« October 2020 | Main | December 2020 »
Can Urban Yogini defeat the forces of fear and division? Find out in the Christmas installment in the Adventures of Urban Yogini: A superhero who can't use violence.
Order from me directly (BretigneATgmailDOTcom), this week only, and you can get the Special Dystopian Christmas Price of only $8.00 (includes shipping within the continental US)!
This week ONLY, I'll be offering signed copies of Annabel Pickering and the Sky Pirates, and Urban Yogini: A Superhero Who Can't Use Violence, at special discounted prices. Because... you know... Christmas and everything.
To get the special price, you just need to email me directly (BretigneATgmailDOTcom).
"Annabel" normally sells for $14.99 on Amazon - the special price (this week ONLY!) will be $10.00, including shipping within the continental US.
"Urban Yogini" is normally $17.88 on Amazon - this week's price is $15.00, including shipping within the continental US.
And "Urban Yogini, the Christmas Episode" is normally $9.45 on Amazon - this week, it is $8.00, including shipping within the continental US.
Again, you need to email me directly to get the discounts, and yes, I can give a slightly bigger discount for bulk purchases!
Image: Public domain
I've written before about those who have been standing up against the state of California's outrageous power grabs in the area of medical freedom, since long before anyone ever heard of Covid-19. If you're familiar with my writing, you know that I don't believe that appealing to the better nature, or the intelligence, of politicians is going to get them to come around and see reason or decide to stop stomping on other people's rights and lives.
And yet I have tremendous respect for the thousands of Californians–parents, mostly. Moms, mostly–who have been taking time out of their lives for YEARS now, to go and demand that the people who claim to "represent" them actually do that. If nothing else, they are exposing for the rest of us what this system is all about, and that the interests it represents are its own (and those of the folks who bankroll their positions.)
I've been watching this unfold since 2015, when SB 277 was passed, eliminating both personal belief and religious exemptions to vaccines for school–ANY school, even private–in the state. I've watched the hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of parents line up calmly to go and stand for hours to be able to stand in front of a microphone for a few seconds and say the few words allowed to them to the bored legislators who sit at the front of the room not even pretending to listen and who then go on to trample the parents' rights without a second thought.
I've never gone to testify at one of these hearings, partly because I know that I don't have it in me to remain that calm in the face of abject tyranny committed by ghoulishly arrogant petty authoritarians in that room. So I was not at all surprised to see these same parents finally begin to explode last fall. I was surprised it didn't happen sooner. And now, with the lockdowns taking most of the energy for protests, only a handful of protesters are going to the capitol to make their voices heard. Both the State Assembly and the Senate have been holding hearings this week, and will continue next week. You can see the schedules in the links in the previous sentence.
I want to encourage anyone who has the interest, and is able to, to attend some of these hearings and help support this tiny handful right now. Why?
1. If you've never seen the workings of the political machine up close, you should. It's not what they taught you in Civics 101, and it can even be quite stomach churning. I think that the more people who understand how this works, that there are these little groups of people that sit around all day coming up with laws to govern how we live our lives, what we may and may not do, and what substances must be injected into our children... well, that by itself is bad enough. And that is what we should be opposing. But the unvarnished pulling of the politicians' strings by the people who really own them is something that every American should have to witness before they say they "support democracy";
2. Getting in these peoples' faces and calling them out on their tyranny forces a reaction from them that only further demonstrates their lack of concern for our rights, or for how we feel about them. It shines a light on the fact that they are in no way accountable to the people over whom they rule;
3. Because maybe I'm wrong. Maybe going down there and making enough noise will get some of them to listen. Maybe just one. Maybe you will be the last little Who who says "Yopp" and is heard. So who am I to tell you not to try?
So please check out the hearing schedules and if you can, go down and help support the people who have been trying to make the elected representatives who sit there stop steamrolling over our most fundamental rights. If nothing else, it will be an education.
Image: Public domain.
I was on The Tatiana Show earlier this week, talking about how fear is used to control people, the history of the pharmaceutical industry's takeover of medicine in the US, and asking whether we really have to learn all over again about the devastating effects of centralized decision making on society.
You can listen here.
And take a listen to some of her other episodes - she's had some awesome guests, from Ross Ulbricht's mother to that awesome gym owner in New Jersey who stood up to that state's governor's authoritarian orders. Check them out here!
Image: Public domain.
UPDATE: I'm changing the headline, because technically, the judge didn't rule on Newsom's "lockdown orders," but on the vote-by-mail order that Kiley and Gallagher sued him over. As I mentioned below, the point of that was to establish a ruling that would then apply to other orders. With her injunction, the judge has made it clear that she is applying the ruling to any future such orders (orders that amend statutory law), but what remains unclear is what will happen with the existing orders that she has said are unconstitutional.
From the judge's ruling:
"Injunctive relief is proper in this case for the following reasons: The Governor has issued a multitude of executive orders under the purported authority of the CESA, many of which have amended statutory law."
So the question is: Will these other orders Newsom has already issued-orders that she is saying are unconstitutional–also be voided? And if so, when?
Last week, CA legislator Kevin Kiley was a guest on my show, talking about his (and fellow legislator James Gallagher's) lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, over his authoritarian lockdown orders. (Although, just to be clear, the one order that they went after in their suit had to do with voting by mail–their hope being that the precedent established there would apply to his other orders. Which it looks like it has.)
Today, the judge ruled in that case–in Kevin and James' favor. According to Kevin:
Today, a California Superior Court ruled in favor of me and fellow legislator James Gallagher in our lawsuit challenging Gavin Newsom’s abuse of power.
The Judge ruled Newsom violated the Constitution. She also issued an injunction restraining the Governor from issuing any more unconstitutional orders. You can read the ruling here.
This marks an end to Gavin Newsom’s one-man rule. It makes clear that the laws of the State of California do not countenance an autocracy under any circumstances – not for a single day, and certainly not for eight months with no end in sight.
The Court rejected Newsom’s extraordinary claim that a State of Emergency “centralizes the state’s powers in the hands of the Governor.” This is the unlawful basis on which Newsom has collapsed California’s system of checks and balances, issuing 57 Executive Orders and changing over 400 laws unilaterally.
The ruling is “tentative,” meaning Newsom has a few days to try to persuade the Judge to change her mind, but it’s rare for a tentative ruling to change. While Newsom can appeal, we are confident the decision is on solid legal ground and will stand.
I have been trying to read the ruling itself, but am unable to access the site–I imagine everyone is trying to read it right now. Once I get it, I will post an update.
But here is what Kevin had written earlier, about expectations for a ruling. Without having seen the ruling itself, it sounds to me like Outcome 3 is what they got:
I see four possibilities.
Outcome 1: Newsom wins. Obviously, this is the worst outcome, although we could appeal. He could prevail either on the merits or on a technicality.
Outcome 2: We win a narrow victory. This is where Newsom has started to place all his chips. In his Trial Brief, he barely even tries to defend the legality of his conduct. Instead, he implores the Court to limit its ruling to one Executive Order – in a word, damage control.
In our view, that’s insanity. Our Complaint clearly asks for a permanent injunction against all such unlawful orders. While this outcome would still have value, affirming that the Governor isn’t above the law, it is not what we are hoping for.
Outcome 3: We win a full victory. This would “enjoin the Governor from further exercising legislative powers in violation of the California Constitution.” Newsom would be legally restrained – the only antidote to his historic lack of self-restraint.
A number of his previous orders would immediately be exposed as unlawful, while others may become newly vulnerable. As a matter of law, our republican form of government would be vindicated.
Outcome 4: The Emergency Services Act is ruled unconstitutional. At the last hearing, Newsom’s lawyer himself said this is “one of the possible outcomes of the case.” It would result in the immediate termination of the State of Emergency and all emergency orders.
While this is not the most probable initial result, if it did happen, Newsom would seek an immediate stay of the ruling while he appealed.
The constitutionality of the Emergency Services Act is a question that would inevitably be decided by the California Supreme Court – which may be where this case ends up, one way or the other
What happens next? Since the ruling is "tentative", Newsom's team has a few days to try to convince the judge to change her ruling. Kiley thinks it is unlikely that she will. We will see. And if she doesn't?
That's what I'm hoping to get Kevin to come back on my show to discuss.
Finally: The last time I donated to any election campaign was when Ron Paul was running for president. So, for me, it's kind of a huge departure to say: Please go and donate to Kevin's campaign.
You can do that here: