Let’s discuss the current debacle taking place in California. Progressive socialists like Jerry Brown, Xavier Becerra,  2020 Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris, the mayor of Oakland Libby Schaff and others are turning the state into a third world hellhole for two reasons. One is the accumulation of more progressive votes in order to keep them in power. This is being accomplished by giving these illegal aliens benefits that are meant for American Citizens. The other is a complete disregard of our laws to prove to President Trump that can do what they want and he is powerless to stop them. These socialists are the Deep State on a state level.

At one point, California was the golden standard of the country. If offered the fulfillment of dreams and opportunities of a better lifestyle. Today, because of the progressive socialist who have pushed their Marxist principles upon the American people. Our cities are littered for miles with homeless people,  the downtown areas of our major cities are littered with needles and feces, and exorbitant taxes to coddle illegals criminals and overregulation of all facets of life. Along with the support of open borders and extravagant spending of boondoggles such as Gov. Jerry Browns high-speed rail to nowhere that already has the budget for it tripled.

Contrary to the opinion of these progressive socialists President Trump is NOT attempting to roll back the clock but is assuring the American people that the laws already on the books will be enforced. Harris stated that this is a political game and not in the best interest of Californians. She ignores the fact that a majority of the American people have decided that the Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff should be prosecuted for obstruction of Justice. Even over 50% of legal residents of California across all economic and ethnic lines feel the same way.

Most people did not realize that Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the murderer of Kate Steinle,  was initially under the control of ICE, but was given over to the San Francisco Police on a drug warrant. It was the San Francisco police who let him out to roam the streets and to murder Kate Steinle. To protect this animal from the law and to declare that the rights are given to American citizens also covered this man is just absurd.

Local and state officials have flaunted the rule of law and given protections to those criminally in this country. Being an illegal alien is enough of a reason to be deported. Nothing else is needed to be deported. To undercut the rule of law and give rights to these people is not making the community safer. It used to be taught in the early school years that the Constitution was written to support the American citizens. That is no longer being taught and it appears those laws have been replaced with the thought that if you can get here those rights will also be conferred upon you. You will then have the right to wave the Mexican flag and burn the American flag. You will have the right to demand unemployment, welfare, food stamps and all the other benefits that can be conjured up by the progressive socialists to keep your vote.

Our country has been the beacon to a great portion of the world. Millions of people wish they were here. Leftists believe everything we have accomplished has been accomplished on the backs of others. The simple question is this. If we are such a bad nation and if we terrify not only our own people but people around the world, why do they all want to come here?

Liberals can not defend our republic while advocating for open borders and not making a distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Blind support for open borders, and allowing non-citizens the ability to vote in our elections as California is doing is a dilution of those citizens, including legal immigrants who have become citizens to vote. There is no doubt that these illegal votes will keep the progressives socialists in power so that they can continue to receive the benefits they are not entitled to gain.

The action taken by the Attorney General Jeff Sessions are legally sound. California does not like the judge that has been assigned to hear the case John Mendez, a George W, Bush appointee and have requested that the federal lawsuit is moved to San Francisco, a liberal bastion. Perhaps they can get Judge William Orrick III  that also ruled against holding federal funds from cities that are “Sanctuary cities”. This is the same court that sits William Alsup, a Bill Clinton appointee that took it upon himself to block the federal decision to end the DACA program.

So the bottom lines is what does the Constitution say?

Article 1 Section 8 reads

“The Congress shall have power….to establish the uniform rule of Naturalization”

In essence, this gives the federal government the authority to make laws concerning naturalization, and the states must abide by those laws. This is closely tied to immigrants who are legally here and are applying for citizenship.

Article 1 Section 9 states:

The migration of such persons as any of the states now existing think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.”

The clause listed gives the Congress the authority to make new laws regarding “migration: into our country with the ability to also prohibit others from entering.

Article VI reads:

                “The Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges on every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

This clearly states that States cannot overturn the Supreme Law of the Land and make any law contrary to Federal law. This makes the laws which have been passed by California are at the start unconstitutional.

In the U.S. Code sections, 1324 and 1325 states it is a felony to conceal, harbor or shelter illegal aliens. Failing to report illegal aliens is a violation the Immigration and Naturalization Act with repeated violations of our immigration laws, including crossing the border illegally is considered a felony.

This not only gives the Attorney General the authority to enforce current Federal immigration law but to prosecute those who refuse to do so. At the present time, that would include virtually the entire California legislature, but also a great many law enforcement officials and city officials.

Gov. “Moonbeam” Jerry Brown and all the progressive socialists on the California Legislature have been fighting the rule of law. “Moonbeam Jerry has called this a political stunt and declared that the Attorney General has no regard for the truth and that this is tantamount to “going to war” against California.

Our governor seems to think that this well oiled “engine of the American economy” that is California is allowed to dictate to the rest of the country what we should think, and agree to, and believe. Does he not realize that California has been destroyed by the very policies he has put in place. Does he not realize that millions are leaving the state to find better opportunities.

The progressives will fight this every step of the way, even going as far as to hire former Attorney General “Contempt of Congress” Eric Holder to flak for them.

The progressive socialist have another idea that they claim will settle all the challenges that they face to get the open border that they so much want.  Brian Fallon, a former Hillary Clinton spokesman now is talking about abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which he calls an unaccountable immigration force. Now the talking points of the subject have been promulgated to all the Progressive talking heads of the mainstream media. They will then turn this into a Democratic talking point and once again attempt to convince the American people that it is once again “for the children”.

Views: 39


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Federal Judge Rules Trump Can Legally Withhold Funding From California


As for the New World Order George W. Bush Family

My question is this. Is it normal process to sue lawbreakers?

No, it is not. Arrest is appropriate.

So WHY is the so-called top person of the D.O.J. (Sessions) preferring a lengthy and costly (to We the People taxed enough already) lawsuit, instead of the immediate relief and justice that would occur with ICE and the martials, and/or sheriffs, or all of them together, arresting these subversive, criminal tyrants??

And why did or does Trump want to cut off money, when it must be parcelled out of of other funding to the state, instead of clean, simple arrests?  How did money become part of the Constitutional process, when it is so incredibly clear that all of this is criminal? Why cut off funds to criminals when all other normal actions to stop criminals is to arrest them? All this does is muddy up the waters, and give the leftists verbal ammo to use against Trump, and worse yet, it takes the focus off of our precious Constitution, which is at this point, hanging in a hangman's noose from a tall pole.

Pursuance; the carrying out of a plan or action.

federal laws that are in accordance with the constitution is important in the above clause.. and immigration is without doubt an original enumerated federal power in accordance with the constitution. <--- THAT alone is enough to justify Sessions/fed-gov claiming superiority on the sanctuary city matter.

sooo... why did Sessions throw the names Calhoun and Lincoln out when making the point??  I don't know anything about Calhoun but best I can tell with what I know about Lincoln is Sessions' must've been throwing the 14th amendment at the situation, to justify his argument of fed/gov supremacy. WHY??, when it would've not been controversial at all to use the original enumeration of power over immigration. IF he is throwing the 14th amendment at it instead it's gonna become a state's rights issue, and that's a bigger fight nearing it's boiling point. Sessions putting himself into a pickle unnecessarily best I can tell... unless that's the fight he/fed-gov wants, and are hoping for.



Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester


Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.


Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service