Previous month:
May 2023
Next month:
July 2023

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS DECLARE BLACKS & OTHER MINORITIES "LESS THAN"

RACIST-BELIEVE

With the Supreme Court decision overturning affirmative action in college admissions, the Democrat race hustlers and race baiters are losing their collective minds.

The Supreme Court ruled that the affirmative action admission policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which gave weight to a would-be student’s race, are unconstitutional.

Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) are two of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the United States. Every year, tens of thousands of students apply to each school; many fewer are admitted. Both Harvard and UNC employ a highly selective admissions process to make their decisions. Admission to each school can depend on a student’s grades, recommendation letters, or extracurricular involvement. It can also depend on their race. The question presented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenged best skills built or lessons learned but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.

As one might expect from a 6-3 decision, the dissenters, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, are all radical progressive communist democrats who appear to be race-baiters.

The Dangers of Affirmative Action in Education.

  1. Reinforcing Stereotypes: There is no doubt in my mind that affirmative action in education based on race or ethnicity reinforces negative stereotypes, mainly that minority students are somehow mentally or motivationally challenged when it comes to academic success. That elite minority students cannot succeed on their own merits is ludicrous.

  2. Diminished Meritocracy: Affirmative action policies lead to a devaluation of meritocracy in education, where those who successfully graduate face the false stigma that their accomplishments may be attributed to affirmative action rather than their abilities. To undermine the achievements of qualified individuals is abhorrent.

  3. Preordained Failure: To meet diversity targets, academic institutions often feel compelled to reduce standards of academic preparation and achievements that preordain dissatisfaction, frustration, and failure as minority admits cannot keep up with their peers. Diluting the learning environment serves neither the institution, the individual, or those the public may encounter professionally.

  4. Backlash and Resentment: Given that admission slots are finite, one of the most prevalent dangers of affirmative action is the potential for generating backlash and resentment among individuals who feel disadvantaged by the policy. When students perceive that others are receiving preferential treatment based on their race or ethnicity, it creates animosity, divisions and exacerbates racial tensions within educational institutions.

The Democrats support teachers’ unions over their minority constituents.

Instead of improving schools in inner cities governed by progressive communist democrats to increase admissions into elite institutions, teachers’ unions refuse to test teachers for teaching ability and subject-matter competency, reject charter schools and other competitive learning opportunities, and relax standards to hide decades of incompetence that features indoctrination over education. Teaching racist views that whites are the oppressors and minorities are the oppressed. Tolerating disobedience in the classroom and refusing to punish offending minority students to decrease the number of children being disciplined artificially and altering history to hide the fact that it was the Democrat Party that supported slavery, segregation, secession, Jim Crow, and the KKK.

It’s never about the children; that’s the convenient talking point. It’s always about political power and the money flowing into the union’s coffers.

The fury emanating from the racist cockroaches at the news that affirmative action in education has been struck down is only just beginning.

Liberals Outraged That Asian Students Will Finally Get A Fair Chance

Liberals and those on the left have spent the better part of Thursday morning lamenting that Asian students will finally get a fair chance at college admissions.

ABC News political contributor Donna Brazile called the ruling a “setback.”

When MSNBC’s Alex Witt specifically asked MSNBC contributor Al Sharpton how the ruling would affect the black community, Sharpton said it was “tantamount to sticking a dagger in our back.”

Democratic California Rep. Ro Khanna argued that the ruling will actually hurt Asian students, and then lamented the negative impact he expects it to have on black students.

“What isn’t being talked about enough is the harm this is going to do for students, not just black and Latino students, but white and Asian-American students,” he said. “Consider students going to Harvard who want to become the future political leaders in this country … do you think they’re going to have a better chance of doing that and doing that successfully if they’re in classes that don’t have adequate representation from African Americans and Latinos?”

Former federal prosecutor Paul Butler also weighed in, saying the ruling leaves the country at risk of “returning to those old days when black and Latinx and native folks, the people who built this country, are shut out of the opportunity to learn at some of our country’s best colleges.”  <Source>

What don’t they understand? Elite colleges should teach the best and the brightest regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, and gender.

Princeton professor: Affirmative action ruling will lead to ‘segregated’ higher ed

“We will return to elite institutions most specifically being the space for particular populations, for predominantly white and Asian students,” said Eddie Glaude Jr., a professor at Princeton University who is a regular contributor to MSNBC, during the network’s breaking news coverage of the SCOTUS ruling.

“We will begin to see a kind of segregated higher education landscape,” Glaude Jr. said. “The irony of course … this was just one remedy to the legacy of discrimination in admissions in American higher education. Only one remedy, and so here they’ve taken it away.” <Source>

Black Caucus says Supreme Court has ‘thrown into question its own legitimacy’ with affirmative action ruling

The Congressional Black Caucus in a scathing statement Thursday said the Supreme Court called its legitimacy into question with a ruling upending the use of affirmative action in college admissions.

The CBC called that decision “radical” and argued it could hurt the chances of minority students from getting opportunities to advance themselves.

“By delivering a decision on affirmative action so radical as to deny young people seeking an education equal opportunity in our education system, the Supreme Court has thrown into question its own legitimacy,” the statement said.

“Unfortunately, we have seen backlash to progress many times throughout our nation’s history. … We didn’t stop fighting for equality then and we won’t stop now because too much is at stake to allow extremists to turn back the clock on progress,” it continued.

What else would you expect from an overtly racist cabal of progressive communist democrats whose pockets are lined with money and voter support from the teachers' unions?

Bottom line.

Want to shut down the progressive communist democrats? Ask if the person would have been happier if the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard was free to discriminate against Americans based on race. Should Harvard also discriminate on the basis of sex and gender? Do you realize that the lawsuit was brought by a minority group -- where highly qualified Asians were being eliminated from admissions because they were Asians. What if they were Jews?

Do they want to apply the same criteria to athletics where the ability to compete at a high level is the prime requirement? 

I firmly believe that you cannot fundamentally alter human nature and natural laws, and using affirmative action in education that improperly attempts to address historical inequalities and promote diversity is a fool's errand.

Those minority cultures that dismiss or denigrate academic achievement need to be internally reformed.

Government efforts such as affirmative action to achieve statistical parity are damaging and dangerous. As is the big lie of disparate impact that suggests that racial inequities can be statistically evaluated. No natural law or heuristic finding posits that minority success must be admitted to educational institutions in numbers proportional to that minority’s percentage in the general population and that any lesser admissions are a sign of blatant racism. In reality, some individuals are strong and weak, abled and non-abled, competent and incompetent, intelligent and less intelligent – and you cannot change human nature by government decree.

In the final analysis, affirmative action was never about redressing historical inequalities and promoting diversity; it was about the progressive communist democrats pandering to a significant minority voting bloc to gain or maintain political power.

