Jul 262018
 

A conservative Latino’s view on politics…

People, regardless of ideology and political party must realize, we need constitutional judges because they look at the Constitution to direct them on the law. Constitutional judges protect all ideological sides. When a court like the Ninth Circuit of Appeals rules with feelings, emotions, and ideology, it may be popular, but likely suppresses individual rights. Which brings us to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. This is a tale of morally corrupt groups and individuals overreaching and oppressing First Amendment rights. It includes the California Democrat Party, the Democrat-controlled legislature, Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Governor Jerry Brown. With help from NARAL, a pro-abortion rights group who helped sponsor the bill at the center of the case.

Assembly Bill 775 Reproductive FACT Act

The far left forcing their will on pro-life clinics – called crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) – appropriated their First Amendment rights. Their weapon of choice? Assembly Bill 775 Reproductive FACT Act, created and signed into law by Governor Brown Oct. 09, 2015. Supporters of AB-775 will have you believe the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act is an abortion issue… they’re lying. It’s a First Amendment issue but by controlling the narrative, they can control the message and use that as a weapon itself, courtesy of the mainstream media (MSM).

The issue’s free speech and the unconstitutionality of the state to force someone to do something they do not believe. It’s also a “cumbersome” law to limit and take over the crisis pregnancy center’s marketing and advertising message. Don’t believe me? Let me explain.

Let’s take the example of a billboard, as given by Justice Clarence Thomas. In the majority opinion, he said, “As California conceded at oral argument, a billboard for an unlicensed facility that says “Choose Life” would have to surround that two-word statement with a 29-word statement from the government, in as many as 13 different languages. In this way, the unlicensed notice drowns out the facility’s own message.”

As you can see in his example, it’s gone from promoting the clinic’s services to promoting the state’s message at no cost to the state! Purposely done this way by Democrats achieve the following:

  1. take over the clinic’s message thus promoting the abortion lobby using their competitor’s money.
  2. make the clinic think twice about moving forward to advertise their services, thus fulfilling NARAL’s goal.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

From the get-go, the National Institute of Family (NIFLA) took the fight up, recognizing the injustice and the “Orwellian” path the Democrat-controlled California state legislature was on. They knew if not stopped, this was just the beginning. If successful, states would force unnecessary licensing of other industries to regulate, then suppress First Amendment rights to control them. Notching loss after loss, the Ninth Circuit – as expected – upheld California’s suppression of First Amendment rights. As hoped, SCOTUS decided it would hear National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. Those, closely watching were states with similar laws – Hawaii and Illinois and others. All hoping SCOTUS would align with Becerra to continue or re-establish their subjugation of First Amendment rights. The topic was pro-life clinics, again, this wasn’t about abortion. If upheld, states would extend the oppression of First Amendment rights into as many industries as possible.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers and AB-775

Nonprofit Crisis pregnancy centers or pregnancy resource centers, guide or counsel women on alternatives to abortion. Most CPC do not gain financially, that is, profit from the women they offer services to. In contrast to abortion clinics, such as Planned Parenthood that sells baby parts for profit. The fear of abortion clinics is simple – most CPC agencies tell the truth. That includes stating they won’t provide information on abortions. They don’t hide it or do anything to lie about it – they simply let the women know they won’t provide information on it. They believe there are alternatives to abortion. That’s what pro-abortion clinics fear – a woman realizing there are alternatives to abortion and even worse, depriving the Planned Parenthood’s of the world from profiting off abortions. Don’t believe me? Check this out – The Center for Medical Progress’ expose of Planned Parenthood.

Pro-abortion groups such as NARAL falsely label CPC as “fake clinics” and have one of two goals. With Democrat Party help, to shut them down or control and limit them. The term they use for CPC, “fake clinics” isn’t factual. They say this because they believe they’re the only authority allowed to talk on women’s reproductive rights and that abortion as the best and only viable choice. AB-775 was an ingenious way to checkmate CPC.

AB-775 forced CPC clinics to post the following notice:

“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”

AB-775 forced licensed CPC to do the following:

  • Public notice in a “conspicuous” place at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches and at least 22-point type.
  • A printed notice is given to “clients” in at least 14-point.
  • A digital notice at check-in or arrival.

