Author: Californiacontrarian

A stunning but at the same time a blatantly surprising article recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal detailing how much Joe Biden’s poor mental state affected his performance over the last few years. But even more shocking was how this was systematically covered-up by the White House staff.
From Red State:
“The Wall Street Journal report had concerning new stories about how long they’ve been covering up Joe Biden’s cognitive decline and how severe it had gotten even three years ago during the withdrawal from Afghanistan, when the chair of the House Armed Services Committee at the time wasn’t even able to get through to him about potential problems that could occur with the withdrawal. 

The WSJ reported several instances where Biden struggled with day-to day things including that he was so impaired he couldn’t even repeat back lines they were giving him to prepare him for his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur over the classified document scandal.
It’s an incredible scandal that reveals how much control unelected individuals shielding Biden had over decision-making.”

A disgrace to say the least! But why? To me the most obvious answer is that the Dems had no credible backup, and they knew it. We all saw what a poor candidate Kamala Harris was during her campaign ramblings prior to the recent November election. Imagine her being President for three years if the poor mental state of Joe Biden was brought out into the open. By anointing her as the VP candidate in 2020, the Dems had dug themselves into an inescapable hole from which the only escape was via covering up.
So that is the answer as to “Why?”

To me these intentional, coordinated, and secretive shenanigans have destroyed any possible trust that the American people can have in Democrats for many years to come.
However, one very important further question needs to be asked. Namely, was this intentional covering up of Biden’s incapacity a criminal act? To me the answer is undoubtedly, “Yes!”
Hopefully, Kash Patel’s FBI and the new DOJ will investigate this after Trump’s upcoming inauguration.
12/21/24

“Compos mentis?”
Most of us are not familiar with this phrase but are much more familiar with the phrase “non compos mentis.”
From AI Overview:
“Non compos mentis” is a Latin legal phrase that means “not of sound mind” or “of unsound mind”. It’s used to describe someone who is mentally incapacitated or lacks the mental capacity to make rational decisions or understand the consequences of their actions. 

My question is whether or not an individual can be “compos mentis” some of the time and “non compos mentis” the rest of the time. Is being of sound mind or not of sound mind all encompassing? Can one be of sound mind (compos mentis) some of the time, and not of sound mind (non compos mentis) the rest of the time? And more importantly can these two extremes be present in the same individual during a twenty-four period? To me logic would dictate that it is certainly feasible that within a single twenty-four hour period that both could be present.
I bring this up because of an article I read from the NY Post published on 12/19/24 titled:
“White House aides hid Biden’s apparent mental decline from Day 1 of his presidency, explosive report reveals”
This same article goes on:
White House aides covered up President Biden’s apparent mental decline from Day 1 of his presidency, shielding the aging commander-in-chief from the public and even rearranging his schedule after scatterbrained performances, an explosive report revealed.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a national security official told an aide: “He has good days and bad days, and today was a bad day so we’re going to address this tomorrow.”

Other staffers removed negative reports from Biden’s stack of news for the day, misleading him about the public’s opinion of his job performance — which reached a 70-year low in 2024.

Meetings were often scheduled for later in the day — a fact first disclosed after Biden’s debate flop against President-elect Donald Trump, when staff admitted the then-Democratic nominee had difficulty functioning outside a six-hour window that closed around 4 p.m. daily.

So continuing on the “compos mentis” vs “non compos mentis” theme, in which frame of mind was Joe Biden in when he pardoned his son for all things going back ten years? Did he do this after 4pm?
Furthermore, in what frame of mind vis-a-vi “compos” vs “non compos” was Joe Biden in when he commuted the jail sentences of nearly 1,500 people and granted 49 pardons, marking the largest single-day act of clemency in modern history? Was this done on one of his “good days” or one of his “bad days?”
In the same vein are we to suppose that all of the presidential mandates that he made over the last four years were done only before 4pm on his good days?
Oh what a tangled web those at the White House have weaved!
12/20/24

As most of you are aware I am a big Beatles fan. When I read about the nonsensical CR (Continuing Resolution) to keep our government afloat, my mind immediately went to one of my favorite Beatles’ songs … “A Day In The Life,” which starts out,

“I read the news today, oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well, I just had to laugh
I saw the photograph”

This is a photo of Rep Nancy Mace (R,SC) comparing the last CR ( 21 pages.) with the present one of 1,547 pages.

To make a long story short this monstrosity was made available to those to had to vote on it at around 7am and the vote was to be in that same afternoon.
This reminded me of the infamous Nancy Pelosi quote, “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”
These almost 1600 pages were loaded with pork surprise? … not really! What surprised me the most was that Speaker Johnson scheduled the critical vote toward the end of the final week right before Christmas break and two days before federal government funding runs out on Friday afternoon.

One of my new hero’s, Elon Musk, came to the rescue!
A headline from The Hill:
“Elon Musk: Anyone who votes for
spending deal should lose reelection”

From C&C:
“Elon didn’t say he would fund primary efforts against porky Republicans. But … !
It wasn’t supposed to end this way. The Bureaucracy obviously thought it could pass this bill. A lot of work went into drafting and backroom-negotiating that 1,600-page monster. Don’t conclude this was anything new, Congress has been playing budgetary brinksmanship games for years now.”

Musk won, and the almost 1600 page pork-filled bill is dead.
Just another day in the life of Elon Musk!

For those of you who want to read a terrific, but rather long, book, I recommend “Elon Musk” by Walter Isaacson.

12/19/24

While reading this morning, I noticed that President-elect Trump is considering privatizing the Post Office. When I was in college I worked at the Post Office over Christmas breaks, and thus as a former P.O. employee, I think that I should be allowed to have an opinion on this matter. (To be clear,when I worked at the Post Office, it was before zip-codes. Back then before zip-codes, ‘zones’ were in vogue … recall the lyrics of the Elvis hit, ‘Return to Sender’…
“Return to sender, address unknown
No such number, no such zone”)

Be that as it may, I think that the concept of a mailman delivering daily mail to each individual household mailbox, is a stone-aged concept. There is no reason that any individual needs a daily mail delivery. If my mail as well as my neighbor’s mail were delivered three times per week instead of six days a week, no one would be adversely affected … the ads, the requests for charitable donations, the political statements could all easily wait an extra day before being thrown in the trash. The practical consequence of this simple maneuver would be that those delivering the mail six days a week could be cut by 50%.
Similarly, the mailman who delivers the mail to my house, walks up-down innumerable local different streets and sidewalks for about seven hours a day. Again an outmoded concept! If each city block had one or perhaps two central mailboxes to serve twenty or forty houses on each block, then the long hours that my mailman spends walking up and down individual sidewalks could be dramatically decreased … perhaps decreased so much that one individual mailman could easily do one route in the morning and a different route in the afternoon, thus again potentially decreasing the number of necessary daily mailmen by another fifty percent.
Note that each of the above simple ideas would not decrease the amount of the revenue coming into the Post Office, as the same number of letters, ads, requests for contributions, etc. would still stay the same.
By paying attention to my suggestions on this topic, DOGE will be able to focus on more important cost saving measures.
No need to thank me, Elon!
No need to thank me, Vivek!

12/18/24

At this point we are about one month from Trump’s inauguration, and he has proposed many individuals for his Cabinet. Already the left is raising doubts about the qualifications of many of Trump’s nominees without comparing them to prior Democratic individuals that held the same office in the past. I just read an amazing op-ed by Victor Davis Hanson (VDH) in “Rip’s Newsletter,’ by Rip McIntosh. In this remarkable piece VDH does exactly what those on the left will not do … compare these present Trump nominees with prior Democrats who held the same positions.
[Warning: while this VDH article is a keeper and well worth reading, it is quite long … in fact so long that I could not read the whole thing in one sitting!]

In this narrative VDH addresses four of the more controversial Trump nominees, and their individual backgrounds in detail. Initially, one might ask, “why him?” or “why her?” Well, according to VDH it seems that President-elect Trump did use consistent reasoning in making these choices. Recall that since Donald Trump did not hold any elected government office before he was elected in 2016, it might stand to reason that some of his nominees would be from that same mold.
Quoted from VDH:
“So, if the traditional criteria for high government positions do not matter much to Trump, what does?
There are many requirements for a Trump nominee—loyalty, competence, energy, communication skills, and, in some cases, prior business success.
But one plus is clear – prior demonization by the very agency or bureau the Trump nominee will now head”
For example (still from VDH):
“Tulsi Gabbard will likely become Director of National Intelligence—perhaps because she was put on the Transportation Security Administration’s watch list for a short time.
“Pete Hegseth’s book, The War on Warriors, is a scathing attack on the Pentagon—and its DEI/woke/faddish agendas—that he is slated to direct.
“RFK, Jr. was demonized by the health establishment and the appendages of Health and Human Services as an established crank anti-vaxxer, fixated on banning high-fructose corn syrup, preservatives in food, and on a vendetta against Anthony Fauci.
So? … Trump puts him in charge of the very bureaucracy that despises him.

“Kash Patel, as mentioned, will run the FBI. That is an agency that monitored his communications when he worked for the House Intelligence Committee.
 Patel’s crime?
He exposed to the public the FBI’s stealthy efforts to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign and later presidency by its role in fueling the Russian collusion hoax.

“The list could go on.
What is the logic of appointing the once-policed to be the new police?
More than anyone, these nominees know the dangers, vindictiveness, and pettiness of unelected and unaccountable bureaucratic grandees. Therefore, in theory, they will show a particular zeal in ensuring what happened to them does not occur to others like them. And they won’t mind taking on the supposedly untouchable icons of the administrative state such as “I am the science” Dr. Fauci.

“If Trump’s prime directive is to cut out wasteful and bloated bureaucracies, then prior critics and victims of these often-lawless agencies will naturally attract from within them prior dissidents and principled critics who were punished for being truthful and desiring reform.”

I love Trump’s reasoning on his nominees. Let the fun begin!
I can hardly wait.
12/17/24

The concept of foreign aid is laudable in some situations, but is there is tipping point or a stopping point to “how much is too much?”
Tech tycoon Elon Musk’s plans for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) include taking a hard look at the assistance the United States provides to foreign countries.

From Epoch News:
On Dec. 6, former Rep. Ron Paul proposed an end to all foreign aid.
Paul accompanied his comments with a chart from Statista showing that the United States was by far the largest donor of humanitarian aid worldwide in 2023, shelling out nearly $9.5 billion to other countries. That’s more than four times the $2.1 billion donated by the second largest donor, the European Commission.
Sharing the former congressman’s post, Musk wrote that DOGE “will address this with full transparency for the American people.”
Ramaswamy also weighed in, saying that “Much of U.S. foreign aid isn’t even authorized by Congress.”

Granted that while I do not understand the ins-and-outs of foreign aid, I do have some pertinent questions.
First, are the specifics of our foreign aid reviewed every year? Is the foreign aid given to each country reviewed and voted upon annually? Or are different components of our foreign aid packages voted on in one comprehensive foreign aid bill? Or is foreign aid to some countries hidden in other spending bills, so as to go almost unnoticed? Who reviews and votes on the many foreign aid packages. Is Ramaswamy right when he says that, “Much of U.S. foreign aid isn’t even authorized by Congress.”
Can lame-duck Joe Biden just go to Angola and give away billions in foreign aid to that African nation … or does this largesse need to be voted on by Congress?

Sooo many questions. To me it seems reasonable to have Congress authorize every penny of foreign aid every year. Do some countries that are not so friendly to our policies get some? If so, why?
It also seems to me that our foreign aid should not be limitless. Common sense would dictate that some, if not most, of our foreign aid should be curtailed as long as our deficit remains more than a certain amount.
One of the tasks of DOGE is to review and cut back on certain things, and hopefully our foreign aid giveaways should be on the top of its list.
12/16/24

On Sundays I write about someone that we can all recognize because of something that did or are doing. Taylor Schenker is such an individual.
Most of us are aware of the devastation that Hurricane Helene recently caused in the western part of North Carolina. Taylor Schenker saw this first hand and reacted in a special way.
From Epoch Bright:
“Twenty-seven year old Taylor Schenker was relieved her home in Canton was spared. She soon realized, however, that not everyone was so fortunate. Now, she is dedicating herself to helping others reconnect with their cherished memories. In the days following the hurricane, Schenker noticed a handful of photographs scattered in the debris. It sparked an idea, and she decided to collect them. Then she started searching for more. Pretty soon, she was combing a riverbank in her quest.”

As we are all aware pictures are memories. Memories of individuals who may no longer be with us. Memories of places visited. Memories of what one’s family was like many years back in time. Memories of pets. Memories of what little Joey or little Sarah looked like when they were toddlers. Often it is only through pictures that these memories are brought back to the surface.
Shortly after starting to find many unidentified photos Taylor Schenker decided to try to turn the proverbial lemon into lemonade.
“She launched a social media account called ‘Photos From Helene,’ both on Instagram and Facebook, to connect people with their lost pictures. She documented the lost pictures and posted them online, hoping somebody will scroll through the albums and recognize their lost pictures.
‘[These photos] represent so many memories that people can’t get back,’ Schenker told The Epoch Times. ‘For people who have lost everything, to be able to have that little piece back, I think, is really meaningful.’”
Baby pictures. Wedding pictures. Pictures of now deceased grandparents. Christmas pictures and birthday pictures that captured happier times.
Schenker cleans every photo before posting it online. Some pictures have mud or dirt on them, which she wipes off. She uses her thumb or a soft paintbrush to remove the dirt without damaging the picture.
With over four hundred photos collected, and half of them cleaned and posted online, Schenker shows no signs of slowing down. So far, about 15 to 20 percent of the pictures have been reunited with their original owners.
“I’m going to keep continuing the project as long as we keep finding photos, and they will stay safely organized in my office as long as they need to be,” she said.
Schenker may not know the story behind each picture that comes into her hands, but she never forgets that someone else does. As North Carolina recovers from the devastation of Helene, she expects to see more photos reunited with their rightful owners, and to have the privilege of being that person who can hug them and say, “I’m so glad you survived this … I’m so glad that you are here.”
Taylor Schenker basically stumbled on something that is now bringing some measure of happiness to those who have basically lost everything. Kudos to her.
12/15/24

After January 6th 2021, I could not figure out why both Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic mayor of Washington D.C., Muriel Bowser, both refused additional protection for the Capitol. President Trump had offered to bring in the National Guard, but both Pelosi and Bowser said no, not necessary. For the last four years this has continues to bother me … unless! Could it be that bringing in the National Guard on 1/6/21 would have foiled a previously designed plan … perhaps a predetermined plot to entrap many Trump supporters? Draw them into the Capitol and then for the next four years, charge them with crimes, now felonies instead of misdemeanors, and imprison them!

From Fox News on 12/12/24:
JESSE WATTERS: The Justice Department just released the bombshell report that we’ve been waiting for. What actually happened on January 6th? The FBI had 26 confidential human sources there that day. 26 confidential human sources, a guy the FBI pays to spy for them. Of the 26 confidential human sources who were in DC on Jan. 6, four entered the Capitol during the riot.
An additional 13 entered the restricted area around the Capitol. So more than a dozen FBI spies participated in this so-called insurrection. A bunch of them broke into the Capitol. Their own inspector general says this is what happened. But that’s not what they told you when they testified under oath. 

Are these confidential human sources are under pressure to deliver? What does deliver mean? It means intelligence and big busts that get the FBI good headlines. According to the inspector general report, the spies were feeding the FBI Intel that said January 6th was going to get a little hairy.”

So … The FBI didn’t have undercover agents at January 6th. They had confidential human sources. So what’s the difference?
To me there is no difference!
Is it possible that Trump’s offer of the National Guard was refused because they could have disrupted a pre-formulated plan?
Hmmm!
12/14/24

The other day President Biden made history when he commuted the jail sentences of nearly 1,500 people and granted 49 pardons, marking the largest single-day act of clemency in modern history.
But why so many? There are number of conjectures out there, and hopefully I won’t miss any of the prevailing thoughts on the subject.
Some think that by doing these vast numbers on the same day, he was attempting to “hide” one or two in the vast numbers. For example, if he wanted pardon person A, what better way to hide the pardon of A in plain site, than to include 48 other pardons at the same time?
Perhaps by commuting the sentences of 1500 and pardoning an additional 49, President Biden thought that the general public would be distracted and forget about the pardoning of his son, Hunter Biden.
Then again could it be likely that Joe just signed something that somebody put in front of him? This implies that Joe had no real idea of what he was signing.
Out this vast number of commutations and pardons could it be that some money changed hands? But to whom was this money paid? Dare we call it a bribe?
Perchance could this be merely an additional way of J.B. getting even with his fellow Democrats for stabbing him in the . back and forcing him to withdraw from being the 2024 Democratic candidate. Wothout a doubt there are scores of people offended with each pardon and each commutation. Is it likely that Biden thinks that a fair number of these individuals will never vote for a Democrat again? … and thus “Revenge is sweet?”
Imaginably, someone convinced Biden that this would solidify his place in history. Of all the possible explanations, to me this is the least likely as Joe Biden has already solidified his place in history … as the worst President ever!

12/13/24

Prior to the other day I knew very little about unemployment insurance (UI) in California. It was basically something to help those individuals who had lost their jobs. How much was it and for how long? Not a clue. From where did this “insurance” money come? Again, not a clue.
Here is what I learned about unemployment insurance in California:
At present, payroll taxes are charged at 3.5 percent of an employee’s first $7,000 in wages. On average, employers contribute $5 billion to $6 billion annually to the state’s unemployment insurance (UI) fund. When an eligible person becomes jobless, the state pays 50 percent of his or her wages, up to $450 per week, for up to 26 weeks (for a potential total of $11,700).
But there is a big problem.
From The Epoch Times:
California’s unemployment insurance program is facing financial challenges, burdened by shortfalls and a multibillion-dollar federal loan, according to a recent report by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office.
“Both our office and the administration expect these annual shortfalls to continue for the foreseeable future. Under our projections, deficits would average around $2 billion per year for the next five years,” the report states.
“This outlook is unprecedented: although the state has, in the past, failed to build robust reserves during periods of economic growth, it has never before run persistent deficits during one of these periods. The state’s unemployment insurance financing system is broken.”
During the pandemic, California took a loan of roughly $20 billion from the federal government to pay for unemployment benefits. The state never paid back this amount.
The anticipated $2 billion per year shortfalls will add to the $20 billion outstanding loan and complicate the financial situation, the report noted. The interest on the loan is expected to total $1 billion annually.

On average, employers contribute $5 billion to $6 billion annually to the state’s unemployment insurance (UI) fund.

The report recommended raising the wage threshold to $46,800. (At the present 3.5% that amounts to an extra $1393 per employee that the employer must pay.) if a company employs 100 employees, that’s almost an extra $140,000 that must be paid to the state of California. How many more companies will be driven out of the state?
To make the situation even worse the state of California’s UI system was also plagued by fraudulent claims during the pandemic. Out of the several state agencies that received pandemic funds, California’s Employment Development Department (EDD) was granted the highest amount. (The EDD estimates that roughly $20 billion was siphoned off by international and domestic criminals via fraudulent unemployment claims filed under stolen identities.)
A key reason for such large-scale fraud was that the EDD failed to block addresses that were used to file numerous claims. In addition, a measure that prevented payments from going to people with unconfirmed identities was removed by the agency amid pressure to get the aid out quickly during the pandemic.

In addition, the dunderheads in Sacramento now want to give illegals the equivalent of unemployment insurance.
SB 227, titled “Unemployment: Excluded Workers Program,” requires the EDD to develop a plan to provide cash assistance to people who are “ineligible for unemployment insurance due to their immigration status.”

State Sen. Brian Jones, a San Diego Republican, warned against the measure in a September Instagram post.
“It’s insulting that California Democrats are even considering expanding unemployment benefits to illegal immigrants,” he wrote. “Under the Newsom administration, the unemployment insurance fund is already broke with a $20 billion deficit. We cannot afford to expand benefits to those here illegally.”

Well, here you have it … despite the fact that the unemployment insurance fund is $20 billion in arrears, the Dems in Sacramento want to give similar benefits to illegals! To call them “dunderheads,” is being polite.
12/12/24