Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
My Assemblyman in the California Legislature is Melissa Melendez, a fantastic conservative. She constantly updates her constituents about what is going on in Sacramento, including bills signed, and not signed, by Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. This is one I got the other day...
AB 841 (Weber) This bill prohibits schools from rewarding students for reaching academic goals (i.e. prohibits pizza parties for students that read a certain amount of books per year).
Shirley Weber, the author of the bill, says it is for nutrition reasons. The parties thrown to reward students is filled with junk food and sodas and must not be allowed to occur. Therefore, she wrote a bill to make it law. What's the penalty? The penalty for a school not adhering to AB 841 is a loss of funding for its lunch program.
Not only did Melendez speak out against this idiotic bill, but my State Senator, Jeff Stone, urged Governor Brown to veto it.
Didn't Weber chastise President Trump for threatening to withhold federal funding for cities and States declaring a sanctuary status for illegal aliens? Remember, sanctuary status laws are illegal; a violation of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI., which disallows States to have laws contrary to the Constitution, laws of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution, and all treaties. Article I, Section 9 and Article I, Section 8 grants to Congress the authority to make immigration laws which may prohibit persons from entering the country, or establish immigration policy for the United States.
As for Weber's excuse regarding her bill, saying that it must be law disallowing junk food to be given to kids like that, didn't Michelle Obama's healthy lunch initiative turn out to be a flop? Who's Weber, or any politician, to dictate to anyone how they are going to eat? The claim it will stop the school's "advertising" of junk food, by the way, was just a way to make it sound reasonable - because the Democrats hate corporations. Remember, they think the government should completely control what the corporations can and can't do... you know, like fascism.
We are already, in California, suffering in education, and Weber decided that for the sake of her fascist "nutrition crusade," it was wise to take away one of the incentives to do well in school?
It shows how anti-American she is. The American System is based on a free market economy, which encourages success through the incentive of an award. . . becoming wealthier, living nicer, having opportunity to become more successful, and in the case of schools, receiving an award of something like a pizza party for being at the top of the class.
I wonder if Weber thought, deep down, that it was unfair for a child to be rewarded that way because of the poor kids who didn't succeed as the top dog? Remember, the Democrats tend to discourage awarding anyone because they push a Marxist style of equality where everyone must be the same in results. That means that if the bottom kids can't move upward, the top kids must be pulled down.
I have visited with one of Weber's aides in Sacramento regarding my work with trying to get the Constitution into inner-cities. He was more jazzed about the "civil rights" part, but not so much about the "Constitution" part.
A system based on the U.S. Constitution is the best thing available for civil rights. The free-market allows for the ability to pull oneself out of poverty, the right to keep and bear arms allows for one to protect themselves against those who wish to harm them (The National Rifle Association is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States, established to ensure that the black community's right to keep and bear arms was protected so that the blacks during the reconstruction period could protect themselves from the Democrats trying to keep them from voting, and the terror of the KKK which was created as the militant arm of the Democratic Party), equal protection under the law... and even before the emancipation of slavery the Constitution was designed to move the country towards getting rid of slavery. The 3/5s Clause reduced the power of the voice of the slave States in Congress, and Article I, Section 9 enabled Congress to outlaw the Atlantic Slave Trade after 1808 (of which they did).
The Democrats wish to take away incentive to do well, disarm law abiding citizens so that they can't protect themselves, and pay the poor to remain in poverty with their welfare programs. . . yet, they say they are for the little guy, and minorities?
The facts say otherwise.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary