The Constitution is on Fire in California

by Jack

Governor Newsolini is using heavy handed, jack booted type tactics, to force small businesses to stay closed and quite likely to go out of business, permanently!

For example, The Black Bear Restaurant in Gridley is done and 65 people have lost their jobs.

In every community business licenses and restaurant licenses are either being threatened or seized by government agents to force them to stay closed, despite the mounting evidence that people are facing financial ruin for no good reasons and in violation of the US and CA Constitution.  Oddly liquor stores were never closed, but then they pay millions in taxes to the state.  So the liquor stores are necessary, but diners aren’t?

The COVIDS virus in CA has never lived up to predictions.  The overreaction, both in scope and duration by our state government has damaged many more lives than this COVIDS virus ever could.  And the liberals running our state continue  to double down on disaster plans that have actually caused a disaster.

The governor had just 30 days to exercise his authority under section 8558 of the California Government Code and that time has passed.  Further, the three detailed circumstances (see below) under which he can legally impose a quarantine no longer exist.  One could rightly argue that the conditions for quarantine may never have existed in CA, except in the minds of weak knee’ d bureaucrats.  To complicate this crisis of the mind, we’ve all been misled by flawed computer models based erroneous assumptions and weak medical data.

Three conditions or degrees of emergency are established by this chapter:

(a) ”State of war emergency” means the condition that exists immediately, with or without a proclamation thereof by the Governor, whenever this state or nation is attacked by an enemy of the United States, or upon receipt by the state of a warning from the federal government indicating that such an enemy attack is probable or imminent.  NO ENEMY ATTACKING OR PLANNING TO ATTACK US?  

(b) ”State of emergency” means the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, cyberterrorism, sudden and severe energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or disease, the Governor’s warning of an earthquake or volcanic prediction, or an earthquake, or other conditions, other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy or conditions causing a “state of war emergency,” which, by reason of their magnitude, are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of any single county, city and county, or city and require the combined forces of a mutual aid region or regions to combat, or with respect to regulated energy utilities, a sudden and severe energy shortage requires extraordinary measures beyond the authority vested in the California Public Utilities Commission.  IN THIS CASE THE EPIDEMIC TURNED OUT TO BE ONLY SLIGHTLY MORE VOLATILE THAN SARS.   THERE IS A 98% CHANCE OF A RECOVERY – this contagion was not the apocalypses it was touted to be.

(c) ”Local emergency” means the duly proclaimed existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a county, city and county, or city, caused by conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, cyberterrorism, sudden and severe energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or disease, the Governor’s warning of an earthquake or volcanic prediction, or an earthquake, or other conditions, other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of that political subdivision and require the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat, or with respect to regulated energy utilities, a sudden and severe energy shortage requires extraordinary measures beyond the authority vested in the California Public Utilities Commission.  NO LOCAL EMERGENCY HERE, BUTTE COUNTY IS COVIDS FREE AND HAS BEEN FOR WEEKS.  The 16 cases are now fully recovered.

PS Its been two weeks since 40k people went to the beach in LA and nothing happened.  We’ve held a dozen protests marches, some over 10k and nobody was affected?  No spikes in outbreaks… nothing.   

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Behavior and Psychology, Constitution and Law. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to The Constitution is on Fire in California

  1. J soden says:

    Here in AZ, the state is gradually opening up. Have been some gaffes by goofernment, but have been corrected.
    I really expected more lawsuits over Gruesome’s overreach and at least a token objection from Taxifornia’s GOP.
    Those who won’t stand up and defend the freedoms granted by God and the Constitution might not deserve them.

    Thanks to Post Scripts for helping keep freedom alive.

    • Post Scripts says:

      J. Soden, thank you, but thanks especially should go to our posters and our readers. We still reach thousands of readers every month, they never comment, but we track the hits and they are definitely out there!

  2. Peggy says:

    Good read by liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley.

    Did The Mueller Team Violate Brady and Flynn Orders?:

    https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/05/did-the-mueller-team-violate-brady/

    • Post Scripts says:

      Ewwwww…that’s a dandy thanks Peggy!

    • Tina says:

      The case against Flynn has been dismissed!! Let the indictments begin!! If they don’t we’ve lost the rule of law.

      I look forward to what’s coming next week and in the weeks to come.

      • Chris says:

        The case against Flynn has not been “dismissed.” The DOJ, under pressure from Trump, dropped the case. The judge has not yet dismissed it.

        There was no illegal or unusual conduct by the FBI in the prosecution of Flynn. Seeing if someone involved in an investigation will lie is a common tactic. You never objected to this tactic until it was used on someone you like. Barr isn’t going through and reviewing cases where this has happened to exonerate other people who aren’t connected to Trump. If he were, perhaps it would be rational to believe this is anything other than partisan cronyism. But he isn’t, so it’s not.

        That leaves a rational person no choice to conclude that even though Flynn lied to the FBI, even though questioning him was appropriate given his illegal foreign entanglements, even though this lie was material based on accepted precedent, and even though he pleaded guilty, the Justice Department is trying to get him off the hook for no other reason than that he is a vocal supporter of the president. How is that for the rule of law being lost?

        • Tina says:

          Chris the DOJ did drop the charges against Flynn. Since then Judge Sullivan has moved to keep the case open, a move considered odd.

        • Tina says:

          Leaving aside the many errors of fact regarding the Flynn that you cited there is establish law that Judge Sullivan is aware of that applies:

          Bill Barr has given his reaso for why the case should be dismissed. He is the executive branch. He represents the executive branch in the courts and he’s allowed to do that.

          The Fokker case is addressed in the following article from the Harvard Review. The article sums it up by stating, “as a matter of established law, the judiciary is not to second-guess the Executive’s decisions of “whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges.

          Sullivan is an avid anti-Trumper. He should recuse himself and instead plays politics on the destroy Trump team of criminals.

          At this point there’s no excuse for ignorance regarding the many scandals of the Obama era. The information is there for any curious mind to discover.

          • Tina says:

            Poops, forgot to mention the information in my previous comment was from Redstate. Another related Redstate article:

            Reminder: Brennan and Co. Targeted Flynn In Part Because He Knew About Billions They Were Running Off The Books

          • Chris says:

            A privilege to hear from (and spar with) you, Tina.

            Chris the DOJ did drop the charges against Flynn. Since then Judge Sullivan has moved to keep the case open, a move considered odd.

            Dropping charges against someone after they have already pleaded guilty is also considered odd.

            Bill Barr has given his reaso for why the case should be dismissed.

            And his reasons are nonsense. He is not disputing that Flynn lied to the FBI, only that the lie was “material.” But he’s basing this on a definition of materiality that has never applied to anyone not allies with the president, and will never be applied to anyone not allies with the president.

            If Barr wanted to convince the public that he is acting in the interests of justice here, he could show that he is reviewing other cases where people were charged for lying to the FBI. He could suggest that those who’ve already been sentenced based on similar materiality to Flynn should be pardoned. But he isn’t doing that, and convincing the public at large isn’t his goal. He’s playing to an audience of one.

            He is the executive branch. He represents the executive branch in the courts and he’s allowed to do that.

            He is also supposed to represent the interests of justice, not just the president’s personal whims.

            The Fokker case is addressed in the following article from the Harvard Review. The article sums it up by stating, “as a matter of established law, the judiciary is not to second-guess the Executive’s decisions of “whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges.

            Does the article address whether this has ever been applied after the executive has already won its case?

            Sullivan is an avid anti-Trumper. He should recuse himself and instead plays politics on the destroy Trump team of criminals.

            Not liking the president does not disqualify a judge from ruling fairly, and there has been no indication that Sullivan has let his bias cloud his judgment here.

            At this point there’s no excuse for ignorance regarding the many scandals of the Obama era. The information is there for any curious mind to discover.

            Ok, so maybe you can help me out with this whole “Obamagate” thing. The argument from the right seems to be that Flynn was “targeting” by the unmasking requests. But by definition, the people making the unmasking requests would not have known that they were unmasking Flynn before they unmasked him. So can you explain how this theory makes sense? It seems more likely that Flynn was unmasked because he was overheard talking about sabotaging US foreign policy with the Russian ambassador, and the intelligence community–which had legitimate reason to be investigating Russia’s attempts to undermine our election–wanted to know who was on the other end of this call.

          • Chris says:

            Sorry, that should say “targeted,” not “targeting.”

        • Tina says:

          Judge Judge Sullivan vs. Justice Ginsburg
          By inviting outside help, the Flynn jurist is acting ‘beyond the pale.

          The above WSJ editorial board article offers evidence of Judge Sullivan overstepping his authority.

    • Chris says:

      How long can Jonathan Turley continue to do nothing but defend conservatives and conservatives positions before you stop calling him a “liberal?” Do you still call Jennifer Rubin a conservative?

      • Tina says:

        Turley is a man of principle who has respect for the rule of law. It has nothing to do with politics. That’s as it should be.

        Pretty sure he still considers himself a man on the left.

        • Post Scripts says:

          Hi Tina!!! Nice to hear from you. Hope all is well?

          • Tina says:

            Doing well Jack but still can’t use my keyboard. RA is active and vexing but I’m working on it.
            So happy to be out of CA. It’s amazing to live amongst those who love being free!

          • Post Scripts says:

            Tina I am sorry about your RA, I can only hope the docs can make you better soon. As for CA, there is no cure. You got out just in time. What a mess this place has turned into. The democrats have ruined the state, literally ruined it… from bums to bankrupt coffers, they did it all.

          • Tina says:

            We watch news coming out of CA and it breaks my heart to see the once prosperous and beautiful state turn to crap.
            A few days ago I saw a report that Calpers is highly invested in Chinese companies. Birds of a feather?

          • RHT447 says:

            Tina’s back. Hooah!

            “It’s amazing to live amongst those who love being free!” You ain’t just a whistlin’ Dixie there, kiddo. In case you haven’t seen this–

            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-haircut-texas-salon-shelley-luther-jailed-violating-coronavirus-lockdown/

            I trust you are able to use some sort of dictation app in place your keyboard.

          • Tina says:

            Good to be back if only in a limited capacity, RHT447!

            So far dictation seems too foreign. I do a lot of editing when I write but I realize it’s something I may have to learn to do. Thanks for the suggestion.

      • Peggy says:

        How long? As long as he keeps saying he’s a liberal, voted for Obama and the Clintons and appears as a guest on CNN and not Fox. Being a liberal democrat is ok in my book. Being a raving progressive who calls themself a democrat isn’t.

        Turley like Dershowitz are Civil Libertarians. Wish more were.

        • Chris says:

          What? Turley appears as a guest on Fox all the time. I can’t find anything showing he voted for Obama in 2012 or Clinton in 2016, and I find it unlikely he did given his statements about them at the time.

          Turley used to be a civil libertarian. Now he contorts every position to support whatever power grab the current president is up to. His theories about executive power and the standard for impeachment have done a complete 180 since he supported Clinton’s impeachment. That last part is true of Dershowitz as well, though he’s always been a hack.

          https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/12/05/what-the-heck-happened-to-jonathan-turley/

          • Peggy says:

            Chris, per the Fox website the last posted appearance for Turley was Dec. 2018.

            After his hearing testimony where he was the lone allowed republican witness he received personal threats from the left and appears to have stopped appearing on all news shows.

            Turley, “I’m not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him….”

            https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=568347133951583

            Jonathan Turley ‘inundated with threatening messages’ after testimony opposing Trump impeachment:

            https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jonathan-turley-threatening-messages-testimony-opposing-trump-impeachment

            Turley on Fox 2018:

            Jonathan Turley: Judge surprises Flynn at sentencing hearing – Here’s what to expect next:

            “Sullivan also asked prosecutor Brad Van Grack: “Hypothetically could he have been charged with treason?”

            First and foremost, raising a treason charge is so wildly out of place on this record that it could have been viewed as an attempt by the judge at being facetious. The man in front of Sullivan was accused of lying in an FBI interview, even though the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe his false statements were intentional.

            Flynn was accused of lying not about speaking with Ambassador Kislyak – something neither unlawful nor unprecedented for an incoming national security adviser – but of failing to acknowledge that he and Kislyak discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia and Russia’s position on an upcoming vote in the United Nations regarding Israel.

            Significantly, none of what Flynn and Kislyak discussed had anything to do with alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign on the 2016 presidential election or the other matters under investigation by Special Counsel Mueller.

            Conversely, treason is defined as levying war on the United States or giving aid and comfort to a nation with which we are at war. Even raising the question of such a charge against Flynn for his work on behalf of Turkey – a NATO ally – is absurd.

            The most worrisome statement by Judge Sullivan involved Flynn being a foreign agent as national security adviser. Flynn’s work as a lobbyist has been raised in the investigation, but this was work Flynn did before he became national security adviser in the White House and was unrelated to the Russia investigation.”
            https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jonathan-turley-judge-surprises-flynn-at-sentencing-hearing-heres-what-to-expect-next

            Turley on Morning Joe MSNBC:

            http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/the-strategy-behind-the-so-called-spygate-1245365315859

            http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/the-impact-of-the-shifting-story-on-stormy-daniels-1227286595663

            http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump-could-be-going-into-formal-litigation-posture-law-scholar-1224729155832

            http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/michael-cohen-raid-like-a-nuclear-strike-says-senator-1207243331858

          • Tina says:

            Turley does not “contort” positions. He sites the law to explain or correct item currently under discussion or in the news. For instance, he recently pointed out that Flynn was not Indicted for purgury as Obama recently claimed and the MSM repeated.

            All of the crimes and malfeasance committed by people at the top under Obama will be evident soon. The media you follow has been complicit.

            The following is copied and pasted from two current PJ Media articles. My posting abilities are limited or I would do a better job.

            …according to information being declassified by acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell.

            Former Vice President Joe Biden, then-FBI Director James Comey, and intelligence chiefs John Brennan and James Clapper are among the list of Obama administration officials who sought to “unmask” the identity of Michael Flynn during the presidential transition following the 2016 presidential election…according to documents released Wednesday…

            A lot of faith has been put into the intelligence community’s assessment that Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin wanted Donald Trump to win the 2016 election. This assessment gave credence to the Trump-Russia collusion narrative that launched an investigation into Trump’s campaign. Last week declassified testimony proved that top Obama officials never had any empirical evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

            Fleitz, a former CIA analyst who also worked on the House Intelligence Committee, took to Fox News to disagree with a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report released Tuesday. That report claims that the 2017 intelligence community assessment showing that Russia backed Trump over Clinton followed proper procedures, contradicting a House committee report from March 2018 showing that it did not.
            Newly declassified intelligence further undermines the 2017 assessment, and Fleitz focused on a few basic procedures that were violated in the production of that

            The Obama administration:
            * never had any empirical evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia
            * sought a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign base on the Steele dossier, which the FBI knew was Russian disinformation
            * suppressed intelligence showing that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 presidential election
            * set up a perjury trap for incoming Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, and Obama knew Flynn was being wiretapped.
            We also know that Barack Obama was directly involved in the investigation and knew Flynn was wiretapped.

            This story is so much bigger than Watergate. Had republicans done this the last three years would have been 24/7 coverage of investigations by Pelosi House committees…nonstop!!! As it is the progressives of the Dem Party have gotten away with all manner of crimes in part because the MSM protects them…another travesty that I believe will soon be exposed.

          • Chris says:

            A lot wrong here, but let’s look specifically at that PJ Media breakdown:

            The Obama administration:
            * never had any empirical evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia

            This is not the standard for opening an investigation. What we know for a fact is that there were numerous contacts between Russia and members of the Trump campaign, including an instance where his own son and campaign manager went to a meeting with the express intent of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russians (a thing that Trump also said in public he would welcome). It would have been the height of negligence to not investigate this.

            It also should be noted that this investigation was kept secret while there were constant updates on the investigation into Hillary Clinton, including a particularly unnecessary one a week before the election, which many observers believe swung the election toward Trump. If the goal was to sabotage the Trump campaign, the Obama administration and the FBI were spectacularly bad at it.

            * sought a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign base on the Steele dossier, which the FBI knew was Russian disinformation

            The Trump campaign was not spied on. The only FISA warrant was on Carter Page, after he had left the campaign. While there was a lot left out of this FISA warrant (which is typical of the process, and part of the reason FISA should be eliminated), it was not entirely based on the Steele dossier. It is also not the case that the FBI “knew” the whole dossier was disinformation; it was a raw intelligence document, which often contains a mixture of true and false intelligence, as the agents were surely aware.

            * suppressed intelligence showing that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 presidential election

            There is no such evidence. Putin notorously loathes Hillary Clinton, and Trump was extremely favorable toward Russia during the campaign. The notion that Russia preferred Hillary is absurd and contradicted by every US intelligence agency.

            * set up a perjury trap for incoming Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn,

            No, that is not what a perjury trap is.

            and Obama knew Flynn was being wiretapped.
            We also know that Barack Obama was directly involved in the investigation and knew Flynn was wiretapped.

            There is no evidence that Flynn was wiretapped. There is far more evidence that he was caught on a wiretap of Ambassador Kislyak. Think: If Flynn had been directly wiretapped, why would it have been necessary to “unmask” him? It wouldn’t have been.

            If this is what the “Obamagate” conspiracy theory is based on, then it’s built on a series of easily disproven lies. But then, so was the entire Trump campaign, and that didn’t stop him from winning in 2016. Hopefully voters in 2020 (at least those who live in the right areas of the country to actually affect the outcome) will be more savvy.

    • Chris says:

      And if so, that’s not surprising. A huge Obama White House effort to spy on a political opponent and prevent him from serving in public office is slowly being exposed.

      A conspiracy theory so untethered to reality that it can be unraveled by asking one simple question:

      If Obama wanted to meddle in the 2016 election, and if this was the purpose of the investigation into the Trump campaign, then why was this investigation and its results kept secret until the campaign was over, even while the investigation into Hillary Clinton was public and characterized by frequent updates?

      The Obama administration or the FBI could have leaked the Steele dossiers it’s allegations at any time. They didn’t. Instead, the head of the FBI revealed that they were reopening the Hillary email investigation a week before the election—and that turned out to be over nothing. Claims of a government attempt to sabotage the Trump campaign by the FBI or the Obama administration are thus ridiculous and nothing more than a manifestation of the right-wing victim mentality.

      • Tina says:

        This investigation was not kept secret. You just refuse to acknowledge anything that’s not reported by CNN and other complicit media.

        You’re as wrong about this scandal as you were when you told me Trump had no chance to win in the last election.

        Shame on you for being such a blind follower of fake news.

      • Tina says:

        The Steele dossiers was leaked. It was also paid for by the Hillary campaign and the DNC! It was also used to obtain FISA warrants used to illegally spy on the Trump campaign.

        The documented evidence is available to anyone…and there is more to come.

        • Chris says:

          This investigation was not kept secret. You just refuse to acknowledge anything that’s not reported by CNN and other complicit media.

          Those two sentences contradict each other. If the Trump investigation wasn’t kept secret during the campaign, wouldn’t CNN and “other complicit media” have been all over it? You’re arguing that the Dems and the media used the investigation to sink Trump, and now you’re saying the media didn’t report on the existence of the investigation, and that this…somehow hurt Trump? What?

          The same mainstream sources you’re calling shameful reported on the Clinton investigation constantly. James Comey did not even confirm the existence of Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation into Russia’s ties with and attempts to help the Trump campaign, until March 17. That same James Comey announced he was reopening the Clinton investigation a week before the election. That alone should be enough to destroy the conspiracy theory that the justified and necessary investigation of Trump was a plot to sink his election chances.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_Hurricane_(FBI_investigation)

          The Steele dossier did not become public knowledge until after the election. Again, if the people behind it wanted to use it to smear Trump, they could have found a way to make it public before the election. Instead they were very careful.

          Raw intelligence documents such as the Steele dossier are used to obtain FISA warrants all the time. You never cared until FISA was used against someone connected to a politician you liked. When FISA was first passed your argument was “If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t care about being spied on.” I remember our arguments about this kind of wiretapping during the Bush administration. Neither you nor the Republican party as a whole are proposing any actual reforms to the FISA process where abuses like this are typical. Just as you are not proposing any reforms to 1001 violations like Flynn’s. That’s because the complaints from the right about these things have nothing to do with civil liberties or principles, and everything to do with cronyism.

          to illegally spy on the Trump campaign.

          I don’t know why you expect me to stop calling out this lie. The “Trump campaign” was not spied on. Carter Page was spied on after he left the campaign. That’s it. And while there were problems with the FISA applications, the spying itself was not illegal. Again, if you were interested in making such abuses by the government illegal, I’d welcome your input on how we can go about doing so. But you’ve expressed no such interest.

  3. Tina says:

    That Sundance link doesn’t work Peggy. He’s really good at putting a timeline together. I’ll see if I can pull it up on my own. Thanks.

    • Peggy says:

      Hi Tina, I posted it to another article here after realizing it didn’t work and before this one was approved. It is really long, but packed with facts and documents.

      GREAT hearing from you!!

  4. Chris says:

    Watch this and tell me this is a man in his right mind.

    https://twitter.com/axios/status/1259959091704799233?s=21

    • Tina says:

      This IS a man in his right mind.

      The woman is clearly of the same mindset as you.

      She isn’t a journalist seeking information and facts. She is an aggressive activist.

      Wake up Chris. None of us are free when media chooses sides.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *