Category: Uncategorized

I received a chart in a recent email that alluded to the relationships between photo IDs and racism. It listed about 30 things for which requiring a photo I.D. is not racist.

These included:

Buying alcohol

Opening a bank account

Applying for Social Security

Buying or renting a house

Driving a car

Getting a prescription

Getting married

Using a credit card

Apply for a hunting or fishing license

Etc., etc.

Then shortly after I received this email, I read with interest a story by Manny Fernandez (N.Y.Times) concerning a Texas voter I.D. Law. On April 10 Nelva Gonzales Ramos, a US District Court judge, ruled that the voter-identification law passed by the Texas legislature in 2011 was enacted with the intent to discriminate against black and Hispanic voters.

“This is an exciting ruling . . .” said Myrna Perez, an deputy director of a group that represented two of the groups that sued the state. In his article Mr. Fernandez opined that Texas has a history of voter discrimination. I thought that it was interesting that the writer of the article, the deputy director, and the Texas judge all had Hispanic surnames, and presumably were all Hispanic.

In 2016 I was taking a Spanish language course, and the teacher was born and raised in Mexico. Just prior to the U.S. November presidential election, she passed around her Mexican voter ID card. The laminated card had her name, her picture, and her thumb-print on it. She said that she could only vote in Mexico if she presented this card, and that no other ID could substitute for this card. She also stated that the penalties for voter fraud were substantial in Mexico.

Now here is the part that befuddles me. If Mexico (with some parts being “third world”) requires a government issued voter picture ID card to vote, why is it discriminatory to require picture identification cards in Texas or any other part of the USA?

Is Judge Ramos saying that the getting of a voter ID is easier in Mexico than it could ever be in “discriminating Texas” or in the “discriminatory U.S.A.”, and because it is more difficult in the U.S.A. than it is in Mexico, it is not legal in the U.S.A.? This would be quite a stretch, and certainly no one would or could believe it.

Or,

Is Judge Ramos implying that the Hispanics in Texas are less capable and less self sufficient than those across the border in Mexico?

Who is the racist here?

 

When President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accords ( you know that treaty that really wasn’t a treaty), who was one of the first to go into ‘attack-mode’?                                                                                                                               Take a guess!

Why of course it was none other than California’s governor, Jerry Brown, who did not wait long before saying, “Trump is AWOL, but California is on the field, ready for battle”. This is the same Jerry Brown who signed SB 32, which by 2030 targets a goal of 40% of the 1998 greenhouse gas emissions. Who ignores the effects of SB32 on businesses in California?                                                 Take a guess!

Why it is the same uber liberal Governor Brown!  Because of SB32, some business groups have already raised concerns. Allan Zaremberg, president of the state’s Chamber of Commerce, said the law doesn’t require “regulatory agencies to give any consideration to the impacts on our economy, disruptions in everyone’s daily lives or the fact that California’s population will grow.” High energy costs have already driven some businesses out of the state, as businesses that have benefited from Climate-Change are subsidized, like Tesla.

While I do not agree with our liberal governor’s thinking on green energy, is there any data to back up either point of view?

The best prediction of what is going to happen in California is to look at the energy situation in Germany, which made a commitment to green energy many years ago. Keep in mind that the people in Germany are as clueless as the people in California when it comes to the costs of green energy. In a recent survey 37% of Germans had no idea of how much they paid for their power consumption. So pay attention, Californians, while I inform you as to what is happening in Germany with energy costs, as this is what you can anticipate in the near future. In Germany the cost of electricity has gone up considerably. Who do you think is paying for this green energy?                                                      Take a guess!

In Germany the price for power for a family of three is 68% above the price in 1998, as the surcharge for renewable energy has risen 10-fold in that same period. This surcharge is essentially the higher cost for green energy that grid operators pass on to their customers. These customers who are tasked with this rising surcharge are ordinary families – not the ‘energy intensive industries’, which in Germany (and probably also in California in the future) are exempt in order not to damage their international competitiveness. Electrical bills in Germany are about equal to bills in the U.S., despite the fact that Germans use about 1/3 as much energy as Americans – in other words Germans now pay about 3X as much for their energy compared to us.

Keeping in mind that some Germans now consider electricity to be “somewhat of a luxury”, think about who will be hurt the most in California by the rising cost of electricity.                                                                                                                          Take a guess!

In keeping with a familiar theme of mine, the answer, of course, is that the poor will be hurt the most. Why?

Which group of people can afford to install their own solar panels?                           Take a guess!

Who can afford to install new energy efficient windows and doors?                        Take a guess!

Who can install new insulation to keep their power bills low?                              Take a guess!

It is the rich/upper middle class that can afford these measures, and so they will continue to pay lower energy bills. However, when the cost of electricity accelerates who do you think will pay for this expensive green electricity? Take a guess! – Obviously not the rich.

Which present 79 year old governor will probably be dead when these expensive green energy costs hit the fan?                                                                      Take a guess!

 

Well they’re at it again! It’s deja-vu!

Who’s at what?

The Democratic legislature in California is at it again – doing their best to figure out how to raise taxes on Californians without going to the ballot box. Last month they slammed through a new gas tax in order to repair roads, etc. because the money (from prior gas taxes) that was allocated for that purpose seemed to have “disappeared”! The new boondoggle in the California legislature (SB 562) is the attempt to push through a bill that would establish a “single payer” health care system in California.

In the interest of clarity, we need to explain that the term, “single payer”. It is another clever attempt by liberals to disguise what is really is. What the term really means is that payments are coming from a single fund, and this single fund is going to be funded by . . . Guess who? – the tax payers!

Okay, in a perfect world, everybody could have “everything” – including free healthcare. However the real world is not a perfect world, and to make matters even worse on the left coast, the politicians in Sacramento only seem to function on an emotional level. They do not think! I sometimes wonder if these Democratic politicians have developed an allergy to logic, as very little logical thinking actually occurs in our State Capital!

So let’s assume that SB 562 passes, how much is it going to cost?

On 5/25/17, SB 562 passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on a 5-2 party line vote, and this was before the cost was known! This sounds like the infamous Pelosi-ism, “you have to pass this bill in order to find out what is in it”!  It would seem common-sense to at least have an estimate of how much something was going to cost before charging ahead full-bore. But then again this is the uber liberal Democratic Senate of California.

The first cost assessment was $400 billion per year! . . . Ouch!!

Even optimistically assuming that half of this annual cost would be covered from other means, this yearly cost would be more than the upcoming total California yearly budget! . . . Ouch!!

So let’s assume that SB 562 passes, how is it going to be paid for?

How is this “extra” approximately $200 billion per year going to be raised? At this moment nobody knows! Will it be hocus-pocus? Is the Democratic legislature going to pass SB 562 without knowing how it is going to be paid for? Come on, they may be Democrats but they are not stupid. They know full well how they anticipate paying for this . . . by raising taxes . . . Ouch!!

Back in 2006 & 2008 a similar bill, SB 840, was passed by the legislature in California, only to be vetoed twice by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. If the present SB 562 passes through the legislature can we hope for deja-vu?

Can we pin all of our hopes on Governor Jerry Brown acting as The Terminator? . . . Ouch!!

 

 

When my granddaughter, Kate, was 3 years old, she had a bead from an art project stuck up her nose. When my daughter took her to the doctor, he asked Kate how the bead got up her nose, and Kate responded, “It’s not my fault as the bean jumped up into my nose!” She said it with the determination and an accompanying look that only a three year old could have. Was she convinced that the bean actually jumped or was she just making it up to save face? Neither the pediatrician nor Kate’s mom challenged her, as what difference did it make?

When one of my daughters was in 5th grade, her classmate, George, did not have his homework one day. “Where is your homework, George?” the teacher asked. George responded, “It’s not my fault, as my dog ate my homework!” His classmates and the teacher probably believed George’s excuse – the first time he used it. However when he continued to regularly blame the dog, everyone realized that George often just failed to do his homework. The 5th graders did not believe his excuses, and soon they all started to feel sorry for poor George, but then what difference did it really make?

At one of my first jobs the start of the workday was 8am, and for 30 minutes we all worked on a common project. Everyone was expected to show up on time for this session, but my coworker, Dave, was consistently late, and sometimes would not show up till 8:30, when the work was finished. Although the rest of us would have to do his share of the work, initially we thought that it was legit when he said, “It’s not my fault, I had car trouble”, but it really got old, week in and week out. His insistence that he would regularly have car trouble was more than sad. He was a pitiful character that no one soon actually paid much attention to, but what difference did it really make?

When you are three and do not own up to what you did . . . Oh well what can you expect from a three year old! George with his ‘dog ate it’ excuse was sad even for a ten year old, and thirty year old Dave and his car excuses were pitiful.

Who/what are you when you are sixty-nine and still cannot own up to your failures? On 5/31/17, a failed candidate blamed just about everybody and close to everything for losing a recent election. She whined that it was not her fault, but rather blamed her loss on Comey, sexism, Wikileaks, the mainstream media, the electoral college system, the DNC, etc., etc., as well as 1000 Russian agents. Calling her “sad” or “pitiful” would be kind, as this is very close to pathological, but then “what difference does it really make!”

 

On 5/28/17 the trans-Atlantic whining hit a new decibel record amplified by articles in The Washington Post. We had the Chancellor of Germany, as reported by WaPo, lamenting that Europe might have to stand on its own two feet! “[We] really must take our fate into our own hands.” Imagine that!  Cry me a river!

Of course the chancellor, Angela Merkel, was playing to her anti-American audience at a beer hall political rally, and in the days just prior to that she was the beneficiary of her uber liberal cheerleader, Barack Hussein Obama, whispering sweet nothings in her ear! (What the heck was B.O. doing in Europe while President Trump was in the vicinity? –  perhaps a topic for another day!)

Anyway, according to one of the ‘Dueling Banjos’ (WaPo) this was the beginning of a separation that can only be the fore-runner of a nasty upcoming divorce, with ‘untold damage to the US -German union’. Could it be that Merkel needed to appear strong, and similar to Chancellor Gerhard Schroder in 2002, was bad-mouthing the U.S. for his /her own political gain.

Again according to WaPo the two world leaders ‘sparred’ on defense, trade, and climate change. Let’s look at these one at a time.

First let’s consider the differences between the two on ‘defense’.

Apparently Merkel was upset about President Trump’s pointed comments about “members of NATO not paying their fair share”, as only five of the twenty-seven members of NATO are paying the amount that they agreed on a number of years ago. Germany is not one of these five – whereas the USA is.

The military budget for Germany for 2020 is 39 billion euros, but it will need to be 65.8 billion euros in order to meet their obligation of 2% of their GDP.

Perhaps she was embarrassed that Germany was called out on their cheating as were most of the member countries in the European Union. Perhaps she was further embarrassed because the military of the European Union is actually on the pathetic side as they have not invested in long-distance transports, satellites, drones, or air-to-air refueling, and during the NATO intervention in Libya they ran out of bullets! In this regard Merkel commented that the days of relying on others was “over to a certain extent”.

Second was the issue of trade.

One of the other things that Merkel was supposedly upset about was President Trump talking about the trade deficit between Germany and the USA, and his alluding to all of the BMWs that are sold in the U.S. There is, in fact, a massive trade deficit for the U.S. with Germany to the tune of over $67 billion per year. This U.S.trade deficit is secondary only to the trade deficit with China. Why was Merkel upset about this? Why would one be upset when the truth about this trade deficit comes out? Why isn’t Germany buying more U.S. products?
And lastly of course is one of the big tenets of Merkel’s liberal religion . . . Climate Change, or better known in its previous life as Global Warming, and the subsequent Paris Climate Accords – agreed to” by the previous administration. The Paris Accords is a treaty, but it was never brought to a vote in the Senate, because B.O. knew that it would not pass a Senate vote. So wallah . . . “It’s not a treaty”! In these Accords there are no significant cutbacks for China or India until 2030, and there are no penalties if the suggested goals are not reached! Whether or not Climate Change is the real deal, how is this treaty beneficial for the U.S.? It almost sounds like the ones who thought that this was good for the U.S. are the same ones who negotiated the recent deal with Iran . . . Oops, they are the same ones!

So to me it appears that WaPo is in a tizzy because President Trump is following through on campaign promises that he made about NATO, U.S. trade deficits, and The Paris Accords. The Washington Post is crying, “Wolf”, when there is no wolf, as President Trump had a very successful European trip. However, no one should be really surprised as The Washington Post often seems to cry, “Wolf” when things seem to be in the best interests of the U.S.

 

 

Today when I was attempting to get my i-pad away from my 18 month grand-daughter, I distracted her attention to something else. Distraction worked like a charm as I reclaimed my i-pad as she claimed the duckie! Back in grade school there were certain troublesome students, usually boys, that could easily cause the teacher to veer off course – away from his/her designed lesson plan. They were attracted to this mischievous behavior and distraction was their M.O. As grade school became high school, it became more difficult, but not impossible, to distract the teachers, but some students continued to hone their talent in the art of distraction.

I surmise that these students morphed into democrats, and those that were really good at the art of distraction became Democratic Congressmen. How else to explain what is happening on the political agenda these days?

Think about the supposed “Trump-Russia connection”. Is there a connection?

So far, no evidence of such, but we now have at least four “investigations”.

Initially last year the CIA apparently “alerted the FBI to a troubling pattern of contacts between Russian officials and associates of the Trump campaign”. When John Brennan (ex-CIA director under Obama) was just asked if he found any evidence of such collusion, he said, “No” . . . then perhaps to himself, “It’s just a distraction!”

The FBI under James Comey has apparently been investigating Trump aides since last July. Any evidence of collusion? Thus far none that anybody is aware of . . . so what do the politicians do next? As they seem to be attracted to getting the nation to pay attention to them, of course, they start new investigations.

Now we have the House Intelligence Committee investigation. What are they “investigating”? They are looking into possible Russian interference in the 2016 election. What have they learned so far? . . . nothing that I am aware of at this time.  But this certainly has certainly been a big distraction.

Not to be outdone the U.S. Senate now has their own “investigation”. What are they “investigating”? They are looking into possible Russian interference into the election, as well as any possible ties between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

Does this sound familiar? Have they found anything yet?

Not that anyone is aware of. Has it been a distraction? Absolutely!

I think that we have a whole collection of those same boys (who were really good at distracting their teachers in high school) now trying their best to distract the American people from the real issues, such as the healthcare debacle, the risk of terrorism, tax relief, jobs, infrastructure, etc.

I have faith that the American people will be like those good perceptive high school teachers, and recognize the antics of the now Democratic Congressmen for what they are . . . an attempt at distraction!

 

In early 2016 then candidate Donald Trump promised, if elected, that he would improve the educational opportunities for children caught in failing schools especially in the inner cities. Now less than 5 months into his presidency, he is on his way to keeping the campaign promise that he made to poor minority families and their children. His first proposed budget would decrease unnecessary education spending nationwide while boosting money for school vouchers and charter schools. It includes $14 billion for school choice (including $1 billion for Title 1 that supports low income students), $168 million increase for charter schools, and $250 million for a “private school choice program”.

Note to doubters . . . Those who know Donald Trump say that he is a man of his word. If he draws a red line, he backs it up. If he makes a campaign promise, he keeps it!

Predictably both local as well as state school officials in California bad-mouthed Trump’s budget proposal for education spending.

California’s state superintendent of public instruction, Tom Torlakson, blasted the plan saying, “I give this budget an ‘F’ grade for failing public school students in California and across the nation.”  This statement is amazing  after the recent GreatSchools report that came out on 5/23/2017. (GreatSchools is a national non-profit that provides parents with information about PK-12 schools and education nationwide.) According to this report in California only 2% of African American children and only 6% of Hispanic children attend a quality school in California, whereas 59% of white children and 75% of Asian children attend one.

