “MBTA Communities.” NO.

Question 8: YES. Ending, sort of, sales of recreational marijuana. YES. How are those hordes of unemployable, brain-damaged weed zombies wandering the streets working out for you? Do you savor the ubiquitous stench of reefer smoke everywhere? Cheech & Chong won’t go to jail, they’ll still be able to fry their brains, it may just possibly be slightly harder for teenagers to obtain. YES.

Question 9: NO. This would basically halt the Democrats’ attempts to destroy the 2nd Amendment in MA. That’s why the hacks twisted the wording (just like they killed altogether the referendum questions on a state income tax cut, which most of us liked, and on rent control, which the shiftless hippies supported). Don’t be fooled by the sneaky wording. NO.