Ask yourself why African Blacks or Caribbean Blacks have better life outcomes than American Blacks. Could it be that the U.S. government infantilizes and makes excuses for American Blacks – and the Democrats promise to redress genuine or imagined grievances in return for political power? Could it be that the Democrat-governed inner cities are deliberately run as racial enclaves to preserve a voter block while politically-connected special interests siphon off billions in aid?

Look around; the progressive communist democrats are attempting to re-segregate American society along divisions created by their philosophy of identity politics. 

To say we are screwed is an understatement.

-- Steve

Reference links…

Supreme Court: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


TRUMP MAY LOSE BIG IF HE KEEPS RAMBLING

Trump would rather shop for lawyers and advisers who mirror his thoughts at the moment he hires them, then totally disregard their advice and continue to ramble and repeat whatever is on his mind at the next moment.

The fact that Trump has nearly 100% name recognition indicates he should keep quiet about legal issues and treat his foot-in-the-mouth disease immediately.

(1)  Trump must hammer the progressive communist democrats to get out the message the media is suppressing.

(2)  Trump needs to use Twitter and put the failing Truth Social on the back burner.

(3)  Trump must fight the Democrats, not bloviate about the past – which nobody can change.

Trump-fighting-himself

Bottom line…

It's time for a saturation campaign to target the Democrats and the new heir apparent, California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Not “Ron DeSanctimonious,” Gavin Newsom.

Newsom is telegenic, articulate, and fully capable of saying nothing substantive. He appears to be the real threat. Most people outside of California do not know how he crippled the state with the help of his uni-party of progressive communist democrats.

Messaging must be hard-hitting and repetitive to sink in.  The progressive communist democrats are running out of the clock on Joe Biden -- springing Newsom at the last minute where last-minute attacks lose effectiveness.

It's time for Trump to act. Not mourn the past and puff up his chest. 

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


WE ARE SO SCREWED

Many readers have commented that I end most political blog posts with the statement, “We are so screwed,” and wanted to know why?

Primarily. it is an indication of my mindset at the time I wrote the blog entry.

It derives from my observations of the current political scene and my opinion regarding the outcomes associated with the current trend.

My reasoning starts with the phrase, “It is what it is,” which reflects my mindset of reality and acceptance of existing conditions. It acknowledges my acceptance that the current circumstances cannot be changed or controlled by me, and it emphasizes the importance of coming to terms with the reality at hand.

Continuing with the theme of reality and acceptance, the phrase, “we are so screwed,” expresses my current pessimistic and resigned outlook regarding political affairs in a nation controlled by progressive communist democrats, their special interest enablers, and media propagandists who promote narratives over the news, censoring and canceling dissenters with a big voice and far reach. 

Why?

The Current State of Our Nation.

It is not uncommon for me to feel disheartened or overwhelmed when contemplating the state of our nation, run by a manifestly corrupt progressive communist democrat party and empowered by a self-serving cancerous bureaucratic state that is metastasizing toward a critical mass where it can dictate public policy independent of elected officials that purportedly represent their respective constituencies.

The majority of the opposition party, the feckless establishment wing of the GOP, doesn’t appear to care about the nation as long as they maintain their political power, cushy positions, perks, privileges, and profits.

Since the election of Barack Obama, the Communist-in-Chief, our nation has experienced deliberate political polarization, social divisions, and economic challenges of the progressive communist democrat’s own making. -- with an attack on energy self-sufficiency leading the economic decline.

  • Political Polarization: Political polarization has reached unprecedented levels, impeding effective governance and policymaking. The inability of opposing factions to find common ground and work towards collective solutions derails progress and perpetuates a cycle of political gridlock.

  • Social Divisions and Inequality:  Deep-seated social divisions, including those based on race, gender, religion, or socioeconomic status, pose significant challenges to our nation's unity. The Marxist concept of class warfare has failed in the relatively classless and socially mobile society found in America and replaced by identity politics along racial, ethnic, and sexual lines.

  • Environmental Concerns and Sustainability: We are being told, falsely, I believe, that climate change and ecological degradation demand our urgent attention, and the consequences of inaction pose significant risks to us, future generations, and the sustainability of our planet. We are told we must cede some of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and dig deep in our pockets to fund nonsensical remedies. We cannot directly detect or measure man’s climate signal amid the natural variability of a chaotic climate system. Everything is a construct to gain or maintain political power outside of directly controlling local pollution.

The Increasing Polarization in America

In recent years, our nation, under the influence of progressive communist democrats, experienced a growing sense of polarization, where divisions between different ideological, political, and social groups have intensified, primarily by propaganda promoted by the media.

  • Erosion of Civility: Deliberate polarization has led to a breakdown in civil discourse, where individuals and groups become increasingly entrenched in their respective positions and less willing to engage in constructive dialogue. Instead of reasoned debate and exchanging ideas, discussions become characterized by hostility, name-calling, and dismissing opposing viewpoints. This erosion of civility only perpetuates the cycle of polarization.
  • Echo Chambers and Confirmation Bias: As polarization deepens, individuals seek out like-minded individuals and sources of information that reinforce their existing beliefs. This leads to the creation of echo chambers, where people are surrounded by others who share and reinforce their perspectives and opinions.

  • Distrust and Fragmentation: No doubt polarization breeds distrust among different groups within our diverse nation. When polarization reaches extreme levels, individuals may view those with differing opinions as enemies or threats rather than fellow citizens. As polarization increases, increasing social tensions increase the likelihood of conflict, including radicalization, extremism, and violence within society.

  • Empowering fringe actors and actions: The most dangerous aspect of political polarization is that it empowers fringe actors and activities, giving rise to the tyranny of the minority and allowing extreme ideologies and those who exploit fears and grievances for self-serving political power to create “communities” and attract media attention.

    There is little doubt that these fringe communities empower and radicalize individuals who feel marginalized or disconnected from the mainstream political process. Undoubtedly, this is a public safety issue as agitators and activists recruit vulnerable individuals and mobilize them toward acts of terrorism, political violence, or generalized social unrest.

  • Undermining Norms and Institutions: The key to a Marxist-inspired revolution is to weaken nations from within, primarily by eroding the public’s trust in their government and its key institutions. Critical indicators of communist activity include the attempt to suppress dissent, disregard the rule of law, and erode the independence of institutions such as the judiciary or media. At least to me, it appears that the media is thoroughly compromised and that hyper-partisan influences have corrupted the judiciary – witness the political maneuvering of political parties ignoring neutral competence and nominating partisans as superior, appellate, or Supreme Court judges.

The Insanity of Electing a Senile, Cognitively Impaired President

One of the most concerning developments was the election of a corrupt and visibly deteriorating president who appears to be increasingly senile and cognitively impaired.

