One year in, Trump's Gorsuch nomination may be his longest lasting legacy

Judge Neil Gorsuch shakes hands with Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy after being sworn in as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, accompanied by Louise Gorsuch (C) and U.S. President Donald J. Trump in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., April 10, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria - RTX34YQB

April 10 marks one year since Justice Neil Gorsuch was officially sworn in as the 101^st associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  It’s been a year of fulfilled promises.  We now know that President Trump kept perhaps his most important campaign promise by nominating a successor to Justice Scalia who would carry on his legacy.  And for Justice Gorsuch himself, it has been a year of fulfilling the promise of his confirmation hearings: that he would be a judge committed to fairness and independence, deciding cases on the basis of the law and the Constitution rather than politics or personal feelings.
One of the most striking features of Gorsuch’s first year on the Court is his demonstrated commitment to the constitutional principles he articulated during his confirmation hearings.  In his opinions as well as oral arguments, Justice Gorsuch has repeatedly invoked familiar themes.
For example, the theme of commitment to the laws as passed by our elected representatives permeated Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings.  He recalled difficult decisions as a circuit judge requiring him to apply laws with which he disagreed.  When senators criticized some of his legal conclusions, he explained that it is for Congress to change a law, not the courts.  In Gorsuch’s view, a judge’s job is to “try to understand what the words on the page mean.  Not import words that come from us.  But apply what you, the people's representatives, the lawmakers have done.”
Already Justice Gorsuch has carried out that commitment.  In his first day of oral arguments, the junior justice redirected discussion of a law so complex and poorly drafted that Justice Alito wondered aloud whether it had been written by someone “who takes pleasure out of pulling the wings off flies.”  Instead of succumbing to the temptation to “fix” the law by effectively rewriting it, Gorsuch challenged both parties to follow the plain text of the statute.  In his dissenting opinion in the case, he explained that—rather than having the courts “tweak” statutes to make them work more efficiently—“the business of enacting statutory fixes [is] one that belongs to Congress and not this Court.”

At oral argument in a redistricting case, Gorsuch suggested jokingly that the lawyers hadn’t yet addressed “the arcane matter, the Constitution,” and cited several constitutional amendments that shed light on discussion.

Justice Gorsuch has similarly returned the Court to fundamental constitutional questions when the analysis proposed to the Court lacked constitutional moorings.  This was illustrated clearly in two cases argued last October.  At oral argument in a redistricting case, Gorsuch suggested jokingly that the lawyers hadn’t yet addressed “the arcane matter, the Constitution,” and cited several constitutional amendments that shed light on discussion.  In a second case examining whether an immigration law was unconstitutionally vague, he challenged both sides to ground their own arguments in the Constitution itself rather than judge-invented doctrines or tests.
Perhaps the most repeated constitutional theme at Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing was his concern about a line of cases requiring courts to give administrative agencies significant deference in lawsuits.  Twice already, Gorsuch has objected to the Court deciding not to hear cases that would challenge the outsized role of administrative agencies and reconsider the practice of giving agencies an extra thumb on the scale.
As the country watched a year ago to learn more about the man who was nominated to be the next justice, they saw an articulate, thoughtful, and principled judge explain his approach to judging and to the law.  A year later, it has become clear that Neil Gorsuch is as excellent a justice as we had hoped he would be. 

Lost amid all the 'noise' over Scott Pruitt is the very real damage Obama's EPA did to rural communities

The far left will stop at nothing in their efforts to derail the presidency of Donald Trump. Still bitter about the outcome of 2016, the left claims much of their outrage toward the president is driven by his unpredictable personality, but ideological opposition to his administration’s reform-minded agenda is the real root of their anger.
Nowhere is this more evident than the furor surrounding Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Trump’s opponents have seized on a number of recent unflattering news stories involving Pruitt and his agency. While admittedly not the best public relations for Pruitt, his “real sin is that he is one of Mr. Trump’s most aggressive reformers,” as the Wall Street Journal editorialized last week. President Trump expressed a similar sentiment over the weekend when he tweeted praise for his EPA chief’s “bold actions” and “record clean Air & Water while saving USA Billions of Dollars.”
Since taking office last year, Pruitt has boldly carried out the president’s campaign promises. In October, he moved to repeal Obama’s Clean Power Plan regulations, ending the War On Coal and providing a shot in the arm for coal country that had been decimated.
Pruitt and Trump issued an executive order doing away with the Obama-era Waters Of The United States (WOTUS) that sought to impose new regulations on every miniscule body of water in this country.  And Pruitt encouraged Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, an accord which the UN itself admitted last year was largely symbolic, but whose damage to American businesses would have been real.
Environmental protection remains a priority: under Pruitt’s leadership, $100 million dollars have been awarded to Flint, Michigan, to upgrade the drinking water and to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances and pollutants – known as “Superfunds” – has been prioritized.
Pruitt’s “scandals” are exaggerated for political expediency: never mind that the Obama EPA spent just as much, if not more, than Pruitt’s team, according to a recent Fox News report.  Or that Lisa Jackson, Obama’s EPA chief, was caught using the email alias “Richard Windsor” to communicate with people outside the government. Or that one Obama-era EPA employee was caught downloading and watching pornography on the job. These issues prompted no outrage from Hill offices, and one questions if Congressional inquiry could possibly be politically motivated, or if left-wing outrage is a one-way street.

These millions of Americans who lost their jobs, their towns, and their livelihood voted to undo the EPA’s destruction, and Scott Pruitt is doing just that.

The left also knows that opposing Trump and Pruitt will curry favor with Tom Steyer, the San Francisco billionaire taking a bigger and bigger role in the public policy debate. Already having pledged $30 million dollars of his vast fortune to help elect identically ideological environmentalists, Steyer has now embarked on a publicity stunt to impeach the president, spending millions on television and digital ads.
Lost amid all the noise is the extreme damage the previous EPA did to rural communities. My work takes me to small, energy-rich towns around the country.  These are the places where America gets its power, where multiple generations of energy workers live and worship and raise their families.  Places where the champions of the eco-left would not deign to visit.  These towns survived dot.com bubbles and housing crashes because the majority had steady, good paying jobs in coal mines or oil fields.
These proud towns went from prosperity to poverty during eight years of EPA regulatory action as unemployment became rampant, and with it, myriad hardships: shuttered stores on main street, depleted education funds, increased opioid use.  Families broke apart as moms and dads moved from their beloved hometowns looking for work.  The very fabric of their communities – neighbors, schools, churches, little league, diners, town squares – destroyed in less than a decade.
The ideologues of the previous EPA believed they were punishing “the fat cats” as Obama liked to call rich people who didn’t vote for him, or “millionaires and billionaires” in Bernie Sanders lexicon, or “big oil” according to the eco-left. But who they really punished were the forgotten men and women in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico, Alaska, and Louisiana, among others.  These millions of Americans who lost their jobs, their towns, and their livelihood voted to undo the EPA’s destruction, and Scott Pruitt is doing just that.  His punishment will be severe: the eco-left, in conjunction with their elected patrons in Congress and media allies, will persecute him relentlessly.   
Our message to Administrator Pruitt: American energy workers who are going back to work thank you. The American economy thanks you. And please remember these wise words: if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog. 

Trump attacks Mueller 'witch hunt' as WH source calls investigation 'out of control'

President Trump reacted angrily Monday to news that federal agents had raided the office and home of his personal attorney, Michael Cohen -- calling the action "disgraceful" and describing special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation as "an attack on our country."
Before a White House meeting with top military advisers, Trump took several minutes to blast the raid and the Mueller probe.
"It's a disgraceful situation. It's a total witch hunt," said Trump, who claimed that he had "given over a million pages in documents to the special counsel. They continue to just go forward ... and I have this witch hunt constantly going on for over 12 months now. Actually it's much more than that. You could say right after I won the [2016 Republican] nomination it started."
Trump also accused Mueller's investigators of being "the most biased group of people [with] the biggest conflicts of interest" and said Attorney General Jeff Sessions "made a terrible mistake for the country" when he recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation last year.
A source close to the White House told Fox News' John Roberts that the raid showed that the Mueller investigation "is out of control" and was a "demonstration of bad faith" on the part of the special counsel.
"What in the name of God is Mueller doing?" the source told Roberts. "He wants to take down the President."
Cohen's attorney, Stephen Ryan, said Monday's raid was conducted by the U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan and was based at least partly on a referral from Mueller.
"The decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York to conduct their investigation using search warrants is completely inappropriate and unnecessary," Ryan said in a statement. "It resulted in the unnecessary seizure of protected attorney client communications between a lawyer and his clients."
A source close to the White House also agreed with Trump's take on the alleged bias of Mueller investigators, saying that "the hiring of all those Clinton people for Mueller’s team was not an accident. It was done to bring down the president."
SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S TEAM HAS ONLY ONE KNOWN REPUBLICAN
In February, Fox News reported that most of the 17 confirmed attorneys on Mueller's team were registered Democrats or made Democratic political donations.
A source close to the Trump legal team told Fox News' Catherine Herridge that the raid on Cohen was "aggressive" and designed to "squeeze the president." The source, who has knowledge of talks between Mueller and the president's legal team, added that the raid "puts a fork in" the prospect of Trump agreeing to be interviewed by the special counsel.
Still, the existence of a referral from Mueller's office to the Manhattan U.S. Attorney suggests that the matter isn't related to Russia.
Under Justice Department regulations, Mueller is required to consult with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein when his investigators uncover new evidence that may fall outside his original mandate. Rosenstein then would determine whether to allow Mueller to proceed or to assign the matter to another U.S. attorney or another part of the Justice Department.
Cohen has more recently attracted attention for his acknowledgment that he paid Daniels $130,000 out of his own pocket just days before the 2016 presidential election. Cohen has said neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Daniels and he was not reimbursed for the payment.
Several former officials at the Federal Election Commission have said the payment appears to be a violation of campaign finance laws, and multiple Washington-based groups have filed complaints with the FEC, urging it to investigate.
There have been few signs that Mueller was interested in investigating the payment, though. One Mueller witness, former Trump aide Sam Nunberg, recently connected the special counsel with the payment, saying in an interview on MSNBC last month that prosecutors had asked him about it.
Trump answered questions about Daniels for the first time last week, saying he had no knowledge of the payment made by Cohen and he didn't know where Cohen had gotten the money. The White House has consistently said Trump denies the affair.
"Why don't I just fire Mueller?" asked Trump, repeating a reporter's question to him Monday night. "Well, I think it's a disgrace what's going on. We'll see what happens, but I think it's really a sad situation when you look at what happened.
"And many people have said, 'You should fire him.'" Trump added. "... So we'll see what happens ... this is a pure and simple witch hunt."

China's Xi promises to cut auto import tariff, warns against ‘Cold War’ mentality

China's President Xi Jinping appeared to strike a conciliatory tone during a speech Tuesday where he promised to cut China's auto import tariffs and ease restrictions on foreign ownership in its auto industry as tensions play out with Washington over tariffs.
Xi made no direct mention of the dispute with President Donald Trump but pledged to open China's markets further and improve conditions for foreign companies. He warned against having a "Cold War" mentality, which he called outdated, according to Bloomberg.
“We will take the initiative to expand imports,” Xi said during his keynote speech at the opening of the Boao Forum for Asia, China Plus News reported. "China does not seek trade surplus; we have a genuine desire to increase imports and achieve greater balance of international payments under the current account," he said.
Xi said Beijing will "significantly lower" tariffs on auto imports this year and ease restrictions on foreign ownership in the auto industry as soon as possible.
China charges total duties of 25 percent on most imported cars -- a 10 percent customs tariff plus a 15 percent auto tax. Since December 2016, Beijing also has charged an additional 10 percent on "super-luxury" vehicles priced above $200,000.
The U.S. bought more than $500 billion in goods from China last year and now is planning or considering penalties on some $150 billion of those imports.
China has pledged to "counterattack with great strength" if Trump decides to follow through on his latest threat to impose tariffs on an additional $100 billion in Chinese goods -- after an earlier announcement that targeted $50 billion.
Vishnu Varathan, head of economics and strategy for Mizuho Bank in Singapore, told Reuters, “By and large it appears that the speech is more conciliatory than it is pugilistic with respect to how their approach to the U.S. is."
Xi tried to position China as a defender of free trade and cooperation in response to Trump's "America first" calls for import restrictions and an overhaul of trade deals to make them more favorable to the United States.
"China's door of opening up will not be closed and will only open wider," said Xi at the forum on the southern island of Hainan.

Food Stamp Cartoons

Want jobs? Nebraska reforms have more people working, fewer on welfare and food stamps

Pete Ricketts has said his parents taught him a simple truth: Every job is important, so whatever you do, be the best you can be at it. As governor of Nebraska, Ricketts is living that lesson by setting a standard for governors around the country with policies that make it easier for Nebraskans to get back to work.
Under Ricketts’ leadership, Nebraska has made giant strides in removing barriers to work and entrepreneurship. He’s made it easier for more people to find jobs, and he’s made it easier for businesses to create lots of good jobs. The results have been undeniable – Forbes recently ranked the state as the fourth-best place to do business.
Why should you care about this if you don’t live in Nebraska? Because Ricketts’ success in Nebraska can serve as a roadmap that other states can follow to get people working by moving them more quickly from unemployment to reemployment, transitioning able-bodied adults from welfare to work, and removing unnecessary barriers to work by recognizing the needs of employers.
By focusing on re-employment rather than unemployment, Nebraska has gotten so many people back to work that the state has its lowest unemployment rate since 1999, and boasts one of the nation’s lowest unemployment rates.
Better still, the number of workers who exhaust their unemployment benefits has dropped by 30 percent – even during times when the state’s unemployment rate has increased. That’s a powerful sign that the system is working as it should, serving as a temporary safety net for workers who are actively looking for – and finding – new jobs.
Workers finding jobs faster means fewer unemployment claims. In fact, the total number of benefit weeks claimed dropped by a fifth between 2015 and 2016 alone.
As a result of this commonsense approach, Nebraska saved nearly $14 million in 2016 by reducing the number of unemployment benefit payments it handed out – just from getting people back to work faster.
And because the state government is spending less money, it can take less from taxpayers. This is why Nebraska is cutting its unemployment insurance tax, a move that will generate over $17 million more for businesses to spend on even more hiring, plant expansions, research and development spending, and creating future jobs.
The state’s focus on re-employment extends to welfare programs, as well – a welcome change from the course of dependence that so many states have chosen in the past.
Nebraska requires able-bodied childless adults on food stamps to work, train, or volunteer at least part-time. And a new pilot initiative connects able-bodied adults on food stamps with job training from the Department of Labor to help them find jobs with higher wages and benefits.
Participating families were able to increase their annual income by more than $10,000 on average, and half were able to end their dependence on food stamps entirely. The benefits are threefold: families move off welfare and become self-sufficient, taxpayer resources are preserved for the truly needy, and newly available workers are able to fill open jobs.
The governor and the Nebraska Legislature have also tackled barriers to work created by occupational licensing. Nearly 25 percent of Nebraskans need the government’s permission to do their jobs – from barbers to nurses. Ricketts saw another way that provides a pathway to work, not a roadblock. Last year, Nebraska enacted a law allowing spouses of active military service members who are stationed in the state to ensure their nursing licenses are honored.
In addition, the state has considered other measures that would make Nebraska more competitive for workers and businesses alike by reducing red tape surrounding work.
All work has dignity – and work is the best way to lift a family out of dependence and poverty. In Nebraska, thousands more are living their own American Dream because of the leadership and results of Gov. Ricketts.

Hollywood's blatant discrimination -- no conservatives nor Christians need apply

Lost in all the recent “Rosanne loves Trump” television frenzy is the much larger and much more dangerous issue of unethical and illegal discrimination practiced by liberals in Hollywood.
It is pervasive and growing.
When asked about Rosanne’s character being a Trump supporter, one of the executive producers of the show spoke about the dread it was creating in the writer’s room.  “Most writers – including me – are more liberal…I’m no fan of Trump at all.  Some people (liberal writers) were new to the show.  We had to keep reminding them that this is not how we feel.”
Last year, Disney-owned ABC cancelled the still widely popular show titled “Last Man Standing.”
Tim Allen, who played the very likeable and very conservative Mike Baxter on the hit show believed that one of the reasons Disney and ABC wanted the show off the air was because:  “There is nothing more dangerous now than a likable conservative.”
What is of real interest is that ABC cancelled the show despite the fact that, as Allen confirmed, the writing staff was – no surprise -- “Very Liberal.”
Allen spoke of the real pain caused to the one hundred and ninety staff members and their families when the show was cancelled.

He then pointed towards the children section of the bookstore. “It starts there,” he said. “While publishers will never admit there is a ‘liberal-litmus’ test, they know the background and beliefs of the authors they sign as well as…the ones they no longer sign.”

One could easily surmise that Disney-ABC would rather put fellow liberals out of work than have a “likable conservative” on the air in the era of Donald Trump.  
What must not get glossed over in all of this is that Hollywood – like much of the mainstream media and academia – blatantly discriminates against conservatives, Republicans and even Christians with impunity.
They break the law on a regular basis and there is never any accountability.
Why?  Because liberals have gained a strangle-hold on the three major megaphones of our nation – the media, entertainment and academia -- through years of illegal and unethical discrimination and now work overtime to cover it up.
As history has taught us, totalitarian domination of any government, institution or medium only leads to the immoral, inexcusable, and often criminal treatment of those being shut out or persecuted.
With the continued vile attacks against First Lady Melania Trump, Ivanka Trump, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah, Second Lady Karen Pence, HUD Secretary Ben Carson, Vice President Mike Pence and President Donald Trump, we see merely snippets of this unchecked and abusive power.
Not only are liberals allowed to discriminate against Republicans, conservatives and Christians without fear of accountability, but they smear those they oppose with misogynistic, bigoted, racist and bigoted terms.
As part of the larger “entertainment” world, book publishing is also coming to be monopolized by the left.
On a recent trip to London, I sat down with the owner and manager of a book store who previously worked for a major publisher.  By his own admission, he described himself as “very liberal.”
As we talked, I asked him if he felt that conservative and Christian authors were being discriminated against by certain publishers?
“Unfortunately, yes,” was his answer.  “Maybe not in a deliberate and overt way, but more as a result of human nature.”
He then went on to explain that over the last couple of decades more and more liberals had risen to the top of the publishing world both in the United Kingdom as well as in the United States.  He further stated that while few in publishing would want to admit it, “Human nature dictates that we tend to hire people who think like us, look like us and then act like us.”
Hence, discrimination.
As we were having coffee, I asked him if there were any conservatives or supporters of Prime Minister Theresa May working in his bookstore?
“No,” he said in a somewhat embarrassed way.  “And I dare say, not in other bookstores as well.  It’s that ‘discrimination by human nature’ thing again.  The owners and managers are liberal, therefore we tend to hire liberal staff.”
He then stressed, “The trend now in publishing, at least in the minds of those who control it, to level the playing field and publish minority, female, minority-female, and politically-correct authors.  All liberal and all I am sorry to say, at the expense of conservative and Christian authors.”
He then pointed towards the children section of the bookstore.
“It starts there,” he said.  “If you look at the authors of most new children’s books, you will notice the trend right away.  While publishers will never admit there is a ‘liberal-litmus’ test, they know the background and beliefs of the authors they sign as well as…the ones they no longer sign.”
“Meaning conservatives and Christians?”  I asked.
 “Precisely.”
As one of those “conservative and Christians,” I denounce discrimination of any type.  Period.  If you are liberal, a non-Christian, an atheist, a Democrat, or a minority from any category and want to contribute to the public arena in a civil way, I will fight as hard as anyone for your right to do so.
None of us are infallible.  All of us can be wrong.  All of us should have an open mind to thoughts and positions counter to our own.
Discrimination and blacklisting against conservative and Christian thought in Hollywood, in music, in the mainstream media, and in academia has gone well beyond anything seen in the “McCarthy Era.”
Which liberals in those fields will have the honesty to admit it and the courage to condemn it?

Has the California backlash against liberal craziness finally begun?

California's red-leaning areas may be rising up against the state's longstanding liberalism.

In a state consumed by conservation and environmental issues, one highly endangered species has long gone unnoticed and unprotected – the California Conservative.  Is it still possible to rescue them from the brink of extinction?  Can their numbers be revived?  And can they thrive here once again?
While the nation continues to view California as a homogeneous voting block of individuals in lock step with an increasingly progressive liberal agenda, for Common Sense Californians up and down the left coast state, there’s a sense that a different tide is rising.
The ripple began in Los Alamitos where the city council voted to opt out of California’s sanctuary law.  And it was followed by Orange County who voted to join the U.S. Department of Justice in challenging the state’s sanctuary city laws.  This decision was echoed by the city of Escondido and later this month San Diego County will also vote to join their ranks in this federal lawsuit.  Other municipalities are lining up to consider doing the same.
California has always been the tip of the spear.  Often the genesis of art, influence, ideas, style and entertainment, we also take the lead in ways that are less admirable with high state tax, high gas tax, high costs of living and housing, an out of control homeless problem in our urban areas, declining test scores in schools, increasingly inaccessible and cost-prohibitive health care, and many of our major cities often appear on lists of the least-livable cities in the U.S.
A supermajority of Democrats at the state level has presided over a tragic decline in virtually every statistic and has championed expensive and detrimental ideas such as the multi-state tax, a failing high speed rail project and of course the most recent sanctuary state status.  These consequential endeavors are concocted in the cocoon of Sacramento, isolated and unconnected to the effect those decisions have on everyone else who lives in the state. They spend money as if it’s theirs.  It’s not.  It’s mine and every other taxpayer’s in California.  Yet we have no voice and many of our representatives no longer represent us, if they ever did.

Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State.

For those of us who don’t make the policies, but must live under them, we feel Sacramento’s presence in our daily lives in ways - and in places - we shouldn’t.  In our grocery stores if you want to take your purchases home in a bag, there’s a per bag fee.  (As my own personal protest, I don’t pay for bags and just throw all the items back in my cart and loose into the back of my car.)  And in the most ridiculous and egregious example of overreach, the state legislature says it will arrest any waiter who gives a customer a plastic straw if they don’t ask for one.  With all the problems in our state, I don’t think that jailing unsolicited straw distributors in restaurants should be a top priority. 
But common sense has not prevailed here for a long time.  Nor has democracy.  With a jungle primary system in our elections, the top two candidates in the primary go on to the general election – regardless of party.  So what this meant in the 2016 election is that nearly 800,000 Californians only had one Republican on their entire ballot to vote for – Donald Trump.  Is the left so afraid of democracy that they must tip the scales in their own favor to prevent a different view point or ideology?  And how surprised would people across the nation be to see what the 2016 electoral map of California looked like when broken down by county, not just painted with one big coat of blue from top to bottom?
Surprising, but true, there actually are conservatives in California, but we have been silenced and powerless far too long and now are finding an unlikely alliance with common sense Democrats who feel abandoned by their party and realize it no longer represents them.
It appears those in power here who have championed policies that continue to steer California further and further left may now have overplayed their hand.  And the backlash has begun, with no end in sight.  In fact, common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle are coming together in solidarity to challenge policies and governing that has left them to endure the consequences of the decisions of their lawmakers, which has made life more expensive, more challenging, more dangerous, and in some instances even putting them into potential legal jeopardy.
For example, business owners now face the quandary of being in compliance with the feds or being in compliance with the state with their employees and their immigration status.  This is not a partisan issue.  This is the very type of issue that continues to make California a difficult place to do business and disincentivizes businesses to come here – and continues to drive successful businesses and taxpayers out of the state.
When over 1 million Californians who are here illegally now have California driver’s licenses, and when Californians have paid into the state’s higher education system and have a difficult time accessing it, and then when they do, they pay fees that illegals don’t pay, it’s no wonder why Common Sense Californians are outraged.
Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for many years before switching to the Republican Party.  When asked why he changed parties, he said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party - the Democratic Party left me.”  That seems to be a sentiment being echoed by Common Sense Californians up and down the state as many blue blood Democrats and Reagan Democrats feel like their party no longer reflects their values or priorities.  Though it’s unlikely that a singular candidate or issue will fully unite the state, California would be smart to put forth common sense candidates who are talking to – and listening to – common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle.  Those who predict a blue wave across the nation and count on California forever being blue from San Diego to Crescent City might want to take notice of the red ripple which has begun in the Golden State – not in Sacramento – but in cities and counties where common sense Californians still reside.
Peggy Grande is author of "The President Will See You Now", a keynote speaker and a specialty project consultant. She was the executive assistant to president Ronald Reagan from 1989 – 1999.