More about California

The position that the state of California has put themselves into is idiotic. First of all, the state is asserting that it does not have to follow federal law regarding immigration, and any first year law student can see that clearly the federal government has the authority regarding immigration. Then they have taken the position that they can dictate to businesses that the business must also act in a criminal and unlawful manner by not obeying federal law. Taken as a whole, the whole scenario which the California government has set up is nothing less than a criminal stance for which the responsible parties should be arrested and prosecuted.

However, it gets even more idiotic to see the California leadership’s response to Orange County and several cities in California action of opposing the California “sanctuary status”. California claims that the Counties and cities must obey the California laws, but that they don’t have to obey Federal laws. It is gross stupidity, and California will be held accountable for their unlawful actions. Until that happens, I completely support Orange County and the individual cities opposing the clearly unlawful actions of the political regime currently ruling California. It is my hope that the individuals leading this political regime will be dealt with in the most serious manner possible, with serious consequences for their subversive activities.

Census and California

In Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution it specifies that the House of Representatives shall have representatives allocated to each state to reflect that state’s population. It is obvious that each representative was supposed to represent approximately the same number of people across all states, and that they also were to represent the citizens who elected them. These two points are fundamental to the concept of representative government. To repeat, an elected house representative should represent a specified number of voters so that there is equal representation of all the voting citizens of the country. It is ludicrous to claim that an elected representative represents people who are not citizens and not qualified to vote. Exemplifying the will of the voters and the welfare of the voters should be the objectives of the elected representative.

In Article 1, Section 2 it also specifies that there shall be a count taken every ten years to ensure that the number of citizens being represented is still approximately the same for all members of the house. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that this ten year enumeration should include non-citizens who have no right to representation in the House of Representatives. To be more specific, if a state has a substantial number of non-citizens residing in it who are counted the same as citizens, the state will be apportioned more representatives than they should have. This is in fact the truth. The ten year census which should count the number of citizens to be represented actually does not differentiate between eligible citizens and illegal aliens. This is distorting the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives. I will use the state of California as an example to demonstrate how this is destroying a fair allocation of seats in the House.

The population of California based on the 2010 census was 37,254,518. That is the total number derived for everyone, including illegal aliens. The number of seats allocated in the House of Representative for California based on the 2010 census was 53 seats. However, multiple sources estimating the number of illegal aliens in California conclude that there are between 2.3 million and 2.7 million illegal aliens living in California. Therefore, the number of seats in the House of Representatives allocated to California included seats for these illegal aliens. The math is simple, 2.3 million divided by 37 million calculates out to more than 6% of the California seats are due to counting illegal aliens the same as citizens. California has three more seats allocated to it than it should. Illegal aliens DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The other states should be incensed by the over representation of California due to the counting of illegals in the apportionment of House seats. The California reaction to the inclusion of a question regarding citizenship in the next census was one of projected outrage, and you should be able to guess why California would be violently opposed to it. California has been allocated excessive seats in the House of Representative, and they will fight anything which may reduce their unfair representation. Not only should there be a question about citizenship on the census form, but there should also be some valid confirmation that those claiming to be citizens actually are citizens before including them in the calculation of seats in the House of Representatives.  

In addition to the excessive seats in the House of Representatives, California also receives excessive federal funds from the Federal government based on counting the illegal aliens as if they are citizens. This is little more than thievery on the part of California, and you can bet that they will react violently to any effort to reduce the excessive amount of any federal funding they receive.

about Mitch McConnel - senate majority leader

If you are a Trump supporter watching all of the hate-filled activity by the liberal left against Trump, you would probably say that the liberal left are the major obstacle blocking President Trump’s effort to clean up the immigration problem. For those of you that have not defined his plan, it is quite simple. First, stop the inflow of illegal aliens into the U.S. Second, get rid of the criminal and gang-related elements of the illegals currently in America. Third, handle the issue of DACA. Fourth, get rid of the idiotic current immigration laws such as chain immigration and immigration by lottery and install a system where the objective is to allow immigration which is more beneficial for Americans. Personally, I cannot understand how anyone can oppose either of the first two objectives. They both provide for a safer and more law-abiding environment which has to improve the quality of American life. I will discuss the real reason the liberal left leadership opposes them in a future article, but for now I will make the assertion that the most significant opposition blocking President Trump is from Senator Mitch McConnell. He is absolutely refusing to make the necessary senate rule changes that will allow a simple majority of senators to pass a bill. Instead, Mitch McConnell is adamantly defending the rules that demand that a bill must garner the votes of 60 senators for passage. This is idiotic and is intended to allow the obstruction of passage of any bill, and the number 60 is a contrived number. Why not say that a bill must be supported by 90 senators for passage, or 65 senators? Any number other than 51, a simple majority, is ludicrous. The question to ask is, “Why won’t Mitch McConnell permit the rules to be changed?”

In my opinion, there are only two possible answers to this question. The first is that Mitch thinks that it is necessary to keep rules in place for the express purpose of providing a vehicle where the minority can control which bills can pass. If this is the case, it points to the obvious conclusion that Mitch is oriented to ensuring that the senate will be ineffective and unable to function. Stated differently, his outlook is that of an obstructionist. Rather than ensuring that the senate is able to pass bills he prefers to see nothing be accomplished.

The second possible answer is more probable in my mind. It appears that Mitch is opposed to any action being taken to stop the inflow of illegal aliens, or any action to rid ourselves of criminal elements of the illegal aliens currently in our country. The reason that I think this is more probable is because of the “omnibus” bill that was just negotiated with Mitch being one of the four people responsible for writing the bill. The bill that Mitch helped write totally disregards the whole issue of illegal aliens. Paul Ryan also participated in creating this abortion of a bill and should probably be lumped with Mitch as opposing Trump. Both of them must be removed from their positions leading the senate and the house before the passage of meaningful legislation regarding immigration will be possible!

 

I am disgusted

As a conservative republican and staunch Trump supporter, I find the funding bill which was just passed to be a total betrayal. I blame almost the entire betrayal on Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. According to what I have ascertained, these two “negotiated” with Chuck Schummer and Nancy Pelosi to create this abomination. However, I find it laughable to refer to the process as one of negotiation when the Dimms got everything and President Trump got almost nothing. Mitch and Paul gave away the farm. They did not even get a poor price for the farm. The funding for the border wall is non-existent. The ICE resources are being reduced. The Sanctuary cities federal funding is guaranteed. Even Planned Parenthood is fully funded. I have a question for Mitch and Paul. Why didn’t you also double the funding for Planned Parenthood up to an even billion? After all, you could have stolen the extra half-billion from the military funding!

The second part of my feeling of betrayal is directed at the Republicans in both houses. You knew that you were being intentionally given totally inadequate time to digest the bill. In your position, I would have taken that as a display of total disrespect, and refused to be placed in that position. I would have displayed my displeasure at being excluded from the process and being given the bum’s rush by voting against the bill.

I feel some empathy for President Trump, but I also know that he did not express his displeasure with the bill before the votes were done by congress. So I fault him for not vigorously resisting the bill. He was the last line of defense, and only he has the veto power. He should have used it.

The final result is legislation that guarantees that taxpayer money is going to be wasted on pork belly projects that are the Dimms desire, but any and all negative results, and there will be many, will be blamed on the Republicans by the Dimms!

Mueller special counsel

The scope of the Mueller special counsel established by Rosenstein is so broad and so vague that it essentially provides no limits to what possible crimes Mueller can investigate, no limits to the time frame that Mueller can investigate, and no limits to how long Mueller can continue to employ a fishing expedition to unreasonably search through President Trump’s entire life. Any reasonable person reviewing the actions of the special counsel would certainly see a perfect example of unreasonable search and seizure. There was never any probable cause established to justify the ongoing fishing expedition by Mueller. The initial scope of the investigation was purported to be collusion between Trump and Russian operatives during the presidential campaign. Where is the probable cause to support this purported search? The “steele dossier” was never verified and has since debunked. It certainly cannot be the “probable cause” for the Mueller fishing expedition in search of a crime.

Was the firing of Comey used as probable cause for initiating the ongoing violation of President Trump’s privacy and the privacy of his campaign team? Rosenstein’s memo regarding Comey detailed very valid reasons to support the firing of Comey, and Comey’s actions during the Hillary email investigation so obviously violated FBI investigation protocol as to also provide more than sufficient reason for him to be fired. No, Comey’s firing most definitely does not fulfill the “Probable cause” requirement for conducting an extensive unwarranted search operation against President Trump.

In addition, what law or statute might have been broken if Trump had talked to the Russians regarding election matters? Part of the probable cause requirement is that there must be an indication that some criminal activity occurred. Collusion would be an unethical behavio, but just ask Andrew Weissman, one of the unethical lawyers in the Mueller group, about unethical conduct. By all accounts, he is a master of unethical behavior!

So, at best, there was unverified, politically based propaganda paid for by the DNC generated by Russian propagandists that was the so-called probable cause used by the left-wing rogue FBI agents to initiate a never-ending violation of President Trump’s fourth amendment rights in the form of an ongoing special counsel set up with purposefully vague oversight to ensure that the investigation will never be terminated.

Andrew McCabe is NOT A VICTIM

I am getting sick and tired of hearing people sitting at the bottom of a cesspool claiming that they are defending the high moral ground. Over this weekend, FBI agent Andrew McCabe did exactly that, and it is infuriating. First of all, the FBI director instantly suspended McCabe many weeks ago after hearing the Inspector General’s report on McCabe’s actions. Such radical action enacted that quickly is recognition that McCabe’s offenses were very severe. Then, it must be noted that the FBI agency that recommended that McCabe be fired has the assignment to investigate the professional actions of FBI personnel. It only recommends firing for severe breaches of professional conduct. So, the Inspector General recognized the severity, and the Head of the FBI recognized the severity, and the agency recognized the severity of McCabe’s offenses. Firing McCabe was fully justified, and it must be noted that President Trump was not the person who fired him. I believe that there should also be criminal charges brought against McCabe. Perjury is a felony. McCabe has removed himself from the “high ground” of being a “respected” member of the FBI and placed himself in the cesspool of having committed offenses for which he may be prosecuted.

Michael Flynn has been charged with a felony, and there is still some doubt that he actually lied to the FBI. But the main stream media is falling all over itself to support McCabe’s far-fetched claim that he is a victim. HE COMMITTED THE OFFENSES FOR WHICH HE WAS FIRED. He is not a victim.

Last of all, the liberal media is crying crocodile tears about him losing his pension! That is not the truth. He is merely forced to wait until he reaches the pension age before collecting his pension. If he had not been fired, he could draw it immediately, but wait, there is some liberal politician who will ensure that he can collect his pension immediately. So, in reality, he has been fired for committing a felonious act for which he will receive his full pension immediately, and you can be sure that the liberals will protect him from any kind of punishment. Instead, the liberals will probably erect a statue to celebrate his felonious conduct.

opposition and corruption

Since President Trump has been elected, the Dimms have utilized every conceivable means to interfere with a smoothly functioning government. While it is understandable that there will always be an opposition party, and that there must be an opportunity for the expression of that opposition, it is imperative that the majority party have the ability to govern. The inability of the majority party to implement legislation when it has the majority in both houses of congress leads to an ineffective government, and this is dangerous in our modern world. There are a number of problems in how our current government functions which really need to be addressed.

First of all, an incoming administration needs to have the power to set up their administrative officers efficiently. There are hundreds of positions to be appointed, and these appointments need to occur expediently. There is absolutely no reason that congress should have any involvement in the process of presidential appointments. The current process of congressional confirmation of presidential appointments should be discontinued as it is dysfunctional and specifically intended to be a means of hindering the implementation of an incoming presidential administration. Since the recension of the confirmation process would have to be passed by congress, there is almost zero chance that this change will ever be made, but it really does need to be done.

Secondly, the basic rule of a democratically based government is that the majority rules. Simply stated, if the majority of both houses of congress vote for a law, and the president signs it, then the measure should become law. That is not the way the process currently works. In the senate, new legislation must receive 60 votes (out of 100) to pass. This is just plain wrong. It is a rule that the senate has in place simply to obstruct the passing of a law. It specifically grants 41 senators control of the senate. If there are 41 senators who will oppose new legislation, then it cannot be passed, so instead of the senate being controlled by a majority (51 senators), the minority rules. This needs to be eliminated and never resurrected again. It guarantees that the senate will be totally ineffective. Since this is simply a senate rule, it can be changed easily by a majority vote in the senate.

The next area of concern is in regards to misuse of government power, specifically in the FBI. Stated in a nutshell, the Obama administration used documents created and paid for by the democrats as the basis for a corrupt group of rogue FBI agents to unlawfully initiate spying and unwarranted investigations into republicans during a presidential campaign. These FBI activities were specifically aimed at hindering or destroying the republican candidate. This is the kind of misuse of government power typically employed by dictators to destroy their political opposition, and must be stopped in America. Related to this problem is the stonewalling of congressional requests for information from the FBI. Congress has constitutional oversight authority of the FBI, and non-compliance by the FBI is akin to the actions of a police state. To address this area of concern, I think that we need to set up an internal affairs unit within the FBI. It would first of all be the enforcer that would guarantee that information requests from congress would be quickly accommodated. It should maintain duplicate records of FBI documents which should inaccessible by regular FBI agents so as to ensure that corrupt FBI persons could not hide documents. It also should have the power to review all FBI investigations to look for material deviations from standard FBI procedures looking for evidence of corruption. Last of all, it should have full prosecution powers so that it could properly handle any FBI corruption found.

Also, the Dimms have enhanced the art of “judge shopping” to a high level in their efforts to hinder President Trump’s administration. Simply stated, the Dimms know which judges are “liberal” oriented and willing to hand out rulings which have no basis in written law. Every time President Trump issues an executive order, the Dimms file a lawsuit in a liberal-biased court to prevent the implementation of the order. The biased judge then issues a decision which impedes the executive order temporarily. Some of these decisions have been so flighty that it is hard to believe that a federal judge would sully his reputation by issuing such a decision. In the constitution, there is a reference to the concept of terminating a judge’s tenure if he does not exhibit “good” behavior. In my opinion, “bad” behavior could be defined as issuing capricious decisions based on nothing more than political motives with no written law that supports the decision. Since congress is the agent that writes our laws and should know the intent and/or purpose of the law, it seems logical that repeated judicial decisions by a specific judge should be reviewable by a congressional committee on request to determine if the judge is exhibiting “bad” behavior. If the committee finds evidence of “bad” behavior, then there should be an “impeachment” process available to terminate the judge’s tenure. I think that there must be a process defined to permit an initiation of an investigation with a further “impeachment” process defined to reign in this judicial overreach by biased judges.

Last of all, as was clearly demonstrated by the contempt of congress by Eric Holder and Lois Lerner during the Obama administration, the penalties for contempt of congress are totally inadequate. Both Eric Holder and Lois Lerner effectively gave congress zero respect or cooperation, and there was zero consequences for their contempt of congress. The penalties should be increased, and the enforcement should be handled directly by congress without the involvement of the DOJ.

liberal left illogic

The beliefs and attitudes being expressed constantly by the liberal left leaders are generally illogical, destructive, hateful or unproductive. There are so many statements that they constantly make which are so flawed, it is really hard to know where to start in debunking them. So, I will just jump in with the immigration issue.

The United States is a sovereign nation which exists within something called “borders”. This is not unique. Every sovereign nation in the world is defined by its borders. Every nation has the right to decide who can enter their country, or conversely deny access to anyone. If this were not so, then the use of visas and passports would not exist. They are a couple of examples of methods which are employed by all nations to monitor and control access into their countries. The liberal left has endorsed many illogical beliefs regarding America’s right to control immigration. Here is a list of some of their odd beliefs.

1.     America’s borders do not need to be protected.

2.     America’s immigration laws can be ignored by anyone wanting to enter our country.

3.     Entering America illegally is not a crime.

4.     Entering America is a right, not a privilege.

5.      Illegal aliens are the same as legal immigrants.

6.     American citizens have the right to assist illegal aliens evade the police.

7.     All illegal aliens are innocent victims needing sanctuary protection.

8.     Immigration laws and enforcement are all based in racism.

9.     Only ‘criminal’ illegal aliens should be deported.

For the sake of brevity, I will only address item 1 in this article. Any nation has the right and the requirement to defend their borders. If left undefended, a nation’s borders cease to exist. Trespassers will cross the border to plunder the nation’s wealth, rob the nation’s citizens, or even lay claim to the ‘unprotected’ land. The most idiotic of the liberals who demean the need to protect America’s borders are the Hollywood elite, political elite, and many of the wealthy. Look at these elite’s homes, or rather estates. Most of them can be described as extensive land with mansion’s all enclosed by a barrier to prevent anyone from ‘trespassing’ on their land. Many or maybe most also employ 24-hour security people to further enhance their exclusion of unwanted people. The message is quite clear. The elites should have their property and wealth protected because there are people who will steal it. However, these same people will claim that America’s borders do not need to be defended. The underlying, unspoken assertion being made is that there are no illegals who will plunder, steal or destroy America’s wealth. It is plain idiocy! Anyone with a brain knows that there are drug dealers who exploit undefended borders, and there are terrorists who want to invade America for the sole purpose of wreaking havoc. There are a plethora of criminals who exploit our lack of border security. Last of all, the uncontrolled flood of illegal aliens into our country defiles our national security, places an enormous financial burden on American resources, and creates an atmosphere of entitlement whereby illegals who disrespect our immigration laws also think that America should provide them with a whole laundry list of benefits. A country that does not protect its borders will cease to exist as a sovereign nation, and a nation that is wealthy that does not control who is entering their country will be ravaged and brought to financial ruin.

California protects criminals

Here’s a look at some criminal aliens who were arrested then released back onto the streets by
California officials, despite the requests of immigration authorities:

• Nery Estrada-Margos
• Nery Estrada-Margos, a citizen of Guatemala, was arrested last year in Santa Rosa, California on charges of inflicting corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant, only to be released just days later in defiance of federal immigration authorities. He was arrested a couple of weeks later as a suspect in the murder of his girlfriend, Veronica Cabrera Ramirez. He is currently in Sonoma County Sheriff’s custody.

If he had been taken into custody by immigration authorities, maybe Veronica would still be alive. However, California authorities will tell you that releasing a known criminal back into society makes the society safer. What a crock!

Bernabe Garcia-Lopez

• On January 20, 2014, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department in California arrested Bernabe Garcia-Lopez, a citizen of Mexico, on DUI charges. He was previously removed by immigration officials in 2008 and had prior convictions in Riverside County for rape and for hit-and-run. Despite his past criminal history and a detainer request from immigration officials, he was released from custody the following day. Garcia was arrested again the next year for another DUI. Despite immigration officials’ request to hold Garcia , he was released once again and is currently at large.

California obviously desires that criminal aliens be free to cause havoc and destruction without regard for the right of citizens to safety and security.

Santos Lopez-Avila

• On November 21, 2016 the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) arrested Santos Lopez-Avila, a citizen of Honduras, for possession of cocaine for sale and other charges. Lopez had been deported three times – in 2010, 2013 and 2015 – and had previous convictions in San Francisco County for transporting/selling narcotics. However, he was soon released and arrested again shortly after for cocaine possession for sale and other charges. Once again, Lopez was released. On March 13 2017, he was arrested again by SFPD for Transportation, sale of narcotics and possession for purchase/Sale of Cocaine Base. ICE issued another detainer that SFPD did not honor and he was subsequently released again. Santos Lopez-Avila currently remains at-large.

California most certainly wants to support the efforts of drug dealers to sell illegal drugs just as long as the drug dealer is an illegal alien.

The instances of California enabling criminals to commit crimes and refusing to prosecute criminals simply because the criminal is an illegal alien is overwhelming. The total disregard for the process of law and non-punishment of criminal activity simply because the criminal is an illegal alien is sickening. The California officials perpetrating this lawlessness upon society should be prosecuted as accessories to the criminal activities that they are allowing. If an illegal alien criminal is released back into society and commits any crime causing destruction or death, the California official assisting the criminal activity by his/her non-enforcement of laws should be held personally responsible!

Any illegal alien who commits a crime here in America should be sentenced to a minimum of 5 years of hard labor in prison and then deported after being photographed, finger-printed, and a dna sample taken to ensure that he can be identified in the future as a criminal alien. Every time that an criminal illegal alien is subsequently recaptured in America, the prison time should be doubled. The criminal's native country should be charged for the costs of these incarcerations. No visas should be issued for a country that is not current on these charges.

Excerpt from An article by Peter Hasson

At least seven House Democrats are known to have direct ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite and racist who has called Jews “satanic” and said white people “deserve to die.”

California Reps. Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee, Illinois Rep. Danny Davis, Indiana Rep. Andre Carson, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, New York Rep. Gregory Meeks and Texas Rep. Al Green have all attended meetings with Farrakhan while in Congress, according to photos, videos and witness accounts of the meetings reviewed by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

With the exception of Davis, the Democratic representatives have ignored repeated requests for comment regarding their relationships with Farrakhan.

Davis has a personal relationship with Farrakhan and is unbothered by Farrakhan’s position on “the Jewish question”.

An article by By Wanda Carruthers

In the effort to chronicle the events that take place in the era of a Donald Trump presidency, the media fails to acknowledge the "unique" characteristics that set him apart and, in the process, ignore his leadership, New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin writes.

In an opinion piece for the newspaper on Saturday, Goodwin explained the difficulty of "assessing the impact of Trump's presidency" because, he maintained, "so much is happening so fast that it's impossible to make sense of what it all means for America."

Trump's "CEO style" sets him apart from previous presidents and clears the way for new solutions to dyed-in-the-wool Washington, D.C., ways of conducting the business of governing, Goodwin said.  And, on three recent occasions, the president was able to exhibit his own brand of being president and his ability to try and find common ground among Republicans and Democrats.

"Trump three times put on a public master class in presidential leadership. He did it with members of both parties on immigration several weeks ago, then at a meeting with governors and last week with members of Congress on gun control.

"The president is supremely comfortable in front of the camera and those sessions allow him to talk over the heads of the Washington media and directly to people in their living rooms and offices, much as he did during the campaign.

"In all three cases, Trump showed himself knowledgeable and flexible as he tried to find common ground on vexing subjects," he wrote.

Goodwin also posed the question whether Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi really wanted to find common ground with Republicans and the president, or "would they rather keep moving the goal posts because they want to claim in the midterms that Trump can't govern?"

Goodwin also addressed the "extreme media bias" Trump has faced as president, explaining "virtually everything Trump says and does is presented through the darkest possible lens almost everywhere."

"From networks to newspapers, rumor and speculation are dressed up as authoritative by citing 'sources close to the president.' This is compelling only if you forget how many times anonymous sources were wrong," Goodwin explained.

Trump's "work horse stamina and warrior determination to succeed" have produced policies that were "mostly the right ones," Goodwin wrote, and his "tax changes and regulatory reforms will spur growth and create opportunities for millions of Americans."

And, making the argument that "Democrats are more divided and in a deeper hole than they want to admit," Goodwin predicted, barring any clear evidence of wrongdoing by the president in the Russia probe, the policies Trump has put in place "will produce enough progress that he will finish this term strongly and have a good chance of winning again in 2020."

accessory after the fact

Libby Schaaf, the Mayor of Oakland, California has publically declared that she “tipped off” criminals who had committed federal felonies of impending law enforcement raids. She was explicitly clear that her intention was to prevent the arrest of hundreds of known felons. The fact that the criminals warned were illegal aliens has no material effect on the fact that her action was intended to hinder the apprehension of criminals who she knew had committed criminal acts.

Her action clearly falls within the scope of 18 USC 1512c section 3 which outlaws acting as an accessory after the fact, which occurs when “one knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder his or her apprehension, trial, or punishment.” Prosecution requires the commission of an underlying federal crime by someone else. The mayor should be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact, and if convicted, the sentence should be an aggravated sentence based on the fact that she is using her political power explicitly to impede lawful process.

Since the Mayor has declared her guilt in public media, a grand jury should be convened immediately and her subsequent arrest and trial should be accomplished without delay.