I am leading the fight against corruption in California. I am determined to make a steadfast, serious, determined, sustained, Herculean fight against corruption in California
Corruption in this state is wide spread. It has even spread to California’s judiciary.
There is objectively verifiable evidence, some of it confirmed by government agencies and some of it confirmed by crooked judges, that there is a staggering judicial scandal in California. This scandal might be the largest, and longest lasting, judicial scandal in the history of the United States, yet no one, except California attorney Richard I. Fine, has been, or is, doing anything meaningful about it.
Judges in this state are being allowed, contrary to the law, to accept unauthorized additional compensation, which, as a matter of law, amounts to bribes and a felony. The people who offer these bribes, which is also a crime, are also being allowed to continue to bribe California’s judges.
Amazingly, the California Legislature gave crooked judges, and those who bribe them, retroactive immunity for their wrongdoing! Retroactive immunity–to judges no less–is scandalous and unprecedented. If this was an earthquake, it would be a 15 on the Richter scale.
These judges are so drunk with power, and so entrenched and powerful, they even got the California Legislature and a Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger , to give them immunity for their felonies against “We the People”. The Legislature and Schwarzenegger had no legitimate business granting crooked judges retroactive immunity. They both grossly exceeded their actual authority.
“Checks and balances” has totally collapsed in this state. The Legislature and the Governor are now abusing their power to provide legal cover for judicial officers’ felonies. Even worse: California’s Attorney General and the District Attorneys in this state, the chief law enforcement officers, have failed to discharge their law imposed duty to see to it that the law is enforced and these crooked judges are prosecuted.
California’s courtrooms are suppose to be Temples of Justice were judges function as Guardians of Liberty and every citizen can get a fair shake before an ethical judge.
Is there any reasonably constituted person who would knowingly feel comfortable being a party to a lawsuit presented to a tainted judge who is guilty of accepting a bribe?
The corruption is now so wide spread, so entrenched, that California’s corrupt judges have the on-going audacity to continue to ignore the law, to just wink at it or laugh at it, and, brazenly and inexplicably, continue to accept these bribes . . . while they dare to pass judgment on others.
Crooked judges have forfeited their legitimacy and are unfit to remain on the bench. They need to be pulled down, prosecuted, and held accountable.
Inexplicably, the California Legislature and Governor have granted crooked judges people who should have known better, people who violated the public’s sacred trust, retroactive immunity for their crimes. This outcome is asinine. It must not stand. It must be reversed.
Greed is a potent motivator and power is a potent corrosive. Most of California’s judges have succumbed to greed . . . and the intoxicant, power. There is evidence that strongly indicates that approximately 1,800 of California’s 1,900 state judges have accepted unauthorized payments and continue to do so. The nature, quality, and scale of this malfeasance in office is huge, staggering, and unprecedented.
For more specific, detailed information, please read an op-ed that I wrote titled “Pondering Widespread Corruption and A Collapse of Constitutional Government in California”. A link to that op-ed is here:
Anyone who does not join me in my fight against corruption is on the other side, in favor of corruption.
I, alone, can’t get rid of this corruption.
I am doing my best to run a positive, principled, campaign that puts a spotlight on this corruption issue. I am on the right side of the law, facts, ethics, and common sense.
If you don’t join with me to fight corruption, you are a big part of the problem. If you remain silent and do nothing, your action is action: you end up condoning, encouraging, and tolerating, corruption.
The incumbent for the 10th Assembly District, Michael Allen, a Democrat, a member of the “Legislature Ethics Committee” and an “Assistant California Assembly Majority Leader”, has been in office long enough to make corruption a major issue. After reviewing his Assembly Internet site, spot checking everything on it that appears relevant, I could not find a single expression of him having any interest in “corruption”, judges taking bribes, or the Legislature giving crooked judges retroactive immunity.
Mr. Allen has been in office long enough to at least express some kind of an interest in corruption. He, however, has done nothing about this issue. It’s time for a change. He’s had his chance.