Note to Mr. Torlakson . . . Try convincing the parents of Black and Hispanic children in this state that Mr. Trump’s plan does not deserve an ‘A’!  It is you, sir, that deserves the ‘F’!

Locally, L.A. Unified School District Supt. Michele King said, “The proposed cuts would decimate programs that have successfully provided our students a high quality education.” This kind of statement is amazing after the Los Angeles’ teachers union suffered a crushing defeat last week in the local L.A. School Board of Education election with charter forces winning a majority on the Board of Education for the first time.

Note to Ms. King . . . It does not appear that the parents (voters) agree with your ‘high quality education’ B.S. spiel!

After I heard Donald Trump promise to make the schools and hence the education better for the poor children throughout the U.S., I decided to vote for him.

Note to self . . . You made the right decision!

Reno, Nevada is booming. The housing market is having trouble keeping up with the demand. This is mainly because of the multitudes of young people, often with families who are flocking into the area because of jobs. As we have discussed before industries are locating or relocating (often from California, the Golden State) to Nevada, the Silver State because of its advantageous business tax structure.

However it is not only the young who are moving to Nevada, but also a lot of older folk appear to be meandering east across the California-Nevada state-line. Social Security, IRAs, and retirement income go a lot further when you are not paying the high California state income tax. A friend of mine (let’s call him Robert) is seriously considering moving from California to Nevada after he retires. Robert and his wife feel that “they can maximize his retirement income more efficiently in Nevada”.

I asked him, “Explain what you mean by maximizing your retirement income more efficiently.”

He responded, “Nevada has:

No state income tax
Lower sales tax
Lower property tax rate. The tax rate on new construction is 0.8%.  On       existing homes, the new owner assumes the same tax  burden that the existing owner paid.
Utilities are lower
Gasoline is at least $0.50/gallon cheaper
Car & homeowner insurance is lower.

In addition, housing is cheaper. [In the Carson Valley, which is around Carson City]  we can buy an acre with a 3000 ft. house for under $650K. $500K buys a half acre and a new 2000 ft house.”

And . . . “I can still go to Costco!”

President Trump has stated multiple times in different ways that the media is out to get him. Is this unsubstantiated Trump paranoia or does this accusation have legs?

A few weeks ago a conservative somewhat older friend of mine, Jim, said that he had almost stopped reading our local paper because the coverage of Trump was so negative – estimated by him as being 90% negative. At the time I thought that this was somewhat of a fictional overestimation, but on 5/18/17 a study from Harvard’s Kennedy School  of Government reported some facts. It stated that the media coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days set a new standard for negativity. The coverage from the Washington Post (Wapo) was 83% negative and the coverage from the New York Times (NYT) was 87% negative.

(From now on I will refer to these two “bastions of journalism” as ‘The Dueling Banjos’ as they seem to be always trying to one-up the other guy in terms of loudness, negativity, fake news, and anonymous sources.) Since our local paper gets most of its stories from either/both of The Dueling Banjos, Jim’s estimation was actually pretty accurate.

The other day when I was speaking to two liberal women acquaintances the President’s name came up, and they both were close to apoplectic when they angrily blurted out that he was in bed with the Russians. This, despite the fact that no actual confirmation of any direct Trump-Russian connection has been documented. My guess is that they “missed” this on either NBC or CNN (both with 93% negative Trump stories) or CBS (91% negative).

Is it possible that the Harvard study was cherry-picking opinions on a few isolated topics? . . . No, as other than ‘economics’ (54% negative) all of the rest of the individual Trump topics were evaluated as >70% negative media coverage. To top it off, when it came to ‘fitness for office’, the Dueling Banjos were at 96% and 87%,  ‘no’  – while CNN & NBC were at 82% and 80%,  ‘no’.   In that same recent Harvard study, the author, professor Thomas E. Patterson, warned that “the unrelenting negative coverage could also erode public trust in journalism”. . .  Duh!!

(In reference to that statement I would omit the word, ‘could’, and add the word, ‘further’ . . . “the unrelenting negative coverage further erodes the public trust in journalism”!)

Along the same lines, Watergate famous journalist Bob Woodward, while on uber liberal MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ on 5/19/17 called on fellow journalists to ‘dial back a bit’ on the urge to stick it to the White House. He also warned against ‘drinking the Anti-Trump Kool-Aid’. In addition, Woodward called on the national media to keep focused on reporting the straight news, after many reporters have revealed a bias against President Trump.

Wow, that’s a novel idea . . . journalists actually concentrating on only reporting the news, and not opining on the front page.

Obviously, Mr. Woodward is referring to ‘The Dueling Banjos’ and all the local newspapers that blindly follow the Banjos like lemmings!  Back to ? Trump’s paranoia? . . . is it fact or fiction?  Harvard professor Patterson concluded, “The sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump’s contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell-bent on destroying his presidency”!

Why did Hillary Clinton lose the presidential election? There are of course many varying opinions as to ‘Why’, but in my opinion she lost the election when, on a Friday night in September, 2016 she said the following – “. . . you could put half of the Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.” She was playing to her audience of supporters, and this statement was cheered by the crowd at her fund-raiser in NYC – but she just directly insulted approximately 25 million people. Mr. Trump received over 62 million votes in the November election, and I surmise that more than half were insulted by her ‘deplorable statement’!  I know that I was.

Last week California Governor Jerry Brown committed a similar faux-pas when speaking on behalf of Josh Newman (D, Fullerton). Mr. Newman had voted for the outrageous new Democratic gas tax and is now facing a potential recall vote. Granted Jerry Brown is not running again, but I do not think that he did Josh Newman any favors by insulting those that do not agree with the gas tax and Newman’s deciding vote. Californians already pay the second highest price for gas in the country – second only to Hawaii, and a present gas tax of over 38 cents per gallon. But, alas, the collected gas taxes (that are supposed to be used to maintain the roads) seemed  to have “disappeared”, as the percent of roadways in the state that are in sub-optimal condition is 68%, despite the fact that for the most part, California does not have winter.

When describing those who did not agree with him on this tax, the Democratic governor said, “Freeloaders, I’ve had enough of them!” And then just for good measure he added, “they have a president that doesn’t tell the truth and they are following suit!”

There are so many things wrong with this Hillary-esque statement that even “Moonbeam Brown” probably now regrets it, as he just insulted a whole bunch of Californians, the majority of whom are not Republicans.

To start with, whether Jerry wants to admit it or not, Donald Trump is the president for us all – not just the ‘freeloaders’, whoever they may be. And of course just to fire up his Democratic crowd, he then calls the President of the U.S.A. as well as the ‘freeloaders’ . . . Liars!

However, the most egregious part of the statement is the use of the term, ‘freeloaders’. Even though I was pretty sure that I knew the definition the ‘freeloaders’, I looked it up at ‘dictionary.com’. A ‘freeloader’ is “one who takes advantage of others for free food, entertainment, etc.” It’s almost like he took oratory lessons from Mr. Obama: “If you like your doctor, you can keep him” – as Brown’s ‘freeloaders’ are actually the ones paying the freight.

In this situation who are the supposed freeloaders? Who are those who are going to be most affected by this punitive tax? It is not going to be those who sit at home but those who drive, typically those who drive to work. It is not going to be those who really are freeloaders – who pay no taxes, and who are actually taking advantage of those that do.  It is not going to be those who drive hybrids or electric cars, but rather those who can only afford the older used cars that typically get the poorest gas mileage.

It is going to be the working poor and the working middle-class.

Mr. Brown, are these people really ‘freeloaders’?

Does Jerry Brown ever actually drive? . . . No, he is actually driven around by a driver!  Does Jerry Brown ever pay for the gas in the car that chauffeurs him around?  . . . No, we, the taxpayers, pay for his gas.

So who is the real ‘freeloader’ here?