Showing posts with label Riverside County. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Riverside County. Show all posts

Monday, September 13, 2021

Riverside County, CA Sheriff Chad Bianco: I Will Not Enforce Vaccine Mandates



Statement from Sheriff Chad Bianco:

Later today a local newspaper will publish a story about our last podcast concerning forced vaccinations. The reporter will use cherry picked statements from supposed health experts in an attempt to paint me and the Sheriff’s Department in a negative light. This is nothing but sensationalism trying to gain readership and further divide us as Americans.

Over the past couple of weeks, the idea of forced vaccination has caused much concern across the entire country. There is absolutely nothing in my podcast that was incorrect or irresponsible. It is factual and common sense based. To repeat the context of the podcast, I will not enforce the vaccine mandate on Sheriff’s Department employees.

The information I have about Covid and the vaccines is easily found and available for anyone wanting to find it.

In November 2018 the residents of Riverside County elected me as their Sheriff. I stood before God and swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of California. It is my responsibility to protect the public from the criminal element, as well as being the last line of defense from tyrannical government overreach. The government has no ability and no authority to mandate your health choices. As your Sheriff I have an obligation to guard your liberty and freedom.

I am certainly not anti-vaccine. I am anti-vaccine for me. That decision should be made in consultation with your doctor after discussing the potential benefit and the potential negative side effects.

It is time our government and our politicians come to the realization that the only reason they exist is because “we the people” formed our government to secure the blessings of individual liberty and freedom.

Friday, March 8, 2019

Stop Ballot Harvesting -- Don't Wait for CAGOP "Leadership"

Be sure to check Steve Frank's California News & Views throughout the day for breaking news and commentary!
Visit 
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/
 

Please follow on Twitter  @capoliticalnews


Please forward to your friends: FORWARD

Rep. Calvert Asks for Ballot Harvesting Legal Clarity

March 7, 2019 By Stephen Frank 4 Comments (Edit)
Congratulations to Congressman Ken Calvert.  Instead of complaining about dishonest elections, instead of saying you can’t do anything about absent ballot harvest, the practice of collecting ballots without a chain of custody, Calvert has begun the action needed to stop this practice.  He has sent a detailed letter to the Registrar of Voters in Riverside County asking 27 great questions.  This sets up a lawsuit to stop the abusive practice.
While the Republican Party in California is spending donated dollars challenging the election of a Chair in the 66th AD, but NOT challenging the absentee ballot harvesting, at least a Member of Congress has started the action needed to end this vile practice—which the North Carolina Democrat Party was able to stop.
““As we’ve seen in North Carolina, the practice of ballot harvesting is ripe for voter fraud,” said Rep. Calvert. “The California Secretary of State and our election officials have provided little if any information on the rules and regulations covering ballot harvesting since Democrats legalized the practice in our state. As a result, we have seen an erosion of voter confidence in the integrity of California’s elections. When unknown third parties are handling hundreds or thousands of ballots with no transparency voters are understandably concerned. Our election laws should always be focused on what protects the confidence and integrity of our elections, not what gives one party an advantage over the other.” 
The first priority of a political Party should be to assure honest elections.  Thanks to Congressman Ken Calvert, we have a champion in this effort.  Hopefully the California Republican Party will set this as a priority as well.  What do you think?

vote ballots
Congressman Ken Calvert,  3/4/19

Today, Congressman Ken Calvert (CA-42) sent a letter to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters seeking information on the application of the California law authorizing the practice known as ballot harvesting. As Democrats in the House of Representatives pursue significant changes to our election laws, many questions remain about the ballot harvesting legalities authorized by the state of California.
“As we’ve seen in North Carolina, the practice of ballot harvesting is ripe for voter fraud,” said Rep. Calvert. “The California Secretary of State and our election officials have provided little if any information on the rules and regulations covering ballot harvesting since Democrats legalized the practice in our state. As a result, we have seen an erosion of voter confidence in the integrity of California’s elections. When unknown third parties are handling hundreds or thousands of ballots with no transparency voters are understandably concerned. Our election laws should always be focused on what protects the confidence and integrity of our elections, not what gives one party an advantage over the other.”
The letter from Rep. Calvert to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters asks the following:
  1. When an individual obtains a vote by mail ballot from a voter and is designated to return it on their behalf, are they required to provide their name, the name of the organization they are working on behalf of or any other identifying information to the voter who is turning over their ballot?
  1. Are individuals who collect vote by mail ballots from voters required to document the ballot’s chain of custody in any way?
  1. If an individual collects a vote by mail ballot from a voter, are they permitted to turn over that ballot to another individual or organization before it is returned to an authorized voting location?
  1. If it is clear that a vote by mail ballot is being dropped off by a person other than the voter – e.g. the person is dropping off more than one ballot – and the envelopes are not signed by the third party, is that documented and is the ballot counted?
  1. What identifying information does the Riverside County Registrar of Voters collect from an individual who delivers vote by mail ballots on behalf of other voters?
  1. Does the Riverside County Registrar of Voters document and maintain a list of persons who collect and submit vote by mail ballots for others? If such a list is created, is it subject to public disclosure?
  1. Is there a numerical threshold in terms of numbers of vote by mail ballots turned in by an individual that triggers an identification requirement? i.e. Is an individual turning in 10 vote by mail ballots required to submit and disclose their personal information? An individual turning in 100 vote by mail ballots? An individual turning in 1,000 vote by mail ballots?
  1. What are the eligibility qualifications for an individual who collects and returns vote by mail ballots? Do they have to be an eligible voter?
  1. Are non-California residents eligible to collect and return vote by mail ballots?
  1. Are non-citizens eligible to collect and return vote by mail ballots?
  1. Are foreign nationals in the United States eligible to collect and return vote by mail ballots?
  1. Is there a maximum limit or cap on the number of vote by mail ballots an individual is allowed to collect and return?
  1. AB 1921 indicates it is unlawful for individuals collecting vote by mail ballots to fail “to deliver the ballot in a timely fashion.” What do you consider to be a timely fashion to return a vote by mail ballot once an individual collects it from a voter?
  1. Is a political campaign, including paid staff, allowed to collect and return vote by mail ballots?
  1. Is a non-profit organization allowed to collect and return vote by mail ballots?
  1. Are businesses, including corporations, allowed to collect and return vote by mail ballots?
  1. Is a labor union allowed to collect and return vote by mail ballots?
  1. Is a church allowed to collect and return vote by mail ballots?
  1. AB 1921 makes it unlawful for anyone to provide any form of compensation based on the number of vote by mail ballots collected and returned. Are there any other restrictions on compensating individuals collecting and returning vote by mail ballots?
  1. Are campaigns permitted to hire private outside vendors to conduct vote by mail ballot collection and return activities so long as they do not provide compensation based on the number of ballots collected?
  1. Are individuals collecting vote by mail ballots required to disclose to the voter turning over their ballot if they are collecting ballots on behalf of an organization or campaign?
  1. Are individuals collecting vote by mail ballots required to disclose to the voter turning over their ballot if they are being compensated to collect ballots?
  1. How can a voter that turned over their vote by mail ballot to an individual who indicated they would return it verify whether or not the ballot was returned?
  1. If a voter that turned over their vote by mail ballot to an individual who indicated they would return it believes the ballot was not submitted in a timely fashion as required by law, what recourse do they have?
  1. You currently document and make public whether a voter cast a ballot in an election and, if they did vote, which method the voter used to cast a ballot. Do you have a new category to document ballots cast utilizing the ballot collection methods authorized by AB 1921?
  1. When vote by mail ballots are returned by an individual, what procedures do you and your staff follow to ensure the ballots were not tampered with?
  1. If physical evidence, such as opened and taped envelopes or a high frequency of spoiled ballots, was present in a batch of vote by mail ballots returned by an individual, what steps would you take?
Background:
Two years ago, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1921, which legalized the practice known as ballot harvesting. Specifically, the law changed Section 3017 of the Election Code and allows any person to collect a vote by mail ballot from an eligible voter and turn in the ballot to a polling place or a registrar of voter’s office. The only restriction written into the law was a prohibition on compensating an individual based on the number ballots that person returns.



Dear readers, please help my readership grow by passing it around. If some one sent this to you, and you would like your own subscription, you can sign up here: http://eepurl.com/UAspv

Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, 
but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Copyright © 2019 CAPoliticalReview, All rights reserved. 
You are receiving this email because you opted in at Capoliticalnews.com 

Our mailing address is: 
CAPoliticalReview
30011 Ivy Glenn Dr.
Suite 223
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677

Saturday, January 19, 2019

MassResistance Makes the Difference in Riverside County, California



In previous reports, MassResistance documented our efforts to confront and stop Drag Queen Story Hour in Georgia, Michigan, and other parts of the country.

We had an incredible impact in Riverside, where one of our activist mothers confronted and exposed a Drag Queen program in otherwise conservative-leaning Riverside, California. Her efforts received national attention, support, and even hatred from many LGBT activists and news sites.

However, MassResistance activists did not abandon their fight to expose, denounce, and discourage this Drag Queen Program in the city. Our activists informed the public and announced their opposition at the Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting in December, 2018.

Riverside, CA Board of Supervisors Meeting

Arthur Schaper, our Organization Director, reached out to residents in Riverside County to help combat the Drag Queen Story Hour program at Cellar Door Books in Riverside, CA. Joining with fellow MassResistance activists, Schaper attending the Riverside County Board of Supervisors meeting on December 11, 2018 to bring more awareness and concern about Cellar Door Books and their promotion of adult entertainment for children.

Like many government board meetings, the Board provides a general public comment portion for members of the public to speak on issues which have not been placed on the Agenda. Most of the time, the members of the board rarely pay attention, although once in a while they will ask a clarifying question or make a remark of agreement.

On December 11, however, the Board of Supervisors interrupted Arthur a number of times, but Arthur and his fellow activists countered their disrespectful behavior quite effectively. You can see his comments in this link, starting at the 4:54:00 mark.

During his public comments, first congratulated the newly elected sheriff of Riverside County, Chad Bianco. A conservative insurgent who toppled an unpopular liberal incumbent, Bianco had secured the support of many conservative organizations, including the pro-Family Riverside Republican Assembly.

In a desperate attempt to smear Bianco, the incumbent Sheriff Stan Sniff issued attack ads shaming Bianco’s support for reparative therapy!
For more information on this hateful smear, click here.

Frankly, any sheriff’s candidate who stands strong for pro-family values should be welcomed. Thankfully, Bianco won.

Arthur then talked about how the homosexual-transgender agenda, and how it is affecting children as well as adults. He provided pictures of the more revealing displays during a San Francisco Gay Pride parade.
"Fairies" at the Gay Pride Parade



He also pointed out that Assemblyman Evan Low of Cupertino had introduced legislation that would ban the Bible, and more specifically targeted reparative therapy for adults.



Before Arthur finished his comments, Arthur wanted to provide copies of the MassResistance flyer to protest the Drag Queen Story Hour program at Cellar Door Books.

Riverside County Board Chairman Chuck Washington

While he referenced the Secretary for the Board of Supervisors to pass the flyers to the members, Chuck Washington, the Chairman of the Board, interrupted Arthur in an attempt to shame him. “She is not a secretary. She is a highly-trained professional.” At this point, Arthur had not finished with his public comments. He admonished the chairman to stop interrupting him.

John Tavaglione (far left) started lecturing Arthur. His comments were out of order

Then another member of the Board, John Tavaglione, shouted at Arthur: “Now you listen! You speak before us at our pleasure …”

Mr. Tavaglione’s comments were completely inappropriate, almost as though to shame Arthur and silence anything beyond completely deference to the elected officials. However, California’s open meeting laws--otherwise known as the Ralph M. Brown Act—explicitly protect the public’s right to speak before any governing board. They do not need to earn the privilege of speaking to a governing board. Arthur dutifully corrected Mr. Tavaglione, and members of MassResistance also called out at the Board of Supervisors for their rude remarks.

More Rebuttals from the Left

While Arthur was speaking to the Board, two other members of the audience had submitted their own comment cards. They were part of a left-wing activist group, and they insisted on sharing their own opinions on Arthur’s testimony.

Asher Jones, a female pretending to be a male, defended Drag Queen Story Hour

The next speaker, Asher Jones, came to the podium was a young lady dressed in men’s clothes. She then described herself as a “Transgender male” and she (not “he”) stated that her preferred pronouns are “he and his, they, them, and theirs.” She talked about Riverside, California as city of inclusion, then listed a number of the gay bars in the city. She then defended Cellar Door Books as a business that contributes to the inclusivity of the city. One of the most jarring comments she made as “Our children sit at the feet of drag performers … This ensures not only a fun environment, but a safe environment.”

Let those comments sink in. She actually defended adult homosexuals dressed as women reading to children—as safe!



Asher then labeled Arthur’s comments “hate speech” and welcomed the board members to attend the “risqué” Drag Queen Story Hour event. Bear in mind that this meeting took place in one of the more conservative sections of California. Even there, young people and college students are falling for the LGBT Agenda and turning into vocal advocates for their ideology.

This man, wearing a red star for communism, also condemned Arthur’s remarks

Another man joined with the left-leaning activists at the Board meeting took to the podium, as well. Wearing a yellow vest to show solidarity with the Yellow Vest protesters in Europe, he also condemned Arthur’s remarks on “conversion therapy”. He compared reparative therapy practice to the Spanish Inquisition! He also compared the life-saving practice with female genital mutilation. He also mentioned the Russian Legislature’s banning “gay propaganda”, as though such criticism hurt Arthur’s presentation. The truth is that the Communist gentleman’s remarks did not gain much support or regard from the audience. Such remarks have become commonplace among pro-LGBT activists, but those scare tactics no longer work.

Public Official Attempts to Shame Public Speakers

The Board of Supervisors recessed for twenty minutes, then returned with Tavaglione’s issuing a pointed statement to Arthur. His comments then received additional support from the county attorney, who informed the audience that the “right to criticize the board is not unlimited”. The attorney listed that if members of the public go over their allotted speaking time or willfully disrupt the meeting, they can be removed by the chairman of the board.

Those limitations, however, did not apply to Arthur’s situation at all. In fact, members of the board had interrupted Arthur—twice!—and one of the members was entirely out of order when he had stated they can speak only at “their pleasure.” The fact is that the board members were seeking some means to admonish the crowd and help the board “save face” to demonstrate their preeminence in the chambers.

More MassResistance Members Challenge the Board

During another open hearing before the board two hours later, other members of the audience admonished the Board of Supervisors for interrupting Arthur Schaper earlier in the meeting. Supervisor Tavaglione (after whom the building is named) refused to apologize. Other members of the audience still admonished the board.

After the meeting adjourned, Arthur confronted Mr. Tavaglione and rebuked him: “I do not speak at your pleasure.” Then, as Arthur was exiting the building, the supervisor rushed up behind him “I am going to speak with this guy (referring to another man), because he is reasonable.”



It was pretty shocking for Arthur, since the supervisor got really close to him! Arthur then pursued him asking for him to explain his behavior.



Check out this video for the entire exchange:


After the meeting adjourned, Arthur briefly confronted the left-wing activists outside of the Board of Supervisors building. Arthur derided the hateful smear below:


One of the woman in the group admonished Arthur to love others. She quoted a Scripture to shame him, but Arthur refused to back away. He actually confronted her and asked her to explain how he was being hateful. She only referenced his “tone”, which is quite laughable.

The triggered woman pretending to be a man couldn’t stand to hear Arthur’s comments

Tips for Conduct/Handling Rude People in Public Meetings

In both meetings, notice that Arthur conducted himself professionally. He addressed the different governing boards on substantive issues relating to MassResistance and our organization’s goals. Not once did he back down from stating our core mission while calling out the fundamental lies of the LGBT Agenda.

If Arthur had not spoken out against the Drag Queen program at Cellar Door Books, the public would have never heard from two of its defenders. Strangely enough, their remarks solidified Arthur’s objections to the whole program.

Notice also that Arthur did not permit the governing board members to shame or silence him during his public comment period.

That kind of resolve pays off every time, and our activists are stepping up to the challenge more and more—and are getting results!

Final Update

Because of our California activists’ efforts, the owner of Cellar Door Books had to implement security measures and require people to pay a “Donation” in order to enter the Drag Queen Program on December 15, 2018.




At the very least, we wanted to warn and discourage others from attending the program.
One of our members, Mike from Riverside, gave us the following report:


There was security all over. You couldn't get in unless you were on a list or purchased a ticket. I was asked to stop filming a couple of times. One man accused me of being creepy for filming children. I had to remind three people that I was in a public space and they had no expectation of privacy. There were about 75 people in there, maybe 30 children. There were people taking my picture and following me but I didn't confront any as I was, mostly, alone.