Three of the Biggest Lies in California Politics

Executive Summary

This op-ed asserts that the three biggest lies in California politics are: 1) Democrats care more about people than Republicans do; 2) Democrats’ “Principle of Governance” are better than Republicans’; and 3) The United States [and California] are morally exemplary because the United States, including California, is the only place on Earth that has, for all citizens, an assured, meaningful, “Due Process of Law” where “No man/woman is above the law.” There is, however, overwhelming, credible evidence that each of these inter-related assertions is a stark, damn lie and, at best, political propaganda. Democrats who spew forth these assertions, in effect, treat voters, taxpayers, and citizens, as mushrooms, e.g., keep them in the dark and feed them political crap. A thick, well reasoned, well documented book could be written to prove that each of these assertions is a lie and is 100% non-meritorious.

NOTE:

This op-ed is a sharp, thorough analysis and meritorious, scathing critique of partisan politics.  It is so sharp it will probably alienate many, especially if they are “progressive” Democrats. On the other hand, those who value and respect candid, intelligent, commentary will probably love this op-ed.

This op-ed indicates that I, candidate Peter J. Mancus, for better or worse, do not pander or tread lightly to win votes. Instead, I call it as I see it.

* * *

Lie No. 1:

Democrats care more about people than Republicans do.

On May 1, 2012, at a League of Women Voters’ sponsored forum in Petaluma, California for all candidates for California Assembly District 10, the incumbent, Michael Allen, a Democrat, in response to a question, started his answer as follows [paraphrased], “Democrats care about people. Since I [referring to himself] am a  Democrat, I care about people.” In context, Mr. Allen implied that A) only Democrats care about people and B) Republicans don’t.

Mr. Allen’s “reasoning” [I have issues if his thought process--and his conclusions--are worthy of the being embraced as meritorious critical thinking] implies that only Democrats care about people and Republicans, by exclusion, do not, which further implies that Democrats are better, are morally superior, and voters should always vote for Democrats and never vote for Republicans, because, allegedly, Democrats care about people and Republicans don’t. Mr. Allen’s “reasoning” is ultra simplistic, is self-serving, and his implied conclusion is no better than his non-meritorious nonsense.

Do Republicans, individually and, as a group, suffer from serious imperfections? Yes!

Do Democrats, individually and, as a group, care more about people than Republicans do? No! For many, however, that is the unquestioned conventional wisdom. This is because Democrats have done a good  job in brainwashing most of the public to believe the myth that Democrats care more than Republicans. I, however, challenge that conventional wisdom because it is hogwash.

Care, in context, means 1) worry about, 2) serious attention, 3) devotion to, 4) protect, 5) to be concerned about, 6) to provide for, 7) to like, and 8) to support.

I concede that, superficially, a person who lacks critical thinking skills, who lacks an appreciation for sound reasoning, and who lacks an adequate data base of relevant facts, could easily be brainwashed into believing that yes, indeed, Democrats care more about people than Republicans do. Superficial appearances and symbolic gestures, however, are not convincing credible evidence that Democrats care more about people than Republicans do.

The assertion that Democrats care more, involves a matter of perspective, values, comprehension, standards, a time frame, and an appreciation of results. For example, what is the time frame? What are the key values? What are the standards–the criteria–being used by Democrats to  support this assertion? What results have Democrats achieved?

Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one. So what? An opinion without  benefit of persuasive evidence is an opinion that is unworthy of being considered as a proven fact.

Where is the credible, rational, evidence that Democrats care more about people than Republicans do?

Do Democrats care more about people than Republicans do when Democrats do the following:

1. Try to buy votes and try to get elected and re-elected by making promise after promise after promise, promising every conceivable fringe group, in effect, the moon, to cater to and to ingratiate themselves to each of these groups?
2. When they make these promises when they know–or should know–that they lack the ability to honor these promises, to pay for what they promise?
3. When they blow sweet nothings into the ears of the hopeful, holding out hope, which, they know or should know, they will not  be able to fulfill, and, in the long run, they are teasing citizens, and, in effect, they are really being cruel or callous by raising hopes with no credible means to deliver on what they promise?
4. When they persist with making such promises when they know California is busted–as broke as a bum who rides the rail and eats out of garbage cans?
5. When they know that they are responsible for running up massive annual deficits, piled higher and higher, because, in previous years, they were soooooo “compassionate”, as proven by them  giving away other peoples’ money in the guise of taxation, budget allocations, and alleged social justice via wealth redistribution engineered by them?
6. When they invent phony “entitlements”, which, in reality, are nothing more than government hand outs, giving away other people’s money that the state took in via taxation? NOTE: The only real “entitlement” is a native born’s U.S. citizen’s citizenship birthrights or a naturalized citizen’s citizenship rights. After that kind of true “entitlement”, there are earned contractual rights. A government handout is never a true “entitlement”. A government handout is a matter of government grace, government charity. Calling it an “entitlement” never makes it so. Government gets money only by A) printing it, B) stealing it under color of law, or C) confiscating it from others in the guise of taxation. Nothing in the law legitimately entitles any citizen to have a claim to another citizen’s money merely because lawmakers so declare. Things and concepts should be called what they are and never mislabeled to dress them up to try to make them more acceptable.
7. When they brainwash and encourage millions to really believe that they are “entitled” to have a legal claim to other peoples’ money and wealth?
8. Precisely, where is it written in the U.S. Constitution or in California’s Constitution, that anyone has a legitimate legally enforceable claim to anyone else’s money?
9. Since Democrats do not give away their own money, and, instead, they give away other peoples’ money, isn’t it oh so easy for them to be so self-righteous, to be oh so “compassionate” by giving away other peoples’ money that they confiscated, via taxation? But, what happens when free spending “compassionate” “progressive” Democrats run out of other peoples’ money?
10. Has anyone found an orchard of money bearing trees?
11. What happens when the more affluent flee the state to avoid being excessively taxed?
12. What happens when affluent producers refuse to locate in California because they refuse to be excessively fleeced?
13. In the long run, what happens to the tax base when Democrats, over the years, via their public policies, make California attractive to non-producers who can’t pay taxes because they are dependent on government hand outs and, simultaneously, they also make California unattractive to affluent producers who can pay taxes but are unwilling to pay excessive taxes?
14. What happens when Democrats give the poor “entitlement/handouts” that make the poor too comfortable in their poverty–so comfortable the poor, as a generalization, are induced by Democrats to not be sufficiently motivated to assert themselves to improve themselves?
15. Isn’t it better, and wiser, to teach the poor how to fish instead of daily giving them fish?
16. Does “Equal opportunity” mean “Equal result”? If so, precisely where is that unequivocally stated anywhere in American law?
17. Why should a  lazy person be rewarded with a handout of other folks’ money?
18. How is the general welfare promoted when Democrats, via their handouts, enable lazy folks to be comfortable in their poverty?
19. In the long run, isn’t it better, wiser, more humane, and more socially beneficial, to provide an adequate social net but keep the poor uncomfortable in their poverty so they are motivated to apply themselves, to engage  in self-improvement, and take advantage of our society’s many avenues  for upward social-economic advancement?
20. How do Democrats “care” for people when they allocate a finite budget as follows: A) Year after year defer maintenance  on vital infrastructure and public transportation, B) Spend money recklessly on one social program after another that do not yield a good result, C) Cater to public sector employee unions and, increasingly, pay public sector employees a generous total compensation package, far in excess of what is needed to attract and to  retain good employees, and, in effect, make an imprudent gift of taxpayer money to these employees, while also racking up massive unsustainable public pension liabilities, and D) In order to stay on the  good side of public sector unions, continue to cater to them, and, to do that, continue to cut into, and reduce, vital public services, such as, higher public education and infrastructure?
21. When the state is so busted, its credit is worthless, when no responsible lender will loan it more money, when the affluent have fled the state, when producers have fled the state, and when the socially needed dependent on government handouts, unable to pay taxes, comprise a growing proportion of this state’s population, what will the Democrats do to “care” for those who they enabled to become too dependent on them for  more, endless, handouts?

Historically, Democrats in California have always spent more than they took in. For every $1.00 they took in, they spent anywhere from $1.10 to $1.40, year after year after year. How does recklessly racking up massive annual deficits, driving the state’s economy into a Grand Canyon size ditch,  prove that they “care” more about people than Republicans do?

Do Democrats really “care” about people or do they really only “care” about  themselves, e.g., they claim they care, and exploit that claim, as a crutch to get elected and re-elected?

Alexander Tyler, over 200 years ago, insightfully described, and exposed, a sick dynamic which is 100% applicable to how Democrats have mismanaged California, removing everything “golden” about this state. Mr. Tyler opined:

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a  dictatorship.

As a candidate, I refuse to promise the moon. To do so, is irresponsible, deceitful, and cruel. Thus, I am not un-caring, and I am not “scrooge” in comparison to incumbent Michael Allen or any other Democrat. Instead, I am a sane, rational, realist who refuses to squander my credibility or my integrity.

When a person’s outgo exceeds his income his upkeep will be his downfall. That economic truth is also true for California and Democrats. Democrats, however, inexplicably, persists with denying reality. No one, however, not even Democrats, can escape the consequences of denying reality.

Reality is real. It exists. When defied, it has a way of making its existence known in a crushing, abrupt, matter, e.g., when in free fall, the fall doesn’t hurt, but the sudden stop at the end does.

Democrats also tend to be extraordinarily cocky, condescending, and self-righteous with their typical self-serving, self-anointed, alleged, moral superiority vis-a-vis Republicans. To illustrate this point I will use a true story from my legal career.

Years ago I was hired by a married couple to help them with a claim against their home owner’s insurance company. This couple’s home was destroyed in a fire and, after they made their claim, their insurance company rejected their claim, asserting they torched their home. If I didn’t get the insurance company to pay the claim, my clients would be stuck with an unpaid mortgage that needed to be paid, with no roof over their head, and they risked felony criminal prosecution for insurance fraud. I hired a retired FBI agent arson investigator who this same insurance company had used many times as one of their experts. I made a point to hire one of their experts to make it more difficult for this insurance company to dispute this expert’s credentials and findings. I told this expert: Do your thing; call it as you see it.

In the interim, I embarked on a crash course studying arson investigation, and I went to the scene with this expert.

This expert reported the fire was caused accidentally by a blocked lint filter in the clothes dryer. This insurance company, one of the world’s largest, nevertheless, rejected this expert’s findings.

This expert had a partner who was also a retired FBI arson investigator. I hired his partner and gave him the same instructions: Do your thing; call  it as you see it.

I also told the two partners: Do not tell each other anything about this case until the second one concludes his investigation.

This second retired FBI arson investigator reported the same findings as his partner.

When I shared that second expert’s report with this insurance company, within a few days, they relented and agreed their original expert, not the  first one I hired, made a mistake. Thus, I had proven that this insurance company, at a minimum, wrongfully denied this claim for a non-meritorious reason. The next legal question became “damages”. Did this insurance company make a mistake or did they engage in “bad faith claim practices”? How much  did they owe my clients: The value of  the house? Or more: Extra money arising from their “bad faith claims practice”?

At that point, my mind set was to seek $3 million in an out of court settlement or go to trial.

My clients, however, abruptly fired me and hired a big name attorney well known for “bad faith” insurance cases.

Within two weeks, I got a letter from this attorney telling me that he had settled the case for $1.1 million dollars and, if I agreed to take a $100,000 fee, his clients, my ex-clients, would pay me the $100,000. Beyond that information, he disclosed nothing.

I refused to accept $100,000. I was the one who accepted case when it  was new. I was the one who hired two retired FBI arson experts. I was the one who did the pleadings, handled extensive discovery, established liability, got the insurer to admit liability. I  handled the case for about one year, this attorney  had it for about 3 weeks. He had the easy part, and he wanted me to be paid only $100,000. I said, “No.”

I then became involved in a 3-way fee dispute among my former clients, their new attorney, and myself.

We ended up hiring a $5,000 a day retired judge, as a mediator, to try to achieve an amicable, cost-time effective resolution of this dispute. I also hired an expensive lawyer and the opposing attorney represented himself.

My ex-clients’ new lawyer asserted the following: Per his fee agreement with his clients, his clients were on the hook to pay him $500,000 [!], and they were suppose to pay me $100,000 out of the $1.1 million, which would leave them $500,000 and he, too, would have $500,000, with me getting $100,000. Again, I said, emphatically, “No!”

We had numerous meetings with this $5,000 per day retired judge.

During these meetings, the attorney who replaced me often droned on, as follows, about himself: He is a “progressive” Democrat. He is  a morally superior person. When he was in college, in the summer, he went to the South and marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. He really cares about people. He has a long track record of really caring about people. Since he really cares about people and is  morally superior, and, I, in effect, am just dirt on the heel  of his shoe, he’s doing me a big favor letting me have $100,000. This lawyer droned on like that, often, for days.

Along the way, this lawyer made a strategic mistake: He claimed he needed to get this dispute resolved ASAP because his office overhead was $45,000 per month.

While I  like money, money, to me, is a tool, and, apart from being a tool, I don’t crave money.

I then took this approach with this lawyer: Since my overhead was a lot less than his, I am 100% willing to wait him out or he can file formal litigation and we can fight it out  before a jury, which I predicated would loathe  him for his greed.

This attorney rejected that idea.

I then countered with this: Since his clients were willing to pay him $500,000 and me $100,000, and I suggested we do this: A) Let the clients have $500,000 and get them out of the dispute; B) Have an armed guard bring $600,000 in cash to  this down town San Francisco skyscraper; C) We would divide the $600,000 in cash, in paper money, into two equal amounts; D) The other attorney and I would each go to a separate window, high up in this sky scrapper, and, at our sole discretion, we would release hand fulls of US paper currency to the wind, letting the genuine money fall down on pedestrians; E) We would continue to do  this until  one of us felt enough pain that one cried “Uncle”, to stop; F) at that point, we would then divide equally the amount left over, or, in the alternative, we would each get to keep what was in the other guy’s bin of money.

When  I proposed that, I made this clear: I was so  disgusted with  this attorney’s dribble nonsense about his alleged moral superiority because he marched with MLK, Jr. [which is 100% irrelevant to the fee dispute issues], I wanted to bring this matter to a head, and, I was perfectly willing–literally–to throw the entire $600,000 out the window, and, since the other attorney proclaims he is “compassionate” and “morally  superior” and “cares more about people” than I do, he, too, like me, in order to prove his “compassion”, should be willing to toss the entire $600,000 out the windows.

What do you think happened? How “compassionate” do you think this attorney proved himself to be? Do you think he was willing to toss out any of his money?

He rejected my proposal.

My escalation and injection of those ideas, however, did shut him up. I never once again heard a peep  out of him about how “caring” or morally superior he is, allegedly.

I stress: This lawyer repeatedly harped he is proud of  being a caring, liberal, “progressive” Democrat.

Yeah! Sure! So “caring” he demanded an unconscionable huge fee from his  clients, one he didn’t deserve and didn’t earn, one that violated applicable rules.

The above story is true. The facts are accurate.

I relate this story because I am convinced it is representative of how the vast majority of “caring” “progressive” Democrats “think”, or rationalize or emote.

When I gave this Democrat attorney the option of giving away his money, he balked. He  balked–big time.

I, on the other hand, was engaged in deliberate, serious, calculated, strategic, brinkmanship.

Lie No. 2:

Democrats’ “Principle of Governance” are better than Republicans’

 With some exceptions for good Democrats, I submit to you, with all seriousness, that the following, as a generalization, is an accurate description of how Democrats, as a group, campaign to get elected or r e-elected, operate, and govern.

As you read this list, below, I hope and trust you will spot the truth, namely, my assessment is meritorious.

1. They blow sweet nothings into voters’ ears, promising anything and everything, including, in effect, the moon and then some, knowing full well that their ability to keep all of their promises is non-existent.
2. They flat out lie to voters.
3. To qualify for the ballot, they raise their hand before the Registrar of Voters and swear that they will support, uphold, and defend the U.S. Constitution and California’s Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
4. After swearing to do that, they then campaign, making promises–or  staking out positions on issues that are contrary to the actual text in the U.S. Constitution or California’s Constitution or both. In that sense, even before being elected, they promptly start to function as a domestic enemy of  the U.S. Constitution or California’s Constitution or both.
5. They do not act as if they are restrained by what they swore to do with the Registrar of Voters, namely, support the U.S. Constitution and California’s, too.
6. They treat the U.S. Constitution as a snot rag, and this is being charitable.
7. They engage in uninhibited fallacious reasoning, reasoning from one fallacious argument to another, with no end in sight.
8. They defy the constraints of economic reality.
9. They selectively cherry pick which parts of the U.S. Constitution they like and which parts they do not like, but they swore to uphold, support, and defend all of it.
10. They act as if they are 100% uninhibited or unrestrained by any constitutional command, no matter how clearly the command is stated in the constitution’s actual text.
11. They do their best to pound square  pegs into round holes.
12. They don’t confine themselves to facts.
13. They ignore or suppress or tweak facts.
14. They insult voters with well honed minds with their shenanigans.
15. They do not treat the truth as a friend, as an ally. They often hide from or misrepresent the truth.
16. They engage in sleight of hand and verbal gymnastics.
17. They promote and run hard to win a race to the bottom, while boasting that what amounts to their gross misleadership and civic malpractice is “leadership”.
18. Facts and sound logic mean nothing to them.
19. They emote and feel; they don’t think–at least not critically.
20. They don’t follow the rules.
21. They rarely, if ever, manifest that they have a comprehensive command of the U.S. Constitution, which they swore to uphold and defend.
22. They do not inspire confidence when they demonstrate they lack familiarity with the vital document they swore to uphold and defend.
23. They never talk about the Rules of Constitutional Construction, which suggests they don’t know what any of these are, and they have probably never even heard of that phrase, which telegraphs they don’t know how to correctly interpret and apply the U.S. Constitution, which makes them incompetent, amateurs, and dangerous.
24. They seem unconcerned about their functional constitutional illiteracy.
25. They arrogantly treat their opinion as to what the law should be as an adequate substitute for what the law is.
26. When they don’t like what the law actually states, they are comfortable with adding words, removing words, and/or ignoring words, to try to pass off as the law their illegitimate tweaking of the law. But their nonsensical tweaking is a farce, yet, they repeatedly act this way. It is simpler, quicker, and easier for them to act this way and to bluff it instead of doing the hard work to get a formal amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
27. They act as if calling or labeling X Y makes X Y, merely because of their inexplicable mislabeling. But, if you claim a horse has five legs because you labeled its tail as the fifth leg does not prove the horse has five legs.
28. They keep wanting to expand government’s powers over our lives. They do this for two reasons: First, to try to fix their failed policies and second, to have a bigger empire, where they can control more resources and have greater control over our lives.
29. They do not stress the importance of the 3 R’s: Respect, Responsibility, and Reason. They do not treat citizens as adults, and they often do not act as responsible adults.
30. When they don’t get what they want, they resort to trying to lay down a guilt trip and/or they whine and whine and whine.
31. They want other people to pay for their programs, e.g., via taxation, rob Peter to pay Paul is a classic “progressive” Democrat technique and approach to governance.
32. They often act as if Free Speech is for Thee [themselves] but not for Yee [anyone who disagrees with them]. They covet a bigger megaphone so they can drown out the opposition.
33. They typically engage in nonsensical mumbo jumbo in total defiance of established definitions of words. Words, however, have established definitions. Definitions have meanings. Meanings have  consequences. However, when Democrats loathe  the logical consequences of legitimate definitions of words, they wage a war of verbal aggression, of political correctness, against their disfavored concepts, rights, limits on their lawful authority, or words.
34. One of their classic favorite tools for deconstructing the United States I was born into is this: They destroy language to pervert words/ideas so they can slip into the public market place of ideas their perverted re-definition of a word and then they substitute their perversion for the real definition. They constantly do this to try to bypass our Constitution’s commands.
35. They also routinely implement the 5 P’s: A) Pathologize; B) Propagandize; C) Publicize; D) Polarize; and E) Politicize. By this technique, they have taken numerous excellent concepts, egregiously pathologized them [misrepresented them as somehow being wrong or bad or archaic, etc.], to brainwash the public into disfavoring X, to promote their agendas.
36. In addition to implementing the 5 P’s, Democrats also implement the 3 D’s: A) Demonization of everything they dislike; B) Demagoguery–arousing voter’s base, dark, emotions and prejudices; and C) Denial of anything that undercuts their demonization.
37. While implementing the 5 P’s and the 3 D’s, the Democrats also shun the 3 R’s: Respect, Responsibility, and Reason.
38. Along the way, Democrats simply fail to function as mature, responsible adults who inspire confidence.
39. They incessantly  urge people to believe and to embrace incredible things. One example is this: A firearm is capable of forming the intent to commit an “assault”. Is there any documented case in history of a firearm forming the intent to commit an assault? Loading itself? Aiming itself? Pulling its own trigger?
40. They love to mislabel things. As an example, they love to call sworn peace officers and fire fighters “first responders”. The real “first responders”, however, are victims. Cops and fire fighters are “second responders”.
41. While they love to claim they “care” about people, more than Republicans do, in reality, they care only about doing what they think will work best for them to get elected or re-elected.
42. Many of them are flaming first class hypocrites. For example, U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, who is a champion of “gun control” laws [which, more correctly, are really "Victim Disarmament Laws"], asked for and got a CCW permit [concealed carry weapon] permit, while she, for decades, railed against the Second Amendment and championed denying unwashed peasant type ordinary citizens the benefit of a CCW permit or the pragmatic means to defend their own lives with a firearm. DiFi, an elitist, believes she is a Perfumed Princess, with some kind of special hide, worthy of special protection. In context, she, most definitely, does not believe in “Equality before the law” or in “Equal justice”. Instead, she believes in A) special privilege for herself and B) it’s okay for her to pervert the U.S. Constitution on a selective basis. As such, DiFi functions as a Freedom Hater, as a Liberty Thief, as an Elitist, as a Self-Anointed De Facto American Aristrocrat, as a Domestic Enemy of the U.S. Constitution, and as a Champion of Nazi Inspired Gun Control Laws.
43. As alleged champions of high moral standards and alleged fair play, Democrats are notoriously selective in a self-serving way calculated to protect the Democrat Party and Democrats. President Bill Clinton, for example, raised to a high  art form, wordsmith gamesmanship, and lying. He lied to  the public, to fellow Democrats, and to his wife, about his sexual escapades, and other prominent Democrats ran political cover for him. Along the way, Democrats championed lying, covered up for it, and they still do that.
44. Hilary Clinton, President Obama’s Secretary of State, was caught lying about her allegedly being under sniper fire when visiting Bosnia. When caught, she acted as if her repeated lies were 100% insignificant.
45. Timothy Geithner, President Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, was caught not paying his federal income taxes, yet, he is the current Secretary of the Treasury with oversight control for the IRS.
46. President Obama chose two flat out liars, one of whom is a tax cheat, to be department heads of two of the most important departments in his cabinet.
47. President Obama’s list of broken promises is long–incredibly long.
48. President Obama apparently thinks he can spend the same dollar twice or not get caught being disingenuous. For example, soon after he cancelled production of the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter I heard him on TV say one reason he did that was to use the money saved to finance Obamacare. A few days later I also heard him say he would use the money saved by cancelling the F-22 to buy more F-35s. Not even a U.S. President can spend the same dollar at one time for more than one thing. Consistency with the facts, however, does not restrain even the current head of the Democrat Party.
49. The Democrats content that no commercial activity within a state’s boundaries is interstate commerce that gives them the power, via the Commerce Clause, to force Obamacare on the nation. That is a bizarre claim, a massive grab for more federal power that will fundamentally alter the nature of the federal government and its relationship with U.S. citizens.
50. Democrats excel at campaigning against problems they create . . . and they keep doing that. Their persistence with doing that is tantamount to insanity. Thus, in many ways, “progressive” Democrats are mentally ill, literally.
51. One has to believe in the un-believeable to function with fidelity to most “progressive” Democrats’ agenda.
52. “Progressive” Democrats think their “progressive” values are superior  to the Founding Father’s values as reflected in the U.S. Constitution’s commands, but, they are substantially inferior, ill-advised, counter-productive, and dangerous.
53. Democrats do not believe in limited government.
54. Democrats do not believe in free markets.
55. Democrats do no believe in individual liberty.
56. Democrats believe in the “Collective” over the “Individual”.
57. When the individuals who comprise the “Collective” have no rights, the general welfare is not promoted because it is inconceiveable that the general welfare can be, or is, promoted when individuals who comprise the “Collective” lack individual rights.
58. “Progressive” Democrats are constantly pushing to make government bigger, more powerful, more expensive, more controlling over every facet of our lives, converting free markets to socialism and constricting liberty, driving liberty from the land, demanding more and more taxes, so they, via government, can have more bigger swords to wield against citizens, to control citizens, not to serve citizens.
59. When Democrats claim they want to serve you, that is their code for saying they want to control you.
60. Another classic Democrat technique is “the wedge issue”, e.g., they will come up with an issue and use it as a wedge to divide and to conquer, to pit one groups  of Americans against another. The use of “wedge issues” is 100% inconsistent with “United We Stand!” or “We the people” or the “United States”. Democrats, as a result, have excelled at polarizing Americans, dividing Americans, undermining Americans and national solidarity. They constantly weaken the invisible glue of values that are suppose to bind us together as a nation.
61. Under Democrat rule, we increasingly function less as a united nation and more as a gaggle.
62. Democrats increasingly de-value the value of U.S. citizenship.
63. Democrats persist with foolishly threatening private property rights.
64. Democrats tend to do everything except government’s core duties. For example, they increasingly allocate more money for more phoney “entitlements” and less money for infrastructure improvement and maintenance.
65. The Democrats seem determined to pervert “equal opportunity” to mean everyone must end up being equally miserable, and no one is free to maximize their talents and distinguish themselves favorably without being excessively taxed and, in effect, punished for working hard and being successful, instead of being a burden, draining the public treasury.
66. The Democrats seem determine to de-construct the United States and replace it with a vague, un-defined, improvised, ad hoc “hope and change” and, more recently, “Forward!” “Forward” . . . to what? [I no  longer recognize the nation into which I was born.]

I decline to give more examples to support the above specification of how Democrats campaign and govern. I trust readers have many of their own examples and can spot the truth of what I attribute to Democrats.

For the reasons stated, there is nothing better or superior about the Democrat’s “Principles of Governance”.

Republicans, however, are not much better.

Lie No. 3:

The United States [and California] are morally exemplary because the United States,
including California, is the only place on Earth that has, for all citizens,
an assured, meaningful, “Due Process of Law” where “No man/woman is above the law.”

As a U.S. citizen, as a licensed attorney, and as a political candidate, I value, and I love, the concept of “Due Process of Law.” I stress “of law”, meaning, what “the law” really is, not someone’s opinion or perversion of the law.

Every reasonably constituted fellow U.S. citizen is well advised to also cherish “Due Process of Law“.

With apologies to no one, I am, literally, willing, able, and ready, to use lethal force, if necessary, to commit homicidal acts, repeatedly, to enforce “Due Process of Law“.

If that stark, bold, disclosure alarms anyone, tough. Get over it. Push through it. Get real. Do you really think “Due Process of Law” is so unimportant that a U.S. citizen born to liberty would surrender it without a fight to the death?

“Due Process of Law” is far more than four words. It is also far more than a mere aspiration or a mere option, which government and is agents can ignore. Government, and its agents, have absolutely no legitimate business ignoring or denying any U.S. citizen “Due Process of Law“.

“Due Process of Law” is a mandatory command, binding on government [federal/state/local], and their agents, per the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This command is what is suppose to protect us from arbitrary, improvised, crap and judicial junk. Anything and everything “arbitrary” is the opposite of “Due Process of Law“.

Do you fail to comprehend what the absence of “Due Process of Law” means?

Without “Due Process of Law“, faithful to our Constitution’s commands, our way of life is gone. Do you comprehend that? Do you care?

If you are too cowardly to fight to the death to enforce “Due Process of Law“, you should be grateful that fellow citizens like me who hold my views exist and we would–we would do your hard dirt work for you while you function as a coward or a shirker.

“Due Process of Law“, even though it is a command, like every word, phrase, and concept in the U.S. Constitution, is not self-enforcing, is not self-executing.

A few years ago I was at a huge, beautiful, centuries old, Lincoln Cathedral in England where, in an adjoining facility, there was on display a large, excellent presentation of the constitutions from a wide variety of governments, e.g., the United States, the Soviet Union, Communist China, and North Korea, etc. This presentation highlighted the concept of “Due Process of Law”. As I started to view and read this, I was interested, excited, and happy. However, it didn’t take long for me to realize I  was soon becoming psychologically ill, as I read what I read.

My point here is this: The constitutions from these communist countries expressly stated “due process of law” concepts, with slight  variations in phraseology, that were eerily similar to how that concept is expressed in the U.S. Constitution. It then hit me: Basically, the same fundamental words in communist constitutions declared a “Due Process of Law” virtually indistinguished from the U.S. Constitution, but, in these different nations, the application of those words and the outcome is materially different.

In the end, while the words are important, what is ultimately really important is this: A) What’s between folks’ ears, B) What’s in folks’ hearts, C) What’s behind folks’ breastbone, D) Do they have a real, meaningful, decent respect for human live, for human dignity, for human rights, for a meaningful, real, objective, even-handed, fairly enforced, consistent, assured, real “Due Process of Law“?; E) To what extent do they really value “liberty”?; and F) To what extent are they willing to extend a saving hand to the U.S. Constitution? Breathe life into their rights? Enforce the Constitution’s commands and limits against government?

I started to become psychologically ill as I read what was on display at this exhibit, so badly, that I soon quickly left the building.

I left that building with the following realization. At that time, I had been an active, practicing, attorney, working in the trenches, representing clients before judges and other government officials, etc., for about 39 years, and, with good cause, I was of this opinion, and I am still of this opinion: If the United States Constitution is the yard stick by which to measure how “lawful” or how “lawless” the United States is, including its political sub-divisions, a compelling argument can be made to this effect: A) The United States Federal Government, its agents as a group, the State Governments, their agents as a group, and the Local Governments, and their agents as a group, are probably the most lawless nation on Earth; B) there is no assured, meaningful, consistent “Rule of Law” in the United States; C) Instead, throughout this nation, daily, hundreds of millions of times a day, if not millions of times a day, government officials, at every level of government, do this: They shuffle the laws like a card shark shuffles a deck and the niggardly dish out that level of arbitrary, ad hoc, “process” which they, self-servingly, deem we unwashed peasants are “due”.

Damn them. Damn them. Damn them–one and all. May they each go to hell and burn eternally.

Far too many government officials in this nation and in this state lie through their teeth, repeatedly, without even a hiccup or a pause. They routinely cover for  each other. They have no intent to obey our Constitution’s commands. They are frauds. They are dangerous. I despise them. I harbor a white hot raging virulent total contempt for them. They function as domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution, as domestic terrorists, terrorizing me-and you–with the laws they pass and the policies they champion. I am feed up with them. I want regime change.

I pride myself that I have an ingrained habit of doing my best, always, to reason, competently, from and to the U.S. Constitution and to make all political-legal decisions with fidelity to that Constitution. I see scant evidence that government officials do what I do. I also believe that Democrats are the worst offenders in this regard, even though I acknowledge that many Republicans also treat the U.S. Constitution as a snot rag.

To support my views about this “Lie No. 3″, I recommend this: Look for and read my long op-ed that is available on this campaign Internet site titled “Pondering Corruption in California”. That op-ed gives you fact after fact, all tied to controlling lie, to prove to you that there is a total breakdown of “checks and balances” and constitutional government in California, that, as a group, California’s state judges are no longer functioning as “Guardians of Liberty”, that, as a group, California’s state judges are crooked, are guilty of accepting bribes, and, as a result, they are tainted, they can’t be trusted, they have reduced our courtrooms from “Temples  of Justice” to “Snake Pits”, and the California Legislature, California’s Governor, and California’s Attorney Generals have been, and are, inexplicably providing legal cover for about 1,800 crooked California state judges.

I also recommend you do this: Do a Google search for the name “John Wolfgram” and a law review article titled “How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition”. When you find that article, which is available for free on the Internet, print it out, read it, and have a bucket nearby so you can puke into it.

If you read what I wrote about “Pondering Corruption” and/or if you read what Mr. Wolfgram wrote, the odds are high that A) you will never think of judges the same way again and B) you agree that, if the U.S. Constitution is the measuring stick, the standard, the U.S. and California are among some of the most lawless places on planet Earth.

Conclusions About the Net Impact of These Three Big Lies

Morality in this nation is in a steep decline. Lying is common and rampant. Officials and ordinary citizens routinely lie.  The Democrats have cared so much for so many for so long we are now confronting severe moral decay, fiscal meltdown, widespread, entrenched corruption, a legal system that is worthy of virulent contempt, and, as a sweeping generalization, no one–with good cause–trusts anyone else. Government officials do not trust citizens. Citizens do not trust government officials. The situation is ripe for revolt, for revolution, for blood shed. This is not hyperbole. Citizens born to liberty recall liberty, cherish liberty, and, when they have their backs to the wall, they will fight to the death to restore liberty.

This dismal state of affairs is the end result of 1) misleaders and citizens deviating for far too long from the U.S. Constitution’s commands, 2) “progressive” Democrats’ persistent insistence on replacing constitutional values with their “progressive” ones which, in reality, are anti-progress, are ill-conceived, and are counter-productive, and 3) Republicans who joined with Democrats in their violations of the U.S. Constitution’s commands.

Many of our bankers are thieves and, when they get into trouble, our political whore politicians, using taxpayer money, bail them out, which subsidizes and encourages the “banksters” to press on, to move “forward”, with more of the same. Wall Street can no longer be trusted. Most of our politicians are unprincipled, self-serving, venal, lying, parasites who have earned a severe, long overdue, comeuppance. Their civic malpractice is so  bad they are lucky they still have a head attached to their bodies.

Democrats, as a result of their championing of more and more “entitlements” for more and more people, in the guise of caring for people, have created a new class of citizens who now actually believe that they really are entitled to other peoples’ money. Democrats, lead by President Obama, instead of uniting us, as he promised, is now increasingly openly waging economic class warfare, which is dividing us and polarizing us, severely.

Democrats, down deep, don’t truly really “care” about people. They care about getting elected and re-elected. Democrats, in truth, only exploit people and pretend that they care about people. They do this by using wedge issues to pit one group against another, all calculated not to obey  the U.S. Constitution but to get more than one half of the vote, so they win elections.

Democrats, when their hands are on the levers of government’s power, function as a gang that hijacked government, and, under color of law, via taxation, rob Peter to pay Paul. They call their thievery under color of law “social justice” and their hand outs, which buys votes, an “entitlement”.

This pattern, brought to us for decades, via Democrats, is fraught with peril. Since Democrats have repeatedly raised expectations among the less affluent, and have convinced this group of  citizens that they are “entitled” to X money from the government, which the government confiscated from Y–the rightful owner who earned the money, Democrats have induced far too  many people to be too dependent on more and more government handouts. No one can keep this up. Money does not grow on trees. When “caring” Democrats run out of other peoples’ money to give away, a growing proportion of our citizenry, accustomed to receiving one or more monthly government handout checks, will behave like hyenas, jackals and vultures, suffering from rabies. Reformulated, the Democrats have engineered the functional equivalent of a massive civic train wreck.  As a result of these trends, we are headed for a snarly, lethal, showdown.

The United States is busted. California is busted. No one wants to admit the  truth. Everyone is determined to do their utmost best to suppress the truth, to deny the  truth. No one treats the truth as a friend, as an ally. Politicians treat the truth as leprosy.

Democrats have no plans to avoid this train wreck. They are unwilling or too stupid to do anything constructive to alter course to avoid this train wreck.

Democrats appear to be determined to make this train wreck more inevitable and make it happen sooner than later because they persist with their ill-conceived “Principles of Governance” which defy economic reality, human nature, and our Constitution’s commands.

I cannot stress enough the extreme importance that the public perceive that our judges function as Guardians of Liberty and that our courtrooms are Temples of Justice presided over by judges of the highest integrity.  This is because our civil and our criminal justice system, when believed to be worthy of respect, are deemed to be a viable alternative to self-help violent remedies, which is socially beneficial. However, for those who know what the state and federal judiciary did against attorney Richard I. Fine, one is forced to conclude that approximately 95% of California’s state judges are tainted, and these tainted judges have turned our courtrooms into Snake Pits.

When citizens view our courtrooms as Snake Pits, presided over by tainted judges, citizens will be unwilling to trust their legal dispute to a crooked judge.

By “tainted judge” or “crooked judge” I mean judges who have accepted bribes, judges who are guilty of the felony crime of accepting bribes, judges who are unworthy of remaining on the bench, and judges who are being protected by cowardly politicians [lawmakers, governors, attorney general, and district attorneys].

We Americans might as well give our U.S. Constitution [and California's] away to Mexico or some Third World Banana Republic. This is because we don’t use it, we don’t adhere to it, we routinely violate it, we selectively cherry pick what we like and dislike about it, we under-enforce or refuse to enforce what Democrats dislike about it, and we treat it as a snot rag.

I’ve told you the unvarnished truth, as I know it, damn the consequences.

The above is a major reason why I elected to become a candidate for an elective political office and why I am, literally, 100% politically fearless. I am politically fearless, because, down deep, where it really counts, I care.

These questions serve as a fitting end for this op-ed.

1. Who is knowingly willing to appear as a litigant before a tainted judge?;
2. Exactly how do Democrats “care” more about people than Republicans?;
3. Now that I have put you on notice, what will you do about these facts? This analysis?;
4. Are you willing to do anything to try to reverse course and avoid social, moral, fiscal decay and a civic train wreck?;
5. Are you willing to tolerate corruption?;
6. Who will you vote for in this election: The incumbent Democrat who thinks he “cares” more about people than Republicans do and more than I do? Another Democrat who will also perpetuate the status quo, if elected? Or a politically fearless Republican–little ole Pete Mancus?