Sheriff Chad Bianco: Standing Up to Gavin Newsom

 Arthur,

Do you remember Christmas 2020?

Gavin Newsom decided to take away your God-given right to gather, open your business, and even attend church. He locked you inside your home.

And he demanded that local law enforcement act as his political muscle to enforce his unconstitutional mandates.

Hell no.

As Sheriff of Riverside County, I swore an oath to protect the rights of Riverside’s 2.5 million residents. So I refused to obey Newsom’s illegal orders. This is the video I recorded at the time announcing my position:

Per my orders, my deputies didn’t arrest people for living their lives.

I took a major risk and a lot of heat for refusing to obey and daring Newsom to stop me. If I could do it again…I wouldn’t change a thing.

Real leadership means doing what’s best for the people — especially when the powers that be want you to do the opposite. I will protect your rights, no matter the cost to me. My stand against the lockdowns is proof:

WATCH NOW

Fighting for you,
Sheriff Chad Bianco
Republican for Governor

¡Viva La Libertad, Carajo! President Milei Establishes Argentina's First ICE Force

🚨BREAKING: Javier Milei's newly formed ICE unit has begun cleansing Argentina of thousands of criminals & terrorists

Every Western country needs ICE! 🇦🇷 pic.twitter.com/W9uyLF3Iyu

— Inevitable West (@Inevitablewest) March 7, 2026

Feelings that Have Actual Names

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Explaining (@explaining)

Jean Adelsman Under Investigation by the FPPC

In a previous post, I shared that Patsy Okada of North Torrance filed a complaint against "Take Back Torrance" liberal Jean Adelsman's Committee to Recall Aurelio Mattucci for campaign violations.

Last month, she received an update from the Fair Political Practices Commission:

On Feb 9, 2026, at 2:36 PM, Jonathan Rivera <JRivera@fppc.ca.gov> wrote:

Hello Patsy Okada,

 

My name is Jonathan Rivera and I am the attorney assigned to your complaint/case. The case is currently under investigation/review and at this time there is no update. If you have any additional questions, please let me know.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jonathan Rivera

Commission Counsel

Fair Political Practices Commission

1102 Q Street, Suite 3050, Sacramento, CA 95811

jrivera@fppc.ca.gov • (279) 237-5913

 

Is Jean in trouble?

US Supreme Court Blocks California’s Secret Transition Policies, Restores Parents’ Rights

 

Supreme Court Reverses Ninth Circuit Stay in Mirabelli v. Bonta, Reinforces Parental Authority, and Delivers Generational Win for Families

The California Family Council (CFC) proudly celebrates today’s momentous U.S. Supreme Court ruling reversing the Ninth Circuit’s stay on Mirabelli v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s secret gender transition policies in public schools. In a landmark 6–3 decision, the High Court restored the statewide injunction and made clear that California’s practice of concealing a child’s gender transition from parents likely violates both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court emphatically held that California “cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents” and reaffirmed that parents, not government bureaucrats or unelected officials, hold constitutional authority over decisions concerning their children’s upbringing and education. This is a watershed ruling for parental rights nationwide and sends a powerful message to school districts across the state.

A Hard-Won Vindication of CFC’s Fight for Parent Notification

For years, the California Family Council and allied parental rights organizations have worked relentlessly to advance parental notification policies, efforts rooted in the foundational belief that parents must be informed and involved in all significant decisions affecting their children’s lives. These efforts included supporting local school districts adopting Parent Notification policies that require schools to notify parents when their child expresses a desire to live or identify as a gender different from their biological sex, despite opposition from Sacramento leadership.

CFC’s advocacy followed years of state resistance to that common-sense transparency. California legislators blocked a parent notification policy bill at the Capitol, and state leaders even enacted laws to prohibit such local policies, creating a “government-imposed wall of secrecy” between parents and their children.

Now, the Supreme Court’s decision fundamentally vindicates that fight. By reaffirming parents’ constitutional rights and rejecting lower court efforts to limit the parental victory, the Court has vindicated CFC’s consistent message: parents have the fundamental right to know and participate in decisions about their child’s mental, emotional, and physical well-being.

Why the Ninth Circuit Was Wrong, According to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court found that the Ninth Circuit incorrectly stayed an injunction protecting constitutional parental rights. In its decision, the Court held that:

• Parents very likely have standing to challenge secret gender transition policies, and
• Class certification was likely proper, ensuring broad protections for all parents and teachers affected statewide.

The justices made clear that such secretive policies are not just administrative decisions; they are constitutional harms to parental liberty that cannot be brushed aside by lower courts.

Impact on Every California School

The Court’s ruling means that no school district in California may:

• Conceal a child’s gender transition from their parents;
• Facilitate social transitions, by changing a child’s name and pronoun, at school without parental knowledge and consent; or
• Compel teachers to mislead students’ families.

This restores parents’ rightful role and authority in fundamental aspects of their children’s lives and sharpens constitutional boundaries for public education.

Thanking the Attorneys and Courageous Teachers

CFC extends profound gratitude to the Thomas More Society legal team — including Paul M. Jonna, Peter Breen, Jeff Trissell, Michael McHale, and Christopher Galiardo,  whose steadfast advocacy has delivered a generational victory for parental rights. We also honor the teachers, Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West, whose courage to stand with parents when few would listen helped fuel this pivotal case. Their bravery has affirmed that educators often know best, and that they, too, are protected when they refuse to be instruments of deception. (See the Thomas More Society press release here.)

Statement from Greg Burt, Vice President, California Family Council

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a monumental victory for parents, teachers, and the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit was wrong to block protections for families while this case moves forward. The Supreme Court rightly recognized that parents have a fundamental right to know what is happening to their children at school and to direct their upbringing without government interference.

California’s policy of hiding a child’s gender transition from mom and dad was not only unconstitutional, but it was also dangerous. No school should ever place ideology above a child’s well-being or a parent’s God-given authority.

This decision sends a powerful message: the Constitution still protects families, and California schools are not above the law.”

A New Era for Parental Rights

This decision marks a turning point in the battle over parental authority in education, reinforcing constitutional protections and setting precedent for parents nationwide. As CFC has long maintained, the government’s role should never be to usurp parental authority, but to protect it.

While today’s ruling restores the statewide injunction, the case itself now returns to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a full decision on the merits. The Supreme Court did not issue a final ruling on the ultimate constitutionality of California’s policies, but it made clear that the lower court was wrong to block the district court’s protections while the appeal is pending. In other words, the Ninth Circuit may still hear and decide the case, but it cannot strip parents of constitutional protections in the meantime. Until the appellate court issues its final decision, the district court’s injunction remains in effect across California.

Tenth Amendment Center: The Feds Are Not the Boss of the States

They’re Not the Boss Jefferson on the foundation - and the solution (DONATE NOW | JOIN TAC)

The federal government is not the boss of the states. In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson emphasized this point, writing, “The several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government.” We’ve all heard the phrase “the states created the federal government, not the other way around.” That’s the very point that Jefferson was making. The states created a “general government for specific purposes” through a “compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto.” By “compact,” Jefferson meant that the Constitution is essentially a legal agreement between the states creating a union for only special purposes. As Jefferson explained it, as part of that agreement, the states “delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government.” In other words, the federal government was only supposed to exercise those powers delegated to it, while the states and the people themselves would retain everything else. But what happens if the general government tries to exercise powers that were never delegated to it in the first place? Jefferson said any such action would be “void.” “Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” That covers a huge majority of all the federal acts, “laws,” rules and regulations on the books. Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we’re working every day to reach and teach more people about these essential principles. We can’t do it alone. We need your help! 👉 JOIN TAC, SUPPORT LIBERTY! 👉 Make a One-Time Donation But all this raises another question – one that might be even more important. Who decides when the general government has assumed undelegated powers? Most people will answer, “The Supreme Court decides.” But allowing the federal government to decide when the federal government oversteps its bounds only makes sense if the states were united on a principle of unlimited submission to the federal government. Instead, Jefferson argues that since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it’s not up to the government to decide if the government violated the rules given to it - since that would make IT the supreme law of the land. “The Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers.” Going further, it’s not just a matter of determining that the federal government has violated the Constitution and then yelling about it. There’s another step. Stop the feds. Jefferson laid out the strategy. “Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” Not just a mere good idea – but THE way to deal with unconstitutional acts. Concordia res parvae crescunt (small things grow great by concord) -Mike Maharrey along with Michael Boldin, Alan Mosley and the whole TAC team

 

God Bless the Great State of Texas

 Republican voters also strongly supported several other propositions addressing issues such as property taxes, immigration, and education.

Proposition 1: Texas property taxes should be assessed at the purchase price and phased out entirely over the next six years through spending reductions.
Yes: 1,792,508 (88.11%)
No: 241,778 (11.89%)

Proposition 2: Texas should require any local government budget that raises property taxes to be approved by voters at a November general election.
Yes: 1,937,081 (93.76%)
No: 128,828 (6.24%)

Proposition 3: Texas should prohibit denial of healthcare or any medical service based solely on the patient’s vaccination status.
Yes: 1,504,139 (73.18%)
No: 551,255 (26.82%)

Proposition 4: Texas should require its public schools to teach that life begins at fertilization.
Yes: 1,740,012 (84.9%)
No: 309,437 (15.1%)

Proposition 5: Texas should ban gender, sexuality, and reproductive clinics and services in K-12 schools.
Yes: 1,869,444 (90.63%)
No: 193,294 (9.37%)

Proposition 6: Texas should enact term limits on all elected officials.
Yes: 1,876,666 (91.12%)
No: 182,950 (8.88%)

Proposition 7: Texas should ban the large-scale export or sale of groundwater and surface water to any single private or public entity.
Yes: 1,892,220 (93.19%)
No: 138,299 (6.81%)

Proposition 8: The Texas Legislature should reduce the burden of illegal immigration on taxpayers by ending public services for illegal aliens.
Yes: 1,912,478 (92.7%)
No: 150,713 (7.3%)

Proposition 9: The Republican-controlled Texas Legislature should stop awarding leadership positions—including committee chairmanships and vice chairmanships—to Democrats.
Yes: 1,600,728 (79.07%)
No: 423,824 (20.93%)

Proposition 10: Texas should prohibit Sharia law.
Yes: 1,903,489 (94.81%)
No: 104,290 (5.19%)