  • The Importance of Mental Acuity in the Presidency: The Presidency of the United States represents leadership at the highest level of our nation and demands mental acuity, sharpness, and a degree of historical context. The decisions made by a president impact the lives of millions of citizens, both domestically and internationally. Therefore, it is crucial that the President possesses the cognitive abilities required to comprehend complex issues, make informed judgments, and communicate effectively with the public and other world leaders. Electing a president who is senile and cognitively impaired undermines these essential requirements.

  • Impaired Decision-Making: There is no doubt that President Biden is afflicted with memory loss, confusion, and a decreased ability to process information effectively, compromising his decision-making abilities. Biden appears incapable of making informed and rational decisions, leading to detrimental consequences, both foreign and domestic, for our nation. Policies formulated by President Biden, and imposed on the nation by Executive Order, lack coherence, consistency, and the necessary understanding of their consequences.

  • National Security Concerns: National security is a paramount concern for our nation. The president serves as the commander-in-chief and is responsible for making crucial decisions regarding the nation's safety, security, and well-being. A senile and cognitively impaired president is more susceptible to manipulation, has difficulty comprehending complex security briefings, or struggles to respond appropriately in times of crisis. These factors jeopardize the stability and security of the United States and its citizens.

  • Upholding the Office of the Presidency: The office of the presidency carries immense symbolic weight and authority. It represents the highest level of power and responsibility within the United States. Electing a senile and cognitively impaired president risks tarnishing the integrity and reputation of this esteemed position. It undermines the principles of leadership, intellect, and capability that the office demands, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future elections.

The Ultimate Danger: President by Proxy

Whether the true power behind the shell that appears to be President Joe Biden lies in his wife, Jill Biden, or the Obama acolytes that serve as his “advisors” and handlers, Biden appears to have delegated significant decision-making power to individuals or groups outside the traditional chain of command.

  • Lack of Accountability: When Biden delegates decision-making authority to proxies, it creates a situation where the ultimate responsibility for those decisions becomes unclear. The proxies may not be directly accountable to the public, making it challenging to hold them responsible for their actions. This lack of transparency and accountability undermines the principles of democracy, as citizens are left without proper channels to address grievances or voice concerns. 

  • Influence of Special Interests: A presidency by proxy opens the door to the undue influence of special interests and behind-the-scenes power brokers. Proxies may be susceptible to pressure from vested interests, resulting in policies prioritizing the needs of a few over the welfare of the general public. This erosion of the public interest can lead to a loss of trust in the government and exacerbate inequalities within the government and the nation.

  • Lack of Leadership and Vision: A president is typically expected to provide strong leadership and articulate a clear national vision. However, delegated decision-making to proxies can result in a lack of cohesive direction and strategic planning. Proxies may have their own agendas or lack the comprehensive understanding necessary to address complex challenges effectively. This can lead to policy inconsistencies, confusion, and a lack of long-term vision for the country.

  • Constitutional and Legal Concerns: The constitution defines the roles and responsibilities of the president, and a presidency by proxy raises significant and severe constitutional and legal concerns. It stretches the boundaries of executive power, potentially undermining the checks and balances to safeguard against abuses of authority. It also makes it unlikely for the proxies to trigger the provisions of the 25th Amendment and remove an incapacitated president from office.

Bottom line…

I am willing to entertain and discuss my observations and mindset. Until then, I am left with no other conclusion than “we are screwed.”

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


HAVE CALIFORNIA'S COMMUNISTS AND QUEERS GONE TO FAR?

BPXBY

When, might I ask, will “We the People,” more specifically parents, push back on the California Communists and Queer legislators who dominate California politics?

Scott_weiner

I can think of no bill quite as offensive to my sensibilities as Assembly Bill 655, “An act to amend, repeal, and add Section 6924 of the Family Code, relating to minors,” which effectively allows the removal of children age 12+ from their parent’s home without a court order.

AB-665 Minors: consent to mental health services.

AB 665, as amended, Wendy Carrillo. Minors: consent to mental health services.

Existing law, for some purposes, authorizes a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, if the minor is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services, as specified, and either the minor would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to themselves or to others or if the minor is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse. For other purposes, existing law authorizes a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to mental health treatment or counseling services if the minor is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or counseling services.

This bill would align the existing laws by removing the additional requirement that, in order to consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, the minor must present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to themselves or to others, or be the alleged victim of incest or child abuse.

Existing law, for some purposes, requires that the mental health treatment or counseling include involvement of the minor’s parent or guardian unless the professional person treating or counseling the minor determines that the involvement would be inappropriate. For other purposes, existing law requires the involvement of the parent or guardian unless the professional person who is treating or counseling the minor, after consulting with the minor, determines that the involvement would be inappropriate.

This bill would also align the existing laws by requiring the professional person treating or counseling the minor to consult with the minor before determining whether involvement of the minor’s parent or guardian would be inappropriate.

Existing law defines professional person for these purposes to include, among other things, a mental health professional, a marriage and family therapist, a licensed educational psychologist, a clinical psychologist, the chief administrator of an agency, and a licensed professional clinical counselor, as defined.

This bill would add a registered psychologist, a registered psychological assistant, a psychological trainee, an associate clinical social worker, a social work intern, a clinical counselor trainee working under the supervision of a licensed professional, and a board-certified psychiatrist to the definition of professional person for these purposes.

This bill would make all of the above changes operative on July 1, 2024.

Introduced by Assembly Member Wendy Carrillo (Principal coauthor: Senator Wiener)

<Read the fine print details HERE.

If you believe that this is not part of the far left’s extreme queer and anti-parent agenda to encourage children and students to explore inappropriate sexual topics without parental consent, keep secrets from parents, silence parents at school board meetings, and enacting laws like this that allow removal of children from parents who do not accept the state’s dominion over your children, consider the Legislature’s findings.

SECTION 1.

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) California is failing on children’s mental health and preventive care. According to the most recent Commonwealth Fund Scorecard on State Health System Performance, our state ranks 48th in the nation for providing children with needed mental health care.

(b) Roughly one-half of California’s children are covered by Medi-Cal, the vast majority of whom are Black and children of color.

(c) Less than 19 percent of low-income teenagers on Medi-Cal received screenings for depression and a follow-up plan in 2020. This is despite the reality that nearly one in three adolescents in California reported symptoms that meet the criteria for serious psychological distress.

(d) Less than 9 percent of Indigenous youth on Medi-Cal received a screening and plan, the lowest of any racial or ethnic group.

(e) Despite an overall decrease in the suicide rate in California, in 2020, youth, particularly Black and Latinx youth, and girls all showed disproportionate increases in suicide. A shocking 78 percent of LGBTQ+ youth who were surveyed shared they had considered suicide, with the vast majority of those who had considered suicide sharing they had done so in the last year, and nearly one-third had made an attempt in the past year.

(f) Seeking care for mental health issues is complicated by pervasive social stigma and centuries of systemic oppression by government programs that create legitimate fears for families to engage in services.

(g) Youth, especially youth of color, express significant trepidation about needing to disclose to parents their mental health concerns and their need to access services. Without access to a trained professional, youth report they turn to mostly free resources of mixed quality that they access without parental intervention or adult assistance, such as social media accounts and online videos.

(h) For LGBTQ+ youth, the rejection from parents, harassment in school, and the overall LGBTQ+ negativity present in society can lead to depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol use, and other negative outcomes. Over one-half of surveyed LGBTQ+ youth reported that not being able to get permission from their parents or guardians was sometimes or always a barrier to accessing mental health services.

(i) Providers, particularly school-based providers, find that obtaining parental consent for a youth who needs support is complicated by the parent or caretakers’ beliefs and stigma about mental health care.

(j) Most states allow youth under 18 years of age to consent to receiving mental health care on their own.

(k) In California, existing law in both Section 124260 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 6924 of the Family Code establish that a minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, if the minor is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services; however, such services cannot be billed to Medi-Cal.

(l) Existing law in the Family Code authorizes providers to bill Medi-Cal if the above requirements are met and either the minor would present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to themselves or to others, or the minor is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse.

(m) Two laws with different standards are challenging for providers to implement and challenging for youth and families to understand, creating a chilling effect on their willingness to seek out care.

(n) This fundamentally inequitable policy is ultimately at odds with the state’s commitment to racial, ethnic, and health equity as demonstrated through ongoing efforts of the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative and CalAIM, which are state efforts to advance the goal of greater early intervention to address the mental health needs of youth.

(o) Requiring young people from low-income families to delay sensitive treatment until they are in serious distress places youth at unnecessary risk of not seeking care, increasing the likelihood of suicide, self-harm, or substance overdose, and contributing to the alarming disparities in mental health outcomes for youth from marginalized communities.

Why the sudden increase in gay and trans youth?

Report Reveals Sharp Rise in Transgender Young People in the U.S.

New estimates based on C.D.C. health surveys point to a stark generational shift in the growth of the transgender population of the United States.

The number of young people who identify as transgender has nearly doubled in recent years, according to a new report that captures a stark generational shift and emerging societal embrace of a diversity of gender identities.

The analysis, relying on government health surveys conducted from 2017 to 2020, estimated that 1.4 percent of 13- to 17-year-olds and 1.3 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds were transgender, compared with about 0.5 percent of all adults.

Experts said that young people increasingly have the language and social acceptance to explore their gender identities, whereas older adults may feel more constrained. But the numbers, which vary widely from state to state, also raise questions about the role of peer influence or the political climate of the community.

“It’s developmentally appropriate for teenagers to explore all facets of their identity — that is what teenagers do,” said Dr. Angela Goepferd, medical director of the Gender Health Program at Children’s Minnesota Hospital, who was not involved in the new analysis. “And, generationally, gender has become a part of someone’s identity that is more socially acceptable to explore.” <Source>

Could it be the incessant drumbeat of sexual politics pushed by activists in the school and the media to create an atmosphere where confused children are encouraged to adopt certain behaviors to better fit in with their peers? And, further, exploited by activists who want to weaken a parent’s hold on their children to disenfranchise the parents in favor of state dominion?

What is not mentioned is that many so-called counselors are politically-motivated gay activists looking to offer immediate gender-affirming care, including chemical castration and surgical intervention, without allowing for a child's normal maturation process.

Children are predisposed to learning and absorbing the lessons of their environment. What if that environment is skewed toward adults increasing their own social acceptance by normalizing their behaviors in a new generation of susceptible children?

Parental rights…

Parental rights are not mere privileges granted by the government; they are inherent and fundamental to the well-being and development of children. Upholding the preeminence of parental rights over government intervention empowers families, respects diversity, and promotes individual liberty. By recognizing parents' vital role in shaping their children's lives, society can create a brighter future where children thrive, and families flourish. Through the mutual support of families and a limited role of government, we can build a society that produces well-adjusted children and adults.

Consider the following…

  1. The Nature of Parental Rights: Parental rights are inherent and fundamental, originating from the natural bond between parents and their children. They encompass the right to make decisions concerning their offspring's upbringing, education, and well-being. Recognizing parental rights acknowledges that parents possess unique knowledge, love, and understanding of their children's needs, which any government entity cannot replicate. These rights enable parents to instill values, provide moral guidance, and foster a sense of identity within their children.

  2. Governmental Role and Limitations: While governments have a legitimate interest in ensuring the well-being of children, it is crucial to understand the limitations of government intervention in family matters. Governments should act as facilitators and protectors, providing support and resources to families without supplanting their decision-making authority. Parental rights act as a check against political overreach by the state, guarding against limiting personal liberties and promoting diversity in child-rearing practices.

  3. Education and Schooling: One area where the superiority of parental rights is particularly crucial is education. Parents have the right to choose the educational path that aligns with their family's values, beliefs, and child's unique needs. Whether it is public, private, homeschooling, or alternative educational approaches, parents should have the right to make informed decisions in the best interest of their children.

  4. Medical Decision-Making: There is no more crucial aspect of parental rights than medical decision-making for their children. Parents are responsible for choosing their children's healthcare, including vaccinations, medical treatments, and general well-being. While public health measures are essential, the authority to make medical decisions for children should ultimately rest with the parents, who are best positioned to assess their child's unique circumstances and act in their best interest.

  5. Preserving Family Bonds and Values: Parental rights strengthen family bonds and preserve the transmission of cultural, religious, and moral values across generations, providing an environment where children learn about empathy, responsibility, and respect. Recognizing parental rights enables families to maintain autonomy in fostering these values, ensuring that children grow up with a strong sense of identity and belonging.

Bottom line…

Do not allow the activists and so-called “experts” to have unfettered dominion over children and further criminalize parental behavior when one or more parents disagree with the state regarding the treatment of their children.

I could make the case that it is the schools, dominated by progressive communist democrat activists and their unions, that are damaging, sometimes irreparably, our nation’s children.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


IT'S TIME TO PROSECUTE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

“The ultimate result of shielding elected officials from the effects of their criminality is to fill the government with civil-rights-abusing communists and criminals.”

Obama-biden-plot

Watergate was but a pale precursor to the Obama/Biden/Clinton scandal that is currently expanding in front of our eyes and with the overt assistance of the so-called free press “watchdogs.”

The most notorious and widely recognized case of political corruption in the history of the United States before the campaign and election of Barack Obama was the 1972 Watergate scandal which involved a series of illegal activities orchestrated by members of President Richard Nixon's administration.

The scandal began in 1972 when five men were arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Complex in Washington, D.C. It was later revealed that the break-in was part of a more extensive operation to gather intelligence and sabotage Nixon's political opponents.

The Watergate scandal eventually led to the resignation of President Nixon in 1974, making him the only U.S. president to ever resign from office. The fallout from the scandal also resulted in criminal convictions for several of Nixon's top aides.

The Watergate scandal profoundly impacted American politics and the public's perception of government. It exposed the abuse of power at the highest levels of government and eroded public trust in political institutions. "Watergate" has since become synonymous with political corruption and cover-ups.

We are being screwed...

Misusing political power, bribery, embezzlement, and other unethical practices have significantly eroded public trust in government institutions. To combat this pervasive and ongoing malignancy, it is time for American citizens to take a firm stand and demand the prosecution of corrupt government officials by holding politicians accountable for their actions and imposing severe penalties.  We must send a strong message that corruption will not be tolerated.

We need first to hold law enforcement responsible for the ongoing coup cover-up…

The laws to hold corrupt government officials accountable are currently on the books. However, prosecuting corrupt government officials does come with challenges, the major obstacle being ensuring an impartial and independent judicial system that can effectively investigate and prosecute corruption cases. Additionally, it is crucial to protect whistleblowers and witnesses who come forward with evidence of corruption.

Protecting Obama, the Communist-in-Chief…

We now have documentary evidence and sworn testimony proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that high-ranking government officials, from the President on down, have perpetrated a massive and historic political fraud on the citizens of the United States of America and, in the process, have deeply compromised our intelligence, law enforcement, and taxation agencies. Covering up a level of criminal activity never so openly witnessed by the American public and a free press said to speak truth to power.

If one were to apply Watergate standards to the ongoing crisis of confidence in our government, the January 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting between President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and national security adviser Susan E. Rice, was the seminal event that revealed that high-ranking government officials knew that Hillary Clinton and her associates were attempting to perpetrate a political dirty trick on then-candidate Donald Trump and leading to a massive coverup continuing through the Trump presidency to today and, most likely, the end of the 2024 presidential campaign cycle.

The fact that this meeting was highly problematical can be found in the memo authored by national security adviser Susan E. Rice and sent to herself on January 20, 2017, moments after President Trump was sworn into office.

The unusual memo described the January 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting and claimed...

“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’  The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating, or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.  He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.” 

Without a doubt, this was the beginning of the Russia/Trump collusion cover-up that saw the political party in power spy on American citizens, spy on an opposition political campaign, and weaponize government agencies – full well knowing that it was the Clinton campaign falsely claiming the Russians compromised Trump.

Time to start with the corrupt Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and then the Director of the FBI…

MC-1The unbelievable Merrick Garland…

"Some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department by claiming that we do not treat cases alike. This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy."

This claim of equal treatment under the law is a bald-faced lie from a bald-faced liar.

“Here at home, we are undertaking one of the largest investigations in our history to hold accountable everyone who was criminally responsible for the January 6 assault on our democracy. We will follow the facts wherever they lead.”

This is a distraction from the larger conspiracy to spy on Americans, spy on a political campaign, interfere with a presidential election, subvert a presidency, attempt a silent coup to remove a sitting president from office, and interfere with another presidential election in 2024. 

Bottom line…

Prosecuting corrupt government officials is necessary to combat political corruption, restore public trust, and strengthen democratic institutions. It sends a strong message that political corruption will not be tolerated, and those who engage in corrupt practices will face severe consequences. 

Garland, Wray, and even President Biden are all expendable and should be impeached as the progressive communist democrats attempt to protect Barack Obama, the Communist-in-Chief, from being held accountable for the damage done to America. 

Furthermore, I say use the Trump impeachment precedent to impeach Joe Biden and former President Obama. However, leave Biden in office given that Kamala Harris is a healthier brain-dead version of Biden.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


UNDERSTANDING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S HUNTER BIDEN PLEA RECOMMENDATION

Nothing new to see here. It’s just the application of progressive communist democrats' restorative justice principles to corrupt politically protected democrats.

DOJ-DENTISTRY

New-york-times-logoHunter Biden Investigation: Hunter Biden to Plead Guilty on Misdemeanor Tax Charges

Under a deal with the Justice Department, the president’s son agreed to probation for filing his taxes late, and he can avoid a charge that he lied about his drug use when he purchased a handgun.

Hunter Biden agreed with the Justice Department on Tuesday to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and accept terms that would allow him to avoid prosecution on a separate gun charge, a big step toward ending a long-running and politically explosive investigation into the finances, drug use and international business dealings of President Biden’s troubled son.

Under a deal hashed out with a federal prosecutor who was appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Mr. Biden agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor counts of failing to pay his 2017 and 2018 taxes on time and be sentenced to probation. <Source>

As part of the Biden Administration’s “Build Back Better” program…

Embracing Restorative Justice: Building a Better Biden Future Together

Under the progressive communist democrats, the concept of restorative justice has gained significant attention as an alternative approach to traditional punitive justice systems based on the belief that when a crime occurs, it harms not only the victim but also the offender and the community as a whole.

The core principle is to address the needs of everyone involved, including providing support for victims, holding offenders accountable, and involving the community in the resolution process. It allegedly recognizes that punishment alone does not address the root causes of crime, promote healing, or prevent future offenses.

Moreover, the progressives claim we must abandon our current judicial guidelines and implement restorative justice by requiring a collective effort that demands a shift in mindset, re-valuing accountability, promoting offender healing equal to victim healing, and seeking community engagement.

The progressives claim that by embracing restorative justice, society has an opportunity to address the underlying causes of crime, reduce recidivism rates, and build stronger, more resilient communities. They further claim that we must embark on a path towards healing and restoration, where individuals are empowered to take responsibility for their actions and contribute positively to society.

I call bullshit!

Lenient sentencing in crimes related to political activities is a travesty, as it undermines the principles of justice and the rule of law. When individuals like Hunter Biden, who are involved in politically motivated offenses, receive lenient sentences, it erodes public trust in the judicial system. It can perpetuate a culture of corruption based on impunity, the exemption from punishment, or freedom from the consequences of one's actions.

More specifically...

  • Inequality before the law: When influential individuals or those with political connections receive lighter sentences than ordinary citizens, it creates a sense of injustice. This selective application of the law undermines the principle that everyone should be equal before the law.

  • Deterrence: One of the primary purposes of criminal justice is deterrence. If individuals who commit politically related crimes are not held accountable with appropriate sentences, it fails to deter others from engaging in similar illegal activities. This can lead to a proliferation of political corruption, abuse of power, and other politically motivated offenses.

  • Reinforcing impunity: Lenient sentences for politically related crimes can support a culture of impunity, where politicians or individuals in positions of power believe they can act above the law without facing significant consequences. This undermines democratic institutions and erodes public trust in the system.

  • Loss of faith in the justice system: When lenient sentences are consistently handed out in politically related cases, it undermines public confidence in the justice system, and citizens view the legal process as biased, corrupt, or beholden to political interests rather than pursuing justice impartially.  