AB-775 forced unlicensed CPC to also post the following:

“This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

  • In print and digital format and posted on their websites.
  • In English and other languages (up to 13 sometimes).
  • In at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches and at least 48-point type.
  • Must post “conspicuously” at the entrance
  • Must post it where “clients” wait to receive services (waiting room).
  • Must be “clear and conspicuous.”

Clear and Conspicuous

“Clear and conspicuous” as written in AB-775:

“The notice in the advertising material shall be clear and conspicuous. “Clear and conspicuous” means in larger point type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.”

California was mandating their message to have greater prominence than the CPC’s own message. Again, the term “Orwellian,” comes to mind. If not done, CPC clinics would be subject to $500 fines for the first offense and $1,000 every resulting offense. Think. If a CPC didn’t provide free advertisement for the state’s abortion services – something they don’t believe in – they’d pay a fine, over and over and over. A violation of First Amendment rights.

Professional Speech

There’s something known as “professional speech” – think the medical or legal field – and it’s regulated, ranging from licensing, advertising and marketing and more. However, states like California push the envelope by violating First Amendment rights through regulation of what professionals can say to their clients. The question became, can California force a CPC to speak on abortion, which they don’t believe in and goes against their beliefs? The lower courts agreed California’s law of “professional speech,” is allowable in limiting First Amendment rights. Thus, the importance for SCOTUS to comment on a rarely heard argument.

Some on SCOTUS didn’t like what the lower courts were agreeing with. Justice Clarence Thomas states, “Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals.” A crushing blow to leftists and those who would restrict First Amendment rights.

The other issue assumed by the lower courts – with government licensing authority there’s implicit power to regulate “professional speech.” “Danger, Will Robinson!” That’s scary because states could just force licensing on an industry to subdue First Amendment rights by claiming they have the power to regulate “professional speech.” It’s a way around First Amendment rights and Justice Thomas properly recognized this.

In Professional Speech and the First Amendment, First Amendment scholar Rodney A. Smolla surmises.

“The First Amendment is grounded in the premise that the marketplace is the better regulator of expressive activity than government. There are powerful cultural forces at work within professions that encourage professionals to act ethically and within professional norms. When professionals violate hardline rules of professional conduct, disciplinary bodies and courts may intervene, and such interventions will typically withstand any First Amendment challenge, even when subjected to strict scrutiny review.”

In other words, we can decide right from wrong and there are consequences that won’t infringe on the First Amendment. California’s reasoning for regulating “professional speech?” It tried justifying and claiming it had to do this because its own advertising and marketing efforts weren’t getting the job done. Justice Thomas, using common sense realized, maybe there’s not a “want” for this or California didn’t “pony up” and properly fund their marketing and advertising. Because it’s government and not a business, California, instead of realizing they needed to do a better job of market analysis to find out how to promote their services, chose to abuse its authority. It decided to subjugate First Amendment rights to deliver the state’s message. Justice Thomas was spot on in the opinion, writing, “Either way, California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it.” Going on, he also said, “[T]he First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency.” A huge blow to the authoritative government and win for every individual, regardless of ideology or political affiliation.

Overly or Unduly Burdensome

Burdensome is something that’s too difficult to do. Justice Thomas’ billboard example clearly proves “overly burdensome” by showing how the state was forcing CPC to “call to attention” the state’s message over their own. While that example hits the mark, Justice Thomas’ following statement will make you recoil with a shudder at what the California, Democrat-controlled legislature was doing. Thomas said, “It targets speakers, not speech, and imposes an unduly burdensome disclosure requirement that will chill their protected speech.”

Viewpoint Discrimination

Viewpoint discrimination” is when the state takes a side in a “particular view.” If you do an internet search, the most recent example of “viewpoint discrimination” you’ll remember is Chick-fil-A. Remember, when Boston and other leftist bastions (Chicago and San Francisco) said they wouldn’t allow Chick-fil-A to come into their cities because their owner supported traditional marriage? In this case, Chick-fil-A CEO’s comments on traditional marriage did not discriminate or create an unlawful offense but merely stated a belief. Because government (Boston mayor) disagreed with a different view than theirs and was going to act against Chick-fil-A made it “viewpoint discrimination.” Under the First Amendment “viewpoint discrimination” is illegal when applied by government.

Leftist darling, Justice Anthony Kennedy gave California, Democrats and Unions the first of two smackdowns – the other being Janus v. AFSCMEin ruling with the Constitution.

“This law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression. For here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions.”

Kennedy left no room for misinterpretation. Using the Constitution like a dagger to strike at the heart of evil, he further stated, “For here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions. This compels individuals to contradict their most deeply held beliefs, beliefs grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these.”

Kennedy rightfully knew, forcing the state’s message on “crisis pregnancy centers,” while excluding organizations such as pro-abortion “family planning centers” was clearly “viewpoint discrimination.”

The Ruling and Aftermath

SCOTUS followed the Constitution and once again protected our First Amendment rights from those who would seize and subjugate them. NIFLA overcame NARAL’s bullying, an authoritative California Democrat legislature, a corrupt Attorney General Xavier Becerra and a morally-challenged would be king, Governor Jerry Brown. It couldn’t be clearer for SCOTUS to follow the Constitution and protect our First Amendment rights.

The major issues were easily proven:

  • Professional Speech.
  • Overly Burdensome.
  • Viewpoint discrimination.

It was no surprise it was a 5-4 decision with the pro-abortion Justices – who’ve never seen a coat hanger they didn’t like – ignoring the Constitution and voting against our First Amendment rights. While dissenting they did recognize the three major issues. However, as is typical of them, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan showed they don’t care about the Constitution. They rule on ideology.

Justice Kennedy said it best in responding to California’s arrogance.

“The California Legislature included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of “forward thinking.” App. 38–39. But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to “be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 715 (1977). It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”

The Constitution protects all Americans. All ideologies. Liberals, conservatives, all political parties and religions living in these United States of America, including those who believe in pro-life and pro-abortion. As history shows, ideological power constantly shifts and the only steadfast hand during turbulent times is the Constitution.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra now goes back to the lower court with NIFLA expected to prevail because of SCOTUS. There’re many key takeaways, but this case shows why we need constitutional and not activist judges on the bench. That is to make sure our laws follow the Constitution.

William Del Pilar is politically active, currently sitting on the Valley Center Community Planning Group (VCCPG). As an entrepreneur, Del Pilar drove his fantasy sports company to set the standard for analysis and news distribution, helping to commercialize the industry from 1997-2008. Del Pilar sat on the boards of the Fantasy Sports Trade Association (FSTA) and Fantasy Sports Ventures (now owned by Gannett Co., Inc.).

Jul 012018
 

A conservative Latino’s view on politics…

I was lucky enough to hear Mark Janus speak on his legal battle against the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees – Janus v. AFSCME. This was before the decision came down and he gave me hope. His courage to stand up for his First Amendment rights and against unions and their mob-style tactics was inspiring. His desire to end their legal extortion to enrich corrupt politicians and unethical causes shows how one individual can change the course of a country.

Janus v. AFSCME began in Illinois, but California’s the top employer of government employees, thus has the most to lose. Our various unions, including the powerful, California Teachers Association have been extorting tens of millions of dollars yearly. Every union was watching if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) would follow precedent or correct the unjust decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977).

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

The sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia gave unions a reprieve when Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association – a comparable case – ended in a 4-4 deadlock. The deadlock meant the lower court ruling for unions by the extreme left-wing Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would stand. Rebecca Friedrichs and nonunion members saw their First Amendment rights denied. However, the chickens have come home to roost in Janus v. AFSCME.

Janus v. AFSCME

Mark Janus, a simple, working-class, public-sector nonunion member, rightfully believed AFSCME, was extorting him by charging “agency” or “fair-share” fees for one purpose. To support political causes and politicians he didn’t agree with. AFSCME’s response? They fiercely stated, these fees went toward collective-bargaining rights and not political influence.

Fundamentally, the public-sector deals with government policy, budgets, and tax dollars. This makes every issue, including wage and contract negotiations, intrinsically political. Thus, the legal extortion by unions in the form of “agency-fees,” is an infringement on a public-sector employee’s First Amendment right – to not join in political speech he doesn’t agree with. In other words, his money shouldn’t go to politicians or causes he doesn’t agree with. The union disagreed, therefore Janus v. AFSCME.

The union’s defense was straightforward. They say collective-bargaining rights are separate from politics. They call nonunion members “free-riders” or “freeloaders” who don’t pay into their coffers, yet benefit from the union’s hard work. They state, these “agency” or “fair-share” fees, nonmembers pay are necessary to cover expenses and other costs that help bring “labor-peace.”

The data doesn’t support this. Especially when you examine unions in states that don’t allow “agency-fees” that show there’s no harm to “labor-peace.” Despite stating these fees aren’t used for political influence, during oral arguments, liberal favorite, Justice Anthony Kennedy got the AFSCME attorney to admit otherwise. The lawyer inferred, losing this case would lead to a loss of political influence – a deathblow of an admission.

Janus Slays Abood v. Detroit Board of Education

The die was cast with Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, so Janus v. AFSCME would charter the course of a nation and come from newly seated Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. Silent throughout the oral arguments, he added mystery to an already tense proceeding. Would he give back, the public-sector worker’s First Amendment rights, or have them forever usurped by immoral unions.

In a “YUGE” win for the people, SCOTUS properly realized being a “free-rider” doesn’t allow a union to overrule an individual’s First Amendment right. The data also didn’t support “agency-fees” as necessary for “labor-peace.” The 5-4 decision favoring Mark Janus corrected the unjust 1977 decision of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, ending the union’s 41-year tyrannical run of trampling public-sector worker’s First Amendment rights.

At one fell swoop, Janus brought the all-powerful, authoritarian unions to their knees. A savage blow to unions who use member monies to control politicians, pass unfair laws and benefits that taxpayers must pay. Let’s not forget, union leaders “living large,” at their member’s expense.

  • The president of the American Federation of Teachers – $500,000 yearly.
  • The National Education Association secretary-treasurer – $430,000 yearly.

This sets back the abusive power of roguish unions, including teacher unions. Unions that haven’t cared for children in decades. Children with abhorrent graduation rates. Graduates with horrendous reading and math levels. Bigger and more bloated administrative staff, and pensions that continue to grow beyond sustainability.

“Opt-In” Triumphs Over “Opt-Out”

One of the key decisions in Janus is the union’s dishonest “opt-out” process. Now, workers must “opt-in” before employers automatically take fees from their paychecks. Before Janus, workers were automatically “opt-in” and to “opt-out” unions made this as difficult as possible, including:

  • specific time frames to “opt-out.”
  • purposely forced to hunt down, hard-to-find hidden information and forms.
  • harassment, bullying and alienating workers by unions because they want to “opt-out.”

Age-old unethical tactics used over and over! Employers, now, can no longer assume a worker will waive his or her First Amendment right. When a union has a worker’s money, they stop caring but now they must listen. SCOTUS, in its wisdom, recognized and corrected the fraud at the heart of “opt-out” procedures.

Unions Must Court Workers

What the mainstream media (MSM), Democrats, liberals, leftists and union representatives won’t tell you – the Janus decision does not impede a union’s ability to represent the worker. It forces them to earn a member’s support and trust. To bring financial accountability back – something not done in over 40 years.

They must now show, value to members, primarily how their fees benefit them. If successful, political influence will follow because a committed membership is an unwavering membership. Extorted money and corrupt laws can’t buy loyalty.

The data supports the Janus decision, as right-to-work states such as Nevada has higher unionization rates (12 percent) than the country (10.7 percent). Also, look no further than successful teacher strikes in right-to-work states such as West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Arizona. If unions have the worker’s best interests in mind, they’ll succeed despite this ruling.

Janus ends public-sector union’s shady political influence in using “agency-fees” to buy depraved politicians and pass laws and benefits that destroy a system and are unsustainable. It ends the legal extortion of public-sector employee’s money and subjugation of First Amendment rights. It doesn’t end unions – it just tries to make honest entities out of them.

Like a Hollywood ending, it’s over, the good guys have overcome the system… or have they? Not so fast… union lobbyists have given us California SB-866, an end-around on the Janus decision and other states are following suit!

The Empire Strikes Back, SB-866 

As a former liberal, I applaud the fight in Democrats. Their will, desire and take no prisoner mentality has destroyed the California Republican Party and individual rights. As always, Governor Jerry Brown and his legislative cronies, like Storm Troopers, bow down to their donor masters.

This time, to create and enforce California SB-866 – a preemptive strike against the Janus decision, it’s law and gives unions power over an employee’s ability to act for themselves. Fox & Hounds has a great breakdown but here’re their main points:

  • Through the union, workers must ask to remove mandatory “agency-fees.”
  • Unions control in telling the agencies who is and isn’t paying dues.
  • Unions make employers responsible for worker’s claims.
  • Employers cannot contact workers directly about union dues deductions.
  • Employers cannot communicate with workers on their rights to join a union.
  • Unions can and will limit public disclosure of orientation sessions.

SB-866 screams “BIG BROTHER” by controlling and allowing communication only from one group, unions, over another, the employer. True freedom gives the worker, the choice to choose, but California Democrats are giving unions, the right to take this choice away.

It’s dangerous to create a law, molded to allow unions to control and subjugate the worker. By minimizing contact with their employer, who can show them the path to freedom, SB-866 embodies an Orwellian, dystopian society – as big brother as it gets!

The fight over SB-866 is court-bound as employers and watchdog groups continue to battle corrupt unions over this atrocity of a law and others. Laws with one goal – to subjugate the worker.

Protests, Strikes, & Union Violence

When unions don’t get their way with employers, they use public protests, strikes, and violence to force higher wages and greater pensions. With workers who seek to opt-out, they’ll use loyal sheep. To harass, intimidate and even threaten physical force.

They simply don’t care if it’s an employer or worker who suffers a beatdown. They only care about enriching themselves. It’s the union way. While a tale for another day, California has a multitrillion-dollar pension day of reckoning coming. That’s when you’ll see the union it all its violent glory.

During oral arguments, an AFSCME lawyer implied if the ruling went against them, we should expect to see labor unrest. Let me break that down and repeat what I said, labor unrest = public protests, strikes, and violence. It’s the union way to get politicians to comply and give them what they want. In other words, the lawyer was implying, the price to pay for no union violence is the “agency-fee.” A scare-tactic SCOTUS saw through.

Sadly, a politician’s way is to give unions what they want at taxpayer expense because they’ll be long gone before the piper comes calling. A politician’s way to counter union threats of labor unrest while growing their own power.

The Battle’s Won, But the War Begins Anew

California teacher Rebecca Friedreich and Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner will go unheralded as Mark Janus is the man of the hour and a hero or villain. Janus deserves this, but we can’t understate how Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association showed us, after 41 years, the country was willing to correct a wrong. Rauner did get the Janus case rolling with the help of others. While this battle can be confusing and the legalese hard to follow, Friedrich’s case condensed it into an easy-to-understand fight which gave Janus v. AFSCME public momentum.

Janus v. AFSCME is merely one step in trying to break corrupt unions, leftists, liberals, and Democrats who have one goal in mind – subjugate the worker and citizens of this country for control and power. California SB-866 is just one law but the California Policy Center has cataloged many more.

Make no mistake, we’re in a war as every Democrat-controlled legislature has or will pass laws to get around this decision. Laws to eradicate the hardworking public-sector worker’s First Amendment rights. For now, savor the victory of Janus v. AFSCME.

Jun 192017
 

So, here you go. This is how low the triggered American Media has gone in order to exact revenge against Donald Trump for calling them out and rightly using them as a punching bag.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter may be right – America could be headed for the most Civil Unrest it has seen since the 60’s. The riots enabled by Obama / Holder are carrying forward today.

“I have been worried for quite a while about the cumulative effect or impact of this constant anti-Trump hysteria everywhere in mainstream media: New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC,” Limbaugh told listeners.

“It’s hysteria. It’s lies. It’s things that are completely manufactured about Trump personally, about Trump and Russia, about climate change, about any number of things.

“I have been very concerned about what all of this is doing to the average, base Democrat voter. I have sensed them getting more and more fringe and imbalanced, and the evidence for it is everywhere in the things that they tweet. They openly promote violence, and advocate some of the most despicable things happening to their political enemies.”

MSNBC:

(Malcom) Nance tweeted an image of the President’s Tower in Istanbul, with the text reading, “This is my nominee for first ISIS suicide bombing of a Trump property.”

“Trump Tower Istanbul,” he continued. “After seeing Trump’s congrats to Erdogan for winning his RIGGED election I’m worried our FP [foreign policy] is directed by property.”

Not to be outdone, another MSNBC Host Suggested Steve Scalise deserved to be shot because of his conservative record.

Note that MSNBC is getting record ratings (for them) as of late.

The featured image of this blog is a tweet from an up-and-coming left-wing millenial snowflake reporter. The kid did work for both the Washington Post (they of multiple anonymous stories and now retracted outright lies) and Vox. Both outlets have attempted to throw the kid under the bus.

Not surprisingly, a university professor publicly called for Republicans to be lined up and shot. He still has his job.

The Huffington post allowed an article calling for the “ultimate punishment of Trump” to stay up, only pulling it down when Congressman Steve Scalise got shot.

The democrat leadership have done their part: Tim Kaine, a senator from Virginia and Hillary Clinton’s Running Mate said, we have to fight Trump in the streets. Kaine’s son did just that, getting arrested in Minnesota in an ANTIFA riot and the kid is facing felony charges. (ANTIFA is a terrorist group funded by George Soros and other extreme left wing donors who foment riots and destroy property towards a political end)

A Nebraska Democrat Party official mocked grieving Republicans in the wake of Steve Scalise’s shooting.

A New Jersey Democrat staffer and consultant coined the hashtag #HUNTREPUBLICANS and then doubled down on it.

“We are in a war with selfish, foolish & narcissistic rich people. Why is it a shock when things turn violent?#HuntRepublicanCongressmen,” he wrote.

“I am sorry if my #HuntRepublicanCongressmen hashtag hurt the feelings of any GOP snowflakes but you have not engaged in civil discourse,” he added Thursday.

The New York Times could not help themselves – using a debunked lie to attack Sarah Palin in the wake of the Steve Scalise shooting.

The Washington Free Beacon’s David Rutz pointed out that the NYT’s “editorial board has now done editorials about Pulse and Alexandria shootings that found a way to blame Republicans.”

So it comes as no wonder that Nancy Pelosi the dem minority leader would say some outrageous things of her own about the shooting of Steve Scalise.

Pelosi placed the blame for the coarsened political culture — the most recent manifestation of which involved a left-wing Bernie Sanders supporter trying to murder Republican congressmen — squarely at the feet of Donald Trump and Republican attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Get it? Dem leadership think they are right and that they can be as violent as they need to be because they can just blame it all on Republicans.

The shooting of Steve Scalise is the latest in a string of actual violence against Republicans. Given the above, you can understand how easily people on the left can feel empowered to do so.

Speaking of Steve Scalise, the shooter had a list of 6 other Republican Congressman he intended to murder.

The democrats, on tilt, have dropped $30 Million in to a 30-year-old trial lawyer in an attempt to “get Trump” in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. The violence spilled over to there:

The shooter called Karen Handel (the Republican candidate who will win, btw) a Republican Bitch.

“Republican Bitch Wants People to Work for Slave Wages, when a Livable Wage is the Only Way to Go! Vote Blue, It’s Right for You!” Hodgkinson wrote on Facebook.

“I am aware that the suspect recently made vile comments about me on social media,” Handel said in her statement. “It also appears that the suspect targeted members of Congress specifically because he disagreed with their views.”

Then, the next day, an Anthrax type scare ensued at her house and those of her neighbors. (CONTENT WARNING)

Concurrent with the Wednesday shooting of GOP Rep. Steve Scalise, former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, who is running against Democrat Jon Ossoff in a hotly-contested 6th Congressional District Special Election, has been targeted along with her neighbors by letters containing a white powdery substance and calling Handel a “dirty fascist.”

The verbiage in the letters was foul:

I do take note that Jon Ossoff, the democrat candidate had little or nothing to say about the vile rants or the anthrax-type attack on Handel and her neighbors other than to whine about a few “threats” that he refused to characterize. This is the state of the Dem Party.

Remember – Congressmembers have been specific targets:

-California GOP Rep. Tom McClintock had to be escorted to his car after a town hall because of angry protesters. The tires of at least four vehicles were slashed.

-Protestors knocked a 71-year-old female staffer for California GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher unconscious during a protest outside the representative’s office.

– Republican Rep. Tom Garrett, his family and his dog were targeted by a series of repeated death threats deemed credible by authorities.

-FBI agents arrested a person for threatening to shoot Republican Rep. Martha McSally over her support for Trump.

-Police in Tennessee charged a woman for allegedly trying to run Republican Rep. David Kustoff off the road.

-Police in North Dakota ejected a man after he became physical with Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer at a town hall.

-Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney received an email threat that read, “One down, 216 to go,” shortly after the shooting at the Republican congressional baseball practice.

(Read even more here)

Great job Media. Great Job Democrats.

Jun 182017
 

It looks like the free-speech loving democrats of Sun City Lincoln are trying to get the Tea Party United shut down and denied access from the clubhouse in Sun City!

Please show up and support the Tea Party United as they fight to keep Lincoln (and South Placer County) free and Conservative, despite the best efforts of the Bay-Area transplants who have moved there and can’t figure out it is their politics and electeds that drove them out of the Bay Area.

The urgent message from Dan Catania follows:

2. The Republican Club is having a meeting at Killaga  Springs  June 26th and 6:30 PM. The Subject is the 2nd amendment  with speaker Craig Deluz. This event is for Republicans and Conservatives only

Every Conservative must attend this meeting.

We received word  that the Democrat Club in Del Webb is planing to stage a protest at this  meeting.
This is an outrageous and ignorant plan coming from the Ignorant Democrat Party and  the Crazies on the left.
 If the ignorant violent crazies in the Democrat Party follow through with this protest it could cause all political events to be banned from Del Webb. Of course that may not stop the insane Democrats.
Regardless if the Crazies show up or not, we need a strong showing and  we must support our 2nd amendment rights

Liz wheeler laid out a brief History of the Violent Democrats during her One America News program, you can view it at the link below.

The facts are facts and it’s time we all acknowledge it, Political Violence is normal in the Democrat Party.
What Liz did not mention in this video is Violence in the Democrat Party dates all the way back to 1864 when the Democrats  created the KKK.

https://youtu.be/l3oHFLwXQkM?list=PLM_tVXBx-AANkszoePvrX0kkS801IqEPg

This is a great way to take a stand against the democrats, the KKK and people that want to steal your guns. 

I just might go to a Tea Party event.

Jun 152017
 

SB96 is a bill that will pass the California State Senate today. It changes the rules of a recall election. The Media spin on this was for the obvious reason of saving embattled and extremely vulnerable State Senator Josh Newman who won his election by less than 2,000 votes in 2016.

I got some news for the news – Newman will lose no matter when the recall election is.

SB96 does the following – (which will have the effect of delaying the certification of Recall until after the 12/7 deadline. 12/7 is significant as the Governor could consolidate the Recall onto the next regularly scheduled election.)

  1. It allows a 30 day cooling off period where people can withdraw their signatures. (This is designed to allow labor unions and other thugs to intimidate people who signed in to sending notes to the registrar to withdraw)
  2. It creates a bureaucracy to evaluate the cost of the recall (another 30 day delay and uses tax dollars to promote one of the primary campaign issues against a recall – the cost)
  3. It requires the counties to count every single signature, instead of using a “Snap Count”. This allows left-leaning counties to drag their heels as long as necessary to delay the certification until after whatever deadline is needed

It would be easy to stop here and say, gheez, they are changing the rules to save Josh Newman. All this does is keep Newman in office 6 months longer, it is not worth the bad PR and the residual bad blood post tax increase.

The real reason as I have learned from both a well-placed Capitol Source and a Labor Union Source is much more sinister.

The California Nurses Association have declared war against all opponents of the Single-Payer Healthcare Bill. The Nurses association is the second most powerful union behind the SEIU. They are fast becoming the most powerful.

They believe they are entitled to $250k a year salaries with lifetime retirement benefits at all of our expense. If single payer passes, the biggest winners would be the Nurses. The biggest losers, of course are all of us whose healthcare would be rationed and provided by the same people that brought us the DMV.

The Single-Payer Bill only passed the Senate 23-14, but did so with massive arm twisting and intimidation by the Nurses.

The Nurses are stalking assemblymembers and threatening to Recall them if the bill does not pass. The votes are not currently there in the Assembly to pass the bill.

Connect the dots.

With the proposed rules of SB96, recalling an assemblymember becomes impractical. With the vulnerable Josh Newman as cover – SB96 is brilliant in what it accomplishes. You would have to start a recall of an assemblymember in an even-numbered year, which guarantees its’ failure to qualify (because the assemblymember is already on the ballot). Or, you would have to start the recall right after the election (which you can’t do for 60 days anyway). This means, you have about a 3 month window to effect a recall of an Assemblymember, to have the recall election NOT be consolidated with the following regular election.

Even with all of the money and power the Nurses Union has, they could not overcome these obstacles.

I have to tip my cap to the democrats with SB96. This is one of the most brilliant bills I’ve seen from them in a long time.

Sign up to receive RightOnDaily updates delivered to your inbox.