Corruption has affected all of California and every branch of government. The fact that it has now corrupted our courts is an extreme threat to our liberty, our freedom, our prosperity, our way of life, and justice–which includes many of the priceless intangible that we hold dear.
Corrupt judges, corrupt law makers, corrupt prosecutors, and a corrupt governor have, together and individually, perverted “Justice” to mean “Just us!”–them, and by so doing, they have, in effect, arrogantly and smugly, declared themselves to be “Untouchables”, “Off limit”, and “Sacred Cows”, namely, above the law.
Crooked judges and crooked officials are not untouchable. They are not beyond the law’s reach. They are not “Sacred Cows”. They are not “above the law”. These crooks, criminals, and duty derelicts need to be held accountable and delivered a well deserved comeuppance.
My goal is to take back our state, to have citizens assert their oversight control and authority, to make our courtrooms and judges corruption free, to get rid of this cancerous corruption wherever it has taken hold, and to restore constitutionalism [obeying our Constitutions’ commands–federal and state]..
“We the People” delegated power to these officials who now function, brazenly, as criminals. We never surrendered power to them. We retain the power to hold them accountable, and, we can do that, by force of our collective will and our collective demands that the law be enforced to the fullest extent.
Anyone who is against my drive to get rid of corruption–and to hold the corrupt accountable–is, by default, in favor of the status quo and corruption.
This issue, in the end, is simple: Yes/No, are you in favor of corruption?
Anyone who makes light of corruption, or who jokes about it, is part of the problem. My fight against corruption–and the collapse of constitutional government in California–which facilitates this corruption, is a war. This is a war to restore a respectable “Rule of Law” to California, administered by honest judges of the highest integrity.
In this war to end corruption, every voter must make their choice, must make their pick among the candidates.
We don’t have to accept corruption. I don’t. You don’t.
Where is it written that we must co-exist with corrupt officials? That we must continue to pay, and keep on the job, corrupt officials?
Do the laws against corruption, bribes, and dereliction of duty still mean anything?
How respectable is “the law” when the entire apparatus of California state and county government tolerates publicly known, wide spread corruption?
Why should taxpayers tender any tax tribute to a corrupt government? To corrupt officials?
Why should taxpayers and voters remain silent? Unduly compliant? Tolerate public serpents?
Corruption in this state is widespread and it has endured for far too long. It is spreading. It is becoming even more entrenched.
California is no longer “Golden”. Instead, she is, at best, a glob of “fool’s gold” and, at worse, a den for ruthless, unprincipled, conniving, poisonous, crooks and criminals, who give vipers a bad name. Many of these bad officials wear black robes. These corrupt judicial officers, via their shenanigans, spread a virulent pseudo legal version of a functionally corrosive, bubonic plague, which undermines confidence in the judiciary and the administration of justice.
I reject the attitude that we should live with, or have to live with, corruption. We don’t.
I do not crave power or its perks. I do not seek political-legal power for its own sake. I want to become an elected lawmaker primarily because I have a strong will to resist usurpations [abuse of power], and I want to be in the arena, the Legislature, where I can be in a position to nip an abuse of power before it occurs. It is easy for me to be extraordinarily self-assertive and out spoken against an abuse of power. I intend to be an usurper’s worse nightmare.
I will be honest with you, and I will never mislead you. I will put all the cards on the table, face up, for you to see. I will also tell you what I believe you need to know, even when I believe you don’t want to hear it and you won’t like my position. If, by that attitude [I think I know things you don’t that I think you need to know], you think I am arrogant or egotistical, so be it.
I will not be unduly modest. Just as many of you know many important things that I don’t, I know many important things about law, politics, economics, history, government, and governance that many of you don’t know and need to know. If that belief makes me arrogant–in your judgment, so be it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I am convinced that “progressive” Democrats have gotten away with being extremely manipulative and disingenuous with the people in the 10th Assembly District. “Progressive” Democrats have often conducted themselves in a way that, in effect, amounts to a form of political brain washing of many people in the District to believe that it is in their best interest to embrace “progressive” values instead of “constitutional” values. Our individual, collective, and societal best interests, however, are best served, and promoted, when we function with absolute fidelity to the U.S. Constitution’s commands. “Progressive” values are too ambiguous, too flighty, too subject to political caprice, whim, and the cult of political personality, to be worth anything of enduring value. “Progressive” values are like dust blowing in the wind or “fool’s gold”. “Constitutional” values, on the other hand, when adhered to and when implemented with fidelity to our Constitution’s commands, and its actual text, are where the real “gold” is to be found. This is because our Constitution, when adhered to, is solid bedrock, an excellent foundation upon which to build and to base vital constitutional guarantees for Freedom and Liberty.
An engineer would never waste his time or money trying to drive a pillar into sand. Sand won’t support well any load bearing structure. “Progressive values” are based on political sand and feel good, mumble jumble, sleight of hand rationales detached from the U.S. Constitution.
Philosopher Ayn Rand opined, “We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
consequences of evading reality.” I concur, 100%. “Progressive” Democrats in this state, for decades, however, have passed budgets with huge deficits and spent money recklessly, both in a manner that evades reality. They have driven us into a ditch. They are stuck. They don’t know how to get un-stuck. They will keep us stuck as long as they persist with clinging to their fool’s gold, feels good, fuzzy, non-progressive “progressive” values. They’ve been in charge now for decades. To expect they will suddenly govern more effectively is to engage in delusional thinking. They’ve had their turn, and they’ve blown it.
Since I will not be crushed if I am not elected, I am 100% free to be 100% honest and candid with you, and I will be exactly that. I will never knowingly squander my credibility just to get elected, re-elected, or to be politically expedient. If I were to refrain from being 100% candid with you, you would not get the best of what I have to offer. I want you to benefit from the best of what I have to offer, to help solve problems.
I am not deterred by “political correctness”. “Political correctness” is A) the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived by some to exclude, marginalize, or insult certain groups of people or a certain individual, B) of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation, C) commentary that is, or is perceived as being, overly concerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters, motivated by a perceived need to present one’s self in disguise and to suppress one’s true beliefs to avoid invoking the displeasure or wrath of another person or group, D) a form of thought control and suppression of individuality, and E) a form of censorship arising from pressure, perceived, anticipated, or real, arising from others being upset by communication of an opinion they do not share. I refuse to let anyone gag me. I am exceedingly jealous of my First Amendment Right to Free Speech and Right to Petition for Redress of a Grievance.
I am not afraid of “the bow wave”. Let me explain what I mean by “the bow wave”. Years ago, as a photojournalist, I was a tag along photographer in a USAF Boeing KC-135 four engine jet aerial refueling tanker airplane that refuels other airplanes in-flight. I was in the back, laying down next to the boomer [the crew member who operates the boom, through which jet fuel is passed from the tanker to the receiver aircraft]. The receiver on this flight was a USAF Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, which, at the time, was the largest airplane in the Free World. The C-5 made a very slow, careful approach, taking minutes to close the last few hundred feet to get within range of the flying boom. When this C-5 was about 150 feet from us the boomer suddenly said, “Hold on. She’s going to hit us!” When I heard that I instantly became scared and I grabbed hold of something other than my camera. I was surprised the boomer said what he said because the C-5 was still moving in slowly and carefully. Soon, the tail of the airplane I was in abruptly moved up about 10 feet, causing me to begin to slide down the cushion I was laying on, until the pilot of my plane corrected and leveled out.
That was the “bow wave”, namely, the big blunt nose of the C-5 pushed air in front of it, as it moved ahead, away and forward, and, when the C-5 was about 150 feet from us, the wall of that pushed away, invisible, air “hit” us and was powerful enough to move the big, heavy airplane I was in.
A huge part of politics, and how human beings inter act with each other, is, in my judgement, like that C-5′s “bow wave”: People, if we let them, often do have a powerful invisible impact on us, even when there is no physical contact.
I contend that four of the most dreaded words are, “What will others
While I, sometimes, am concerned about what others will think, say, or do, I will still be me. I will conduct myself without fear of what others think, say, or do or, despite such fear, if any. I am convinced that many people, especially politicians, are extremely afraid of “the bow wave”, and, as a result of their strong desire to get elected, re-elected, or to be liked, they will lie to get what they want. I will not lie to get what I want.
I will “push the envelope” to the extreme edges. “Pushing the envelope” is a military fighter pilot term for flying an airplane hard, to the maximum of its speed, attitude, and range, etc. As a member of the California Assembly, I will “push the envelope” in how I represent the 10th Assembly District. By that, I mean this: I will not stay in the safe center of the envelope, and, by default, allow other lawmakers to silence me, to dominate the discussion, to push me off the porch, to intimidate me into going along with them just to get along. I will be one of the most forceful, assertive personalities in the Assembly, advocating hard for what I believe is best for the people of the 10th District, always reasoning, competently and ethically, from and to the U.S. Constitution . . . and California’s.
To restore constitutionalism, I will speak Truth to Power. I will sternly rebuke usurpers, and I will do my best to get rid of unconstitutional laws and prevent the passage of new ones. I will not “go along to get along” with usurpers.
I am a constitutionalist first and a Republican second. I do my best to reason from and to the U.S. Constitution. If elected, I will function in that manner regardless of party affiliation.
All political parties have let us down. I am fed up with political in-fighting along strict party lines.
My character and personality traits lend themselves to me being an effective representative and legislator. I have the following traits:
- Fiercely independent;
- Proactive; self-reliant self-starter; energetic, tenacious; focused; industrious; and goal oriented;
- Reliable, trustworthy, and accepts responsibility;
- Committed to excellence;
- Analytical; an independent thinker and a strategic thinker; detail oriented, thorough, and focused, with a long attention span;
- No nonsense oriented;
- I am intense and passionate; I am able to be candid and blunt or diplomatic and tactful;
- I am loyal to those who manifest loyalty to me and to the U.S. Constitution;
- I do my best to steadfastly reason, with principles, to and from the U.S. Constitution.
I have a skill set that will help me be an effective representative and legislator. I have the following skills:
- Good critical thinking skills, e.g., I can spot and expose fallacious arguments;
- Able to study and master complex problems;
- Able to comprehend legalese;
- Able to work independently and assume full responsibility;
- Able to get to the bottom of things;
- Able to flush out anyone with something to hide;
- Superior analytical, organizational, writing, and problem solving skills; mature, sound judgment with a broad, practical knowledge of the law;
- Able to maintain confidentiality;
- Able to exercise discretion prudently;
- Able to organize and deliver an effective presentation;
- Able to work on long term, complex, multi-tasked projects alone or with others; able to synthesize and summarize information accurately and succinctly with insight;
- Able to make well-reasoned, major, complex decisions and recommendations;
- Able to handle large sums of money prudently;
- Able to sell an idea; and
- Able to prioritize well, delegate, supervise, stay focused, motivate others, listen carefully, and press a point effectively against substantial opposition.
Fortunately, I was able to get an excellent education, and for the last forty years I have continued my education. I have a solid, relevant education [BA With Honors in Political Science from the Univ of CA, Riverside, 1968 and a Doctors of Jurisprudence, School of Law, Univ of CA, Davis, 1971], plus a solid data base of continued education to draw from when I process information and make decisions.
I have convictions and the courage to advocate for them. I know where I stand on history’s time line. I know what happened in history before now because I have done my homework. I know what I believe. I know why I believe what I believe. I know what is vital in life. I will advocate forcefully and effectively for what I believe. I am the opposite of a push-over.
I stick to my principles and I am comfortable with my judgment. Until convinced on the merits that I am wrong, I stick to my principles and my own judgment. Until convinced on the merits that I am wrong I know of no reason why I should embrace another person’s judgment, unless I perceive them to be a true, neutral, expert on a relevant subject. I refuse to respond to pressure. I will, however, respond to logic and persuasive reasoning and adjust accordingly. The best way, and the only way, to get me to change my opinion and position is to convince me on the merits that I am wrong. If that is done, I will change immediately and decisively. I am a trained decision maker who is receptive to new, meritorious, ideas and points of view. While I hold firm beliefs, I am receptive to new ideas and always willing to re-examine what I believe and why.
I do my best to do the right thing at the right time for the right reason(s). I do not do a risk-benefit calculus and ask, “What’s in it for me?
I encourage self-reliance. Often, when you need or want a helping hand, the first best place to look is the end of your arms. Government can’t do everything. Government is often too slow, incompetent, indifferent, and callous. I am convinced that “progressive” Democrats champion policies that, short term and long terms, are doing an extreme disservice by encouraging millions of citizens to be overly reliant on government for assistance.
I have empathy for people. I want others to enjoy meaningful opportunities for self-improvement so they can move up the socio-economic ladder, be productive, be happy, enjoy the full Blessings of Liberty, and be able to pursue their version of “happiness” as long as they do no harm to others.
I champion good “Principles of Governance”. I am supremely confident that my core Principles of Governance will serve all good citizens well. Some of my major Principles are stated below.
The best form of governance must include absolute fidelity to the U.S. Constitution’s commands, per its text, not as interpreted away by many with an unconstitutional agenda. We have a good constitution. It has not failed us. We have failed it. It is not self-executing. We must obey it and breathe life into our rights so they remain relevant and real. Our individual and collective security, freedom, and prosperity will be best achieved by functioning with fidelity to our Constitution’s commands.
I once saw a political cartoon that resonated with me. This cartoon showed two men, one an Iraqi Sunni and the other an Iraqi Shiite, each with a zealot look, jumping over an obstacle, each carrying an AK-47 rifle, looking at each other, screaming, “I am fighting for the freedom to enslave you!” If you substitute “Republican” for Sunni and Democrat for “Shiite” you can get a clue as to why I am fed up with Americans of all political persuasions distorting constitutional concepts, to gain advantage over other Americans. Americans should not be seeking advantage over other Americans. Instead, they should, united, obey our Constitution’s commands. Since that is not the case in American politics, the real battle is not between Republicans versus Democrats but between Constitutionalists versus Anti-Constitutionalists.
I will Insist upon the correct use of language and guard against incorrect use which is often a ruse to disguise and promote an unconstitutional agenda. Words have established, legitimate, accepted definitions. Definitions have meaning. Meanings have consequences. Consequences have outcomes. Outcomes affect citizens, their rights, and the real American Constitutional Rule of Law. Usurpers love to play the unprincipled game of “switcheroo”, namely, tweak the language to constrict liberty and expand their power or to steal under color of law.
California is plagued with usurpers who function as domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution. As such, they also function as domestic terrorists, who terrorize us, and, in the process, they often flirt with or actually commit, arguably, treason. They often do this by waging a war of verbal aggression, distorting our language and constitutional concepts. I object to their approach to governance, which is more dangerous than the theat posed by radical foreign terrorists.
One example of this verbal war of aggression against vital rights is the term assault weapon. Have you ever known of a firearm that formed the intent to commit an assault? That loaded itself? That aimed itself? That pulled its own trigger? The only thing a firearm can do without human intervention is self-destruct via a mechanism called “rust”. Self-destruction is the opposite of “assault”. “Progressive” Democrats hate the Second Amendment so much they concocted this silly term, “assault weapon”, to demonize an inanimate object, firearms, which are morally neutral, lawful products, often used to enforce liberty and to preserve human life.
One has to believe odd things to be a “progressive” Democrat, such as, A) a firearm is capable of forming the intent to commit an assault and B) it is prudent for government to have a monopoly on firearms.
Another example is “first responders”. The real “first responders” are victims of crime, accidents, and natural disasters, not the “second responders”, such as cops, medics, and fire fighters who arrive on scene after the fact.
It is imperative that we share a correct understanding of the true nature of what our government is and how it should function. Many folks think that our government is an unlimited pure “democracy” where the majority can do just about anything it wants via a majority vote. Per that understanding, “democracy” boils down to two wolves and one lamb voting on what to eat.
An accurate characterization of the true form of our government is
this: We are a constitutionally limited democratic republic with certain rights guaranteed for all citizens. We have a written constitution that imposes major restraints against the majority, to guard against the infamous “Tyranny of the Majority”, where the majority functions as the tyrant. We are a democratic republic because the electorate votes to elect representatives who debate public policy and pass laws, and our constitution imposes limits on the electorate and officials. We also have rights guaranteed for all, regardless of whether one finds himself in the majority or in the minority. A prudent citizen will embrace this orientation. Every one is likely to find themselves in the minority more than once.
Citizens cannot do indirectly, via government, what they can’t do directly, such as steal from other citizens, under color of law. It is morally wrong for citizens to hijack government, stack it with their gang of officials, and use their gang, under color of law, to steal from other citizens. Theft, under color of law, even when labeled “social justice”, “progressive policy”, or “wealth redistribution”, is stealing. If you call a dog’s tail a leg and claim the dog has five legs it still has four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.
I don’t fudge facts. Facts are stubborn, stark, critters. They can be ignored, overlooked, and misinterpreted, innocently or negligently, but, they exist, and they are what they are. People with ulterior agendas fudge facts to promote their agenda. I’m pretty good at detecting and exposing that approach.
I encourage citizens to be assertive. I want citizens to exercise their rights, which includes oversight control over their public servants, which deters them from functioning as public serpents. I do not fear citizens who dare to exercise their rights, which includes oversight control over me as an elected representative.
I will promote a rigorous, robust, sustained, meaningful, color blindness and a true, meaningful, realistic “equality before the law” and “equal opportunity for all”. Capitalism, Christianity, and the U.S. Constitution, when properly applied, are 100% color blind.
I will rebuke racists and irrational prejudices. Many of our most serious problems will disappear when we establish a civilization that extends to all the full Blessings of Liberty, regardless of their race, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.
I will promote a correct application of the twin ideals of our way of life: Equality and Opportunity. Equality means a real, meaningful, sustained equality before the law. Donald Trump’s vote does not count for more than a less affluent citizen’s vote. Equality also means a real, meaningful, robust, sustained equal opportunity to elevate one’s social-economic status. Equality and Opportunity, however, do not mean equal result. Precisely because human beings are different, with different talents, attitudes, and work ethics, when given a meaningful equality before the law and an equal opportunity to succeed, there will be un-equal results. Un-equal results are not proof of unlawful discrimination. Government should not engage in wealth redistribution or social engineering via taxation to achieve equal results. Wealth redistribution is a bankrupt concept. It creates a powerful disincentive for producers and it creates a powerful incentive for the poor to do less than they can to self-improve to elevate themselves.
I will promote an expanding “round table of success”. I envision a big “round table of success”, with a chair for every citizen, waiting for each to take their seat, as a full fledge, valued, citizen, equal before the law, united. with a sincere commitment to function with absolute fidelity to our Constitution’s commands. At this table, I would be100% comfortable with anyone regardless of their race, sex, national origin, religion [if any], and/or sexual preference, as long as they functioned with absolute fidelity to our Constitution’s commands. That fidelity is the invisible glue that binds us as a nation and as a united “We the People”.
I will reach out across party lines, overcome barriers, and solve problems. We can’t continue to kick cans down the road. We have kicked too many already too many times. We have run out of road. The cans are piled high and deep. We are on the verge of a breakdown of civilized society. This is not hyperbole. There is nothing “progressive” about civic malpractice that culminates in a financial meltdown and societal disintegration. “California Dreamin’” has become a nightmarish “California Meltdown”.
I will champion polices calculated to help the poor become middle class. An effective humanitarian, instead of giving the poor an endless supply of “fish”, teaches them how to fish.
I will promote and achieve a sustained, meaningful, “due process of law” for all. “Due Process of Law” is the United States’ Number One justification for its leadership of the Free World. However, if the criteria set forth in the U.S. Constitution, Capitalism, and Christianity were the governing criteria for how the United States is evaluated, this nation, and “We the People”, have failed, and we are probably among the world’s biggest hypocrites.
“Due Process of Law” is a vital, affirmative command, set forth in our
Constitution, which is binding on our officials. It is not an option. It is not an aspiration. Far too often, however, our officials dish out, in an extremely stingy manner, only that measure of “process” which they arbitrarily deem we are “due”, and they often do so in a way calculated to cover up for each other’s usurpations [abuse of power]. These shenanigans under color of law must stop. Public serpents must be held accountable.
Our Armed Forces removed Saddam Hussein from power. American
taxpayers paid a huge tax tribute to accomplish that result. We remember well the TV pictures of a U.S. service member putting a chain around the neck of a Saddam statue and that statue being pulled down. We cannot, however, spread freedom abroad when we abandon it at home, for ourselves. We need to clean our own house and pull down from power thousands of domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution.
The “general welfare” is best promoted by a combination of the following: 1) revise the law so citizens can hold accountable officials who shuffle laws like a card shark shuffles a deck; 2) rigorously uphold the entire Bill of Rights for all citizens; 3) secure absolute fidelity to our Constitution’s commands; and 4) promote an atmosphere that is virulently hostile to usurpers to discourage usurpations.
California government needs to be reformed to make it responsive to serve all Californians and to secure individual liberty. To bring about these reforms, I will do my best to stop corruption, hold the corrupt accountable, and to eliminate bankrupt legal doctrines that grant state officials unconstitutional immunity for their usurpations, especially when motivated by malice or corruption or both.
I believe in the concept of “unalienable rights”. The most important document in the history of Mankind is the English Magna Carta from 1215 or Declaration of Independence from July 4, 1776. The second paragraph of that Declaration, which declares that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and that government’s primary purpose is “to secure these rights”, is, arguably, the most important words and concepts communicated in any language on any land mass at any time in history.
With some exceptions, most Statists believe 1) it is best to concentrate all economic, political, and legal power in favor of Government; 2) Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is established scientific fact as to the origin of life; 3) there is no “god; 4) there is only “survival of the fittest”; 5) since there is no “god”, there are no “unalienable rights”; 6) “rights” are an archaic concept and we now have only “privileges”, which are a matter of Government’s grace, which Government can withhold; and 7) citizens, their lives, their liberty, and their assets are subservient to the State, namely, Statists can confiscate all assets and determine what rights we have.
With some exceptions, Constitutionalists, however, believe 1) Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as to the origins of life remains an unproven theory; 2) there is a “god”; 3) this “god”–not any man or any group of human beings–is the source of all “rights”; 4) “unalienable rights” are real; and 5) the primary purpose of government is to secure unalienable rights for citizens.
I believe that Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution” as to the origins of human life remains unproven. No one has been able to replicate his theory–to make life out of non-living matter. The ability to replicate a theory, to get the same result, is an essential requirement, per the “scientific attitude of mind” for a theory to gain acceptance.
Those who scoff at my rejection of Darwin’s theory as a satisfactory explanation for the origins of life should read Phillip E. Johnson’s Darwin on Trial. Mr. Johnson is a retired UC Berkeley School of Law professor. He made an in depth study of Darwin’s theory, per rigorous legal and “scientific attitude of mind” standards of proof. Mr. Johnson, in his book, quoted Darwin’s written repudiation of his own theory! When one gives ample weight to a rigorous “scientific attitude of mind”, I believe that no one has proved that Darwin’s theory as to the origin of life [primordial gas formed a unisex cell] is convincing.
If I believed there was no “God”, and if I believed we evolved only from apes, it would be easy to look at myself and my fellow citizens and deem us to be descended from apes and not be creatures of “God”. In that case, it would be easy to think life is only a matter of “survival of the fittest” and there are no “rights”. Instead, there is only power, brute strength, and survival, e.g., he who dies with the most wins. Absent a belief in “God”, it would be much easier to be ruthless and unprincipled.
Since I believe there is a “God”, and this “God” is the origin of human life and is the ultimate source of “rights”–yours and mine–I feel an enhanced duty to treat you per the Golden Rule, as I would want to be treated, with dignity, with respect, and with care. As a result of this logic, you benefit.
If elected, I would never knowingly abuse a citizen.
I will never try to superimpose my beliefs about God, religion, Darwin, or evolution on anyone. I believe this:
- I have my beliefs. Others have theirs. We are all entitled to believe what we believe about these subjects.
- I am fighting for the constitutional right for all citizens to express their beliefs, fully, to have a meaningful First Amendment Right to Free Speech and Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances.
- Corruption impinges upon and stultifies those rights. Corruption corrodes everything it touches.
- The July 4th Declaration declares that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” and the purpose of government is to secure these rights, “among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
- This vital concept of “unalienable rights” from a “Creator”, which are rights that existed in nature and that all human beings have merely by virtue of being human, pre-existed the formation of society and government and survived the creation of society and government. These rights were transferred into the U.S. Constitution. Thus, no judge, regardless of his/her thoughts about “God”, has any actual authority to set aside any right codified in the U.S. Constitution, even if he/she is an atheist, an agnostic and/or a statist.
- My key point here is this: I object to anyone’s position that any human being is the ultimate source of my rights or yours. I believe that a “God”, which I do not fully understand, not Man, Society, or Government, is the ultimate source of rights.
- I am also convinced that many atheists and agnostics are statists hell bent on usurping their power and advancing an agenda that marginalizes the concepts of “God”, “unalienable rights”, and the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
- Simultaneously, I also believe that many despicable things against human beings have been done in the name of “God” or “religion”, and, in that sense, many myopic, die hard, self-anointed, holier than thou, so called, “religious” people, dead and living, have a lot to answer for. I distance myself from them. While distancing myself from them I do not let their egregious conduct undermine my faith, and belief, that there is some kind of a “God”.
- I believe there is some type of a Creator or God that created what many human beings refer to as heaven, earth, and some form of hell in some kind of an after life.
- To my knowledge, Darwin never expressed an opinion about the origin or the creation of matter. Matter is different from life. Darwin formed a theory about the creation of life, but not the creation of matter.
- The Bible does assert that an all powerful, all knowing, God created all matter and all life and there is a heaven and a hell which human beings will encounter after they die.
- I am not a scientist. I lack expert credentials to prove that there is a God. However, I have a strong sense that there is, for a lack of a better term, a Creator or a God, something that created all matter and all life.
- I do not blindly and uncritically accept the Bible as necessarily being the absolute sole word of God. I suspect that the Bible’s content is the result of a lot of political influence by mortals with mortal frailties, yet it may very well be inspired by the word of God.
- I also do not accept the Bible as a substitute for the U.S. Constitution.
- I have taken numerous oaths to uphold, support, and defend the U.S. Constitution. I took the oaths freely, based on a high level of informed consent. No one has the power to relieve me from those oaths. I do not want to be relieved from my duty to support the U.S. Constitution.
- I have never taken any oath to obey or to support any judge or to obey or to support the Bible.
I will do my best to promote respect for citizens, their rights, and to uphold their dignity. I consider the most important, and the highest political and legal title in our nation, to be this: Citizen. I also believe that 1) citizens do not surrender power when they delegate it to officials; 2) officials are Public Servants who have Public Masters–citizens; and 3) our system works best when vigilant citizens exercise oversight control over Public Servants.
Peter J. Mancus
Attorney at Law, Photojournalist, and Small Business Owner
2012 California Republican Party Endorsed Candidate for California Assembly’s 10th District
Copyright Peter J. Mancus 2012
[Permission to copy in its entirety is granted.]
I took the pictures used to illustrate this op-ed.
Similar pictures can be found at www.cloud9photography.us