"We the People..."

In light of the CDC’s updated COVID guidance, I’m calling on every California school district that still has a mask mandate to end it immediately.

By the CDC’s own terms, there is also zero justification for any school or college to exclude or segregate based on vaccination status. This retrograde era of discrimination must end.

Specifically, the new guidelines “no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status” and also recognize natural immunity. It's taken years, but the agency has finally bowed to reality.

This comes as the OC Board of Education’s lawsuit to end the State of Emergency is moving forward with new co-plaintiffs, including Rocklin Unified. Yesterday the Judge said: “I don’t know what science the Governor is relying on.
Maybe we will find that out in this case.”

Meanwhile, it’s been less than a week since my "Warning to the Nation" speech at CPAC, and the Sacramento Bee has had an absolute conniption, publishing five separate items about the speech. It appears we are over the target.

The Bee’s headlines include: “Kevin Kiley says California sucks. How about we rent him a U-Haul so he can move to Texas?” and “California carnage: Why does Assemblyman Kevin Kiley hate his own state?”

In truth, our movement is one of citizens who love this state and country. What we hate is that they’re being ruined by corrupt politicians. And what our opponents can’t stand is that we’re fighting – and winning.
 
Lion Eyes said:
That has not been proven...
Seemingly you agree that nothing should happen to Trump if he did break the same laws as Hillary...
Click to expand...
Further back than what is observable in this current edition of this forum, I criticized Hillary's behavior with government emais and classified material and listed it as one of the reasons I did not support her in 2016. Since then t has taken the additional step of increasing the penalties for such misbehavior from a misdemeanor to a felony. Some thought at the time that that change was an indirect slap at Hillary, but now it appears that he is hoist on his own petard.
 
espola said:
Further back than what is observable in this current edition of this forum, I criticized Hillary's behavior with government emais and classified material and listed it as one of the reasons I did not support her in 2016. Since then t has taken the additional step of increasing the penalties for such misbehavior from a misdemeanor to a felony. Some thought at the time that that change was an indirect slap at Hillary, but now it appears that he is hoist on his own petard.
Click to expand...
Like Hillary, Trump has not been charged with anything. Unlike Hillary, Trump had the ability to "declassify" the files in his possession.
Wonder what the hold up with Hunter might be...
 
espola said:
21 Republican Senate seats are in contest this year, 14 Democrat seats. In order for the Senate to flip, Republicans will have to win all 21 of their contests and flip 1 Democrat seat (or other combinations that result in the same thing, such as they can afford to lose 1 as long as they flip 2).
Click to expand...
Seems with the backdrop images of nominated, now confirmed supremes outright lying about “established law” and “law of the land” and now Republican candidates flipping from “no exceptions!” Hands in the air for emphasis during primaries, to acting as if they are far more pro-choice for the generals the ground is shifting under those politicians feet. People are paying attention and see the hypocrisy and the results of falling for the conservative con.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Seems with the backdrop images of nominated, now confirmed supremes outright lying about “established law” and “law of the land” and now Republican candidates flipping from “no exceptions!” Hands in the air for emphasis during primaries, to acting as if they are far more pro-choice for the generals the ground is shifting under those politicians feet. People are paying attention and see the hypocrisy and the results of falling for the conservative con.
Click to expand...
1662003908184.png
 
"IF IMMUNITY IS NOT GRANTED TO A PRESIDENT, EVERY PRESIDENT THAT LEAVES OFFICE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY INDICTED BY THE OPPOSING PARTY. WITHOUT COMPLETE IMMUNITY, A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROPERLY FUNCTION!" DJT

I see this going two ways. 1) SCOTUS rules that no one, even the sitting President is immune to criminal prosecution as President or after being the President. 2) SCOTUS rules that all former, present and future Presidents have full and 100% immunity to be a Criminal and not be busted for it.

Which way will SCOTUS rule? How would you rule if you were judge?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top