    Consider how the dishonest, evil, immoral, and unethical actions of the leadership of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in matters relating to Donald Trump and the willful ignorance of offenses committed by the Obama and Biden Administrations made a mockery of our judicial system and those who claim to be its impartial administrators. This includes the judiciary that failed to hold those who lied to the Courts accountable for their actions.

Bottom line...

To uphold the principles of justice and maintain public trust, it is essential for legal systems to ensure that politically related crimes are treated with the same seriousness and impartiality as any other offense. Sentencing should be based on the case's merits, guided by legal principles, and free from political influence or favoritism.

This suggested punishment of Hunter Biden encourages, not discourages, political corruption and selling political influence for personal gain, even if it harms national security. As with most social justice systems, it embraces the DARVO procedure. Deny, Attack, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender.

Of course, Hunter Biden is not the real issue. This sentencing protects against further investigation of acts leading to charges, including impeachable offenses, against President Joe Biden and a firewall against criminal charges for crimes committed by former President Barack Obama and his acolytes who run the Biden Administration -- including the Department of Justice. 

Look for the DOJ, FBI, and IRS to further stonewall Congressional oversight committees by claiming a non-existent "it's under investigation" exception to Congressional subpoenas. And look for Congress to roll over and play dead. 

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


TRUMP IS SCREWING UP AGAIN

DeSantis is clearly not a loser...

TRUMP-DESANTIS-WEDDING

Once again, we find Donald Trump catering to his ego while ignoring the reality surrounding him…

At a time when Trump should be courting the disaffected Democrats and independents to create a winning coalition, he chooses to dump on DeSantis rather than the ongoing Democrat disaster surrounding him.

How is he not hammering home the corruption of Joe Biden, which clearly meets the Constitutional requirement of impeachment based on bribery? Or the many failures of Biden’s cabinet-level officials? Or the destruction of the Constitution and Rule of Law in America? All without making it all about Donald Trump and engaging in sophomoric name-calling.

Is Trump willing to put the nation ahead of his ego?

An example of Trump’s over-the-top gaslighting can be found in a recent video where Trump implies DeSantis is both a loser and an establishment candidate…

TRUMP: "The very stupid and little respected China-loving Club for No Growth, which has been backing Ron DeSanctimonious as his poll numbers has been absolutely crashing, has just spent some of the RINO money they have accumulated on an ad campaign hoping to counter the fact that DeSanctis, just off the worst presidential launch in history, opted three times to cut and destroy Social Security, even lifting the minimum age to 70 years old.

He also voted to cut Medicare and institute a 23% national sales tax, which will hit our country hard.

Ron has always been a loser.

In fact, he was going to lose the election in record numbers until I endorsed him, so it was an artificial win. In any event Club for No Growth, they were with me and they won. When I cut off ties to them, they continuously lose. Let’s keep it that way."

How can Trump continue to portray himself as a “winner” and deny reality by claiming Ron DeSantis is a “loser?"

  • Ron DeSantis is a Harvard-trained lawyer who served in the Navy (Bronze Star) as a legal adviser to the SEALs in Iraq.
  • Ron DeSantis has not lost a political race, winning in 2012, 2014, 2016 (Congress), and 2018 and 2022 as Governor of Florida.
  • Ron DeSantis has done an admirable job governing Florida.
  • He is not “lockdown Ron,” especially compared to Cuomo's New York situation.
  • Trump lost to a mentally impaired candidate in 2020, costing the party significant votes and a Senate majority with his antics in two-winnable races in Georgia. His endorsements produced mixed results.
  • Trump continues to ignore fiscal responsibility and attacks DeSantis from the left on entitlement reform.
  • Trump refuses to support ballot harvesting, which disadvantages the GOP. Just as asinine as asking his supporters not to use mail-in ballots in 2020.
  • Trump's record of selecting personnel and candidates to endorse is abysmal.
  • Trump refuses to spend money on a ground game for 2024.
  • Trump’s plan must be yelling, as there does not seem to be any other plan other than hoping circumstances will produce a Trump victory.

On paper, Trump is the clear loser, not Ron DeSantis. However, even when Trump is significantly ahead in primary polls, he continues to attack DeSantis instead of attacking the corrupt Biden and his failing administration.

Bottom line…

Trump appears to have a solid base within the Republican Party. Unfortunately, this base seems to top out at an estimated 35-40 percent, allowing him to win the primary with a plurality. But he also appears to lack headroom, the margin that would enable him to win the general election by converting a swing portion of disaffected democrats and independents.

So, the real question is, will America descend so low under the progressive communist democrats that a significant majority of disillusioned and disgusted Americans will vote for the GOP to capture the presidency and generate an unassailable margin of victory in the House and Senate?

Will Trump feed this dystopian view of America by highlighting the dysfunction of the progressive communist democrats, or will he continue to attack Ron “DeSanctimonious” and gaslight Americans with his ego-driven bullshit?

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


Exploring Extreme Environments: A Quest for Knowledge versus the Thrill-Seeking Adventurism of Rich Patrons

Rest in Peace...

Oceangate-header

While we acknowledge the lives lost in the Oceangate submersible disaster, let us not forget some more complex truths to learn.

There has been a growing fascination with exploration in extreme environments in recent years, coupled with the emergence of thrill-seeking adventurism among wealthy patrons. While these two endeavors may seem similar, they differ significantly in their motives, goals, and impact on society.

Exploration in extreme environments involves venturing into harsh and inhospitable regions, such as deep-sea trenches, polar regions, deserts, or space, undertaking these challenging journeys to gather data, study ecosystems, uncover new species, and conduct experiments to unravel the mysteries of our planet and beyond.

On the other hand, thrill-seeking adventurism among wealthy patrons stems from a desire for excitement, novelty, and the thrill of pushing personal limits. These individuals often have abundant resources and seek unique, adrenaline-pumping experiences that provide a temporary escape from their mundane routines. Activities such as extreme sports, luxury expeditions, or purchasing exclusive adventures cater to their hunger for thrill and the need to differentiate themselves from others in their social circles.

While these adventures may appear glamorous and exciting, they often lack the depth of purpose and scientific pursuit found in the exploration of extreme environments. Rather than advancing scientific knowledge, the primary focus is on personal enjoyment and individual fulfillment. Thrill-seeking adventurism tends to be more self-indulgent, driven by a desire for immediate gratification and the pursuit of novel experiences.

The uniqueness of the Titan submersible lies not in its mission but the in an entrepreneur’s belief that he and his company could apply Silicon Valley development principles to deep sea exploration. The combination of cost-saving off-the-shelf components and a rapid iteration cycle often conveys a first-mover advantage, additional media attention, and funding. Unfortunately, the rest of the equation, fail often, fail fast, does not apply in extreme environments where shortcuts and the substitution of computer simulations for comprehensive testing and validation often have catastrophic fatal outcomes. Allowing risk-taking adventurers along for the ride to help fund and publicize a venture seems somewhat excessive to me.

Bottom line…

I was heartened to see the coordinated multi-nation rescue effort.

Considering the substantial cost of a rescue/recovery effort, it seems prudent to have guidelines and third-party inspections before allowing members of the public to participate in experiments, and they are experiments in extreme environments. While responsible exploration and ecotourism can have positive impacts encouraging the development of infrastructure and jobs, I believe there are ethical questions related to safety, exploitation, and adventure activities to ensure that these efforts do not unduly compromise the safety and well-being of non-mission individuals.

Like those who risk their lives in other extreme sports, the burden of due diligence lies with the individual.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


STATE OF PLAY: DURHAM HEARINGS

Seal_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives.svg

Yesterday I watched the entirety of Special Counsel John Durham’s testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, where he was questioned about the “Durham Report,” or more formally, the “Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns.”

The report itself was unsatisfying as it was severely flawed as to its scope, which omitted several important events and the fact that several key players, such as the top leadership of the Department of Justice and FBI, were never interviewed under oath. It is as if the Special Counsel sought to limit the damage to the Department of Justice, which remained his employer throughout the investigation.

Remember, Durham was not an “independent” counsel and was subject to DOJ policies and regulations.

Independent counsels were appointed by a special three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals under the now-expired Ethics in Government Act of 1978. The act provided a framework for investigating and prosecuting government officials, including the President, for alleged criminal misconduct.

It was replaced by a “Special Counsel” position established under the U.S. Department of Justice regulations where the Attorney General or, in some cases, a Deputy Attorney General, appoints a special counsel to investigate and potentially prosecute matters of public concern.

The hearing was about what you would expect, with the progressive communist democrats attacking John Durham, the report's contents, and inserting statements having nothing to do with the matters at hand. Like most hearings, it was a matter of political grandstanding and speechifying mixed with attempts at asking gotcha questions.

What I learned…

The primary takeaway is that the report was flawed as it omitted critical events and players. Among the players never questioned under oath were FBI Director James B. Comey, FBI Director Andrew McCabe, FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, Fusion GPS president Glenn Simpson, FBI agents Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap, and many others. The fact is that Durham had subpoena power as a special counsel and could have compelled those witnesses to cooperate.

I also learned that words alone cannot describe my disgust for Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Moreover, I struggled with descriptive adjectives to describe certain progressive communist democrats on the Committee, such as Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Henry Johnson (D-NY), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Cori Bush (D-MO), Ted Lieu (D-CA), and the worst of the worst liar, leaker, perjurer, and evidence fabricator Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Corrupt, odious, evil, un-American, incompetent, absurd, disrespectful, dishonest, deceptive, liar, pampered, privileged, and some descriptive word combinations that involve words used more in rap videos.

As disappointing as the Durham hearing, there was good news ...

House Votes to Censure Adam Schiff

The House voted largely along party lines (213-209) to pass a Republican measure censuring Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA).

All Democrats voted against it while the five Republican members of the House Ethics Committee, as well as Representative Buck, voted "present" on the measure. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) removed the $16 million fine from her previous bill to gain passage.  Luna claimed that "Mr. Schiff exploited his position as chair of Intel Committee, and every opportunity possible, threatening national security, undermining our duly elected president and bringing dishonor upon the institution.

The present votes were excusable as Schiff will be the subject of a House Ethics Committee for investigation over his "falsehoods, misrepresentations and abuse of sensitive information."

118th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. RES. 489

Censuring and condemning Adam Schiff, Representative of California’s 30th Congressional District.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 9, 2023

Mrs. Luna (for herself, Mr. Gaetz, Mrs. Boebert, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. Hern, Mr. Burlison, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Norman, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Mike Garcia of California, and Mr. Luttrell) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ethics

RESOLUTION

Censuring and condemning Adam Schiff, Representative of California’s 30th Congressional District.

Whereas the allegation that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 Presidential election has been revealed as false by numerous in-depth investigations, including the recent report by Special Counsel John Durham, which documents how the conspiracy theory was invented, funded, and spread by President’s Trump’s political rivals;

Whereas Representative Adam Schiff, who served as ranking minority member and then Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives (HPSCI), occupied positions of extreme trust, affording him access to sensitive intelligence unavailable to most Members of Congress;

Whereas for years Representative Schiff abused this trust by citing evidence of collusion that—as is clear from reports by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Special Counsel Durham—does not exist;

Whereas, by repeatedly telling these falsehoods, Representative Schiff purposely deceived his Committee, Congress, and the American people;

Whereas Representative Schiff lent credibility to the Steele dossier—a collection of debunked collusion accusations funded by President Trump’s political rivals—by reading false Steele allegations into the Congressional Record at a HPSCI hearing on March 20, 2017;

Whereas once again abusing his privileged access to classified information, Representative Schiff composed a false memo justifying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application on Trump associate Carter Page, which Inspector General Horowitz later found was riddled with 17 major mistakes and omissions, provoking FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to state unequivocally that the Federal Bureau of Investigation “mislead the FISC”;

Whereas, by publicly smearing Carter Page as a Russian collaborator and justifying spurious investigations of him, Representative Schiff contributed to the gross violation of a United States citizen’s civil liberties, thereby committing the very abuses HPSCI is tasked with identifying and thwarting;

Whereas as HPSCI ranking minority member and Chairman, Representative Schiff behaved dishonestly and dishonorably on many other occasions, including by falsely denying that his staff coordinated with a whistleblower to launch the first impeachment of President Trump;

Whereas as part of his impeachment efforts, during an HPSCI hearing on September 26, 2019, Representative Schiff recited a false, concocted rendition of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky;

Whereas Representative Schiff exploited his positions on HPSCI to encourage and excuse abusive intelligence investigations of Americans for political purposes;

Whereas Representative Schiff used his position and access to sensitive information to instigate a fraudulently based investigation, which he then used to amass political gain and fundraising dollars;

Whereas the American taxpayers paid $32 million to fund the investigation into collusion that was launched as a result of Representative Schiff’s lies, misrepresentations, and abuses of sensitive information.

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That—

(1) the House of Representatives censures and condemns Adam Schiff, Representative of California’s 30th Congressional District, for conduct that misleads the American people in a way that is not befitting an elected Member of the House of Representatives;

(2) Representative Adam Schiff will forthwith present himself in the well of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure;

(3) Representative Adam Schiff will be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker; and

(4) the Committee on Ethics shall conduct an investigation into Representative Adam Schiff’s lies, misrepresentations, and abuses of sensitive information.

<Source>

Bottom line…

We are screwed. And even if we allow the GOP to gain an unassailable majority in the House and Senate and assume the Presidency, it may not be enough to overcome our political overlords and the bureaucratic deep state.

That doesn’t mean we don’t try – it just means there are no quick fixes. Remember that our enemies like China, Russia, Iran, and the Democrats get a vote!

I say again; we are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


65 PROJECT -- LEGAL VIGILANTES?

DEMOCRAT-JUSTICE

It should come as no surprise that the progressive communist democrats, the party of lawyers, have found another way to attack lawyers who lawfully and ethically resent their opposition’s candidates and policies.

By criminalizing the practice of law and claiming that an attorney who discusses legal options and strategies with their client is guilty of a crime and therefore nullifies attorney-client privilege using the crime-fraud exception.  Thus, an attorney can be forced to disclose typically privileged documents and communications to the prosecution unless challenged in court.

The attorney-client privilege is a legal principle that protects the confidentiality of communications between an attorney and their client. It encourages open and honest communication between attorneys and their clients, allowing clients to provide complete and accurate information to their attorneys without fear that those communications will be disclosed.

However, the exception to the attorney-client privilege, known as the crime-fraud exception, claims the privilege does not apply when the communication between an attorney and client is made in furtherance of a crime or fraud. This means that if a client seeks legal advice or assistance to commit a crime or engage in fraudulent activities, the attorney-client privilege may not protect those communications from disclosure.

Thus, attorneys who provided legal advice relating to the 2020 election are presumptively and wrongly alleged to have participated in a criminal matter.

The attack on John Eastman…

EASTMAN-1

Eastman replies…

The 65 Project, a group of radical Democrat activists (and 1 Never-Trump Republican) filed a bar complaint against me with the Supreme Court of the United States. In it, the Group asks that the Court immediately suspend my SCOTUS bar membership without a hearing or investigation and then ultimately disbar me altogether.

This is part of a well-funded effort to attack every attorney participating in the 2020 election challenges. More broadly, the Group has admitted that its goal is “to deter right-wing talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts” to challenge elections, not only by bringing bar complaints but to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and their firms.”

The complaint is full of false statements and deliberate misrepresentations, so we have Dr. John Eastman fired back with a hard-hitting response, which is available HERE.

The fight continues in California…

Disbarment Proceedings for John Eastman, Ex-Trump Election Lawyer, Begin in California

A disciplinary hearing for John Eastman, the attorney who devised ways to keep Donald Trump in office after he lost the 2020 election against Joe Biden, will begin Tuesday in Los Angeles.

The California State Bar filed eleven charges in January against Eastman, who was until recently dean of Chapman University’s School of Law in Orange County. He stands accused of making false and misleading statements regarding election fraud, “including statements on January 6, 2021, at a rally in Washington, D.C., that contributed to provoking a crowd to assault and breach the Capitol to intimidate then-Vice President Pence and prevent the electoral count from proceeding.”

Eastman will spend the day testifying in his defense in the hope his law license will not be suspended. The disbarment hearing is expected to last eight days, the Associated Press reported. The final decision is left to the California Supreme Court.

The dean was a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and ran for California Attorney General in 2010.

What did Eastman do?

Eastman crafted a legal memo suggesting how the constitutional electoral process could be used to challenge election results that may have been fraudulently certified due to election irregularities. 

John Eastman also spoke at the January 6 rally, where he presented a legal argument suggesting that Vice President Mike Pence could reject certain electoral votes, potentially altering the outcome of the election and essentially describing a political procedure used by Democrats in previous elections. Among other things, Eastman had a First Amendment right to speak his mind.

Hardly a criminal matter, but then again, the Democrats lied about Trump and improperly impeached him -- twice.

Weaponizing the legal system by attacking individual lawyers representing specific candidates …

According to Influence Watch…

The 65 Project is a campaign targeting lawyers who aided attempts by then-President Donald Trump and his supporters to overturn the 2020 election results using advertisements, threats of disbarment, and changing rules within the American Bar Association, ostensibly to deter future similar efforts.

The 65 Project was “devised” by Democratic consultant and former Clinton administration official Melissa Moss. It is a project of Law Works, a group with no website or public financial disclosures. LawWorks has previously received grants from public policy-oriented foundation Democracy Fund and is a fiscal project of the Franklin Education Forum, a nonprofit organization that provides training and support to, “advance and broaden the appeal of the progressive cause.”

The name “65 Project” refers to the number of lawsuits filed by supporters of President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Though the 65 Project claims to be bipartisan, it is not targeting any Democratic-aligned attorneys who have challenged election laws or results in the past, and is advised exclusively by Democrats and Democratic allies. Texas attorney Paul Davis has described the project as “a desperate attempt by leftist hacks and mercenaries” and an effort “to neutralize anyone on the right with the ability to stand in the way of the left’s efforts to hide malfeasance in the 2020 elections and to clear the path for a repeat of similar malfeasance in the 2022 mid-terms.”

Attorney Michael Teter is the managing director of the 65 Project. He was previously a general counsel for Represent.Us, a left-of-center campaign finance regulation advocacy group, and he was an assistant attorney general in Utah. From 2006-2008, Teter was a litigation associate with Perkins Coie, a law firm with close ties to the Democratic National Committee.

[OCS: Remember, Perkins Coie was the law firm that hired Fusion GPS and was directly involved with a series of Trump Hoaxes. And political practice partner Marc Elias led to actions that may have unconstitutionally violated existing state election laws.] 

The 65 Project’s Senior Advisor is David Brock, the founder of Media Matters for America and American Bridge 21st Century. <Source>

[OCS: Media Matters is a progressive communist democrat propaganda front group.]

Danger to our electoral and legal system…

Engaging in a political strategy that curtails the availability of legal representation by attacking or impeding the legitimate legal representation of political candidates, parties, initiatives, and fundraisers can have a chilling effect on the rule of law and undermine the democratic process.

Attorneys attacking other attorneys for partisan purposes may offend the principles of fairness, justice, and due process and violates ethical principles of professionalism, fairness, and respect for the law.

Portraying fellow attorneys representing political candidates in an unfavorable light can lead to negative public perception. Such actions may be viewed as extremist, intolerant, or anti-democratic, which can alienate potential supporters and damage the individual's or groups' reputations.

Why it works…

Progressive communist democrats run most bar associations, and the media is all-to-willing to publicize bar association fillings and smear the name of decent attorneys for partisan political purposes.

Bottom line…

I believe that attorney misconduct is not one-sided and that some attorneys on the GOP side, like Sydney Powell and L. Linn Wood, deserve scrutiny and sanctions for their egregious legal actions.

It is also my belief that bar associations, being professional organizations primarily composed of lawyers, have inherent structural biases and conflicts of interest in regulating entry into the legal profession, using their regulatory powers to protect their own members or maintain a monopoly over legal services, potentially hindering the advancement of a more inclusive and diverse legal community.

It is time to investigate bar associations and the handling of complaints, sanctions, and fines, along with opening the process to more public disclosure and scrutiny.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve


“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS