Category: Uncategorized

From the Daily Caller:

“Nearly a quarter of Democrats believe men are capable of getting pregnant, according to a recent poll. Democrats were far more likely than the general population to believe that “some men can get pregnant,” with 22% of Democrats saying they believed the prompt.”

When I read this I had a feeling of disbelief, and thought, “and these ding-a-lings vote!”

But it gets worse when that same prompt is brought up to white college-educated female Democrats.

Again from the Daily Caller:

“36% of white, college-educated female Democrats agreed with this same prompt”

When I read this, I immediately wondered to what college did these ding-a-lings go? Perhaps we should refer to this group as “reverse-college” Democrats, as this group of white females are seemingly dumber after going to college. What is worse is that the vote of these ding-a-lings counts the same as the vote of a normal person. 

This apparent shift away from a conventional view of gender comes after rigorous efforts from activists and media outlets to use gender-neutral language when discussing pregnancy in the name of transgender inclusion.

I realize that it is not P.C. to have to fulfill any kind of criteria in order to vote … race, sex, height, weight income, etc. are all verboten. However, would it not be reasonable to present a potential voter with this same prompt, and if they agree that “some men can get pregnant,” just tell the ding-a-lings that their vote counts double if they come back and vote in the week after Election Day?!

9/10/22

Dang! I missed it! I tried watching Joe Biden’s “speech” on 9/1/22 on CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox, but it wasn’t carried on any of these major networks,

(If you believe that I tried watching it, I have a bridge to sell you!)  It was only carried on CNN & MSNBC. Since my policy is to never watch either of these … oh well, que sera, sera. However, fortunately, I have been able to read a lot about it. I say fortunately, because this “speech” was all about MAGA Republicans, and proudly, along with many tens of millions of others, I am a MAGA Republican.

When I read about what J.B. said, I thought … this is Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” comment from Sept., 2016 all over again. [“You know,” Clinton said to a friendly crowd of wealthy donors, “to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.”]

While she insulted only half of Trump supporters, J.B. insulted upwards to 60-70 million voters in order to appeal to that small number who watch CNN and MSNBC, and those yo-yos did not need convincing as those who watch CNN/MSNBC will undoubtedly vote for J.B. anyway.

For those that had other things to do on 9/1, here are some of the things he said about MAGA Republicans:

Early in the speech, Biden said, “MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution.”

Biden also said, “MAGA Republicans… do not believe in the rule of law.” 

Biden called MAGA Republicans “semi-fascist”, claiming that they “promote authoritarian leaders.” 

Biden said, MAGA Republicans “fanned the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights.” He claimed that “they embrace anger. They thrive on chaos.” 

Biden claimed that “MAGA Republicans are destroying American democracy.” 

Biden said, “Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election: Either they win, or they were cheated. And that’s where the MAGA Republicans are today.” 

Biden chastised MAGA Republicans as selfish and anti-democratic when he said, “You can’t love your country only when you win.” 

Biden said that “MAGA Republicans… spread fear and lies.”

This speech was one insult after another – all directed to this “new basket of deplorables,” … the MAGA Republicans! 

Even though I admittedly did not listen to his “speech,” after reading what he said, I was insulted. I wholeheartedly say, “Thank you, J.B,” as insulting the other side is never a good strategy. Similar to what transpired back in 2016 with Hillary, I look forward to seeing many of these same J.B. comments in the TV commercials of 2023 and 2024!

9/9/22

californiacontrarian

The other day in order to stay cool during a California Flex Alert warning, I was driving around in my air conditioned gasoline powered Rav4  and listening to SiriusXM’s “Sounds of the Fifties.” When a 1958 song, “Who’s Sorry Now” by Connie Francis, started playing, I immediately thought about Germany.

The  refrain goes like this:

“Who’s sorry now? 

Who’s sorry now? 

Whose heart is achin’ for breakin’ each vow? 

Who’s sad and blue? Who’s cryin’ too?…”

Why did this remind me of Germany?

Go back to 2018, more specifically to 9/25/2018 at the United Nations where some prescient world figure said, “Reliance on a single foreign supplier can leave a nation vulnerable to extortion and intimidation … Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course.”

In response to this warning, a German diplomat laughed. 

Fast forward four years to Sept. 2022 … “who’s sorry now?”

Europe, which voluntarily and recently became dependent on Russian natural gas was warned of the consequences, and is now being held hostage after Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine earlier this year.

From the Washington Examiner:

“Russia said on 9/6 that it would not resume natural gas flow to the European Union until sanctions are lifted, all but acknowledging that it is intentionally inflicting an energy crisis on Europe as a means of countering Western economic punishment for its invasion of Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on 9/6/22 that the “problems” pumping gas through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline “came about because of the sanctions Western countries introduced against our country and several companies.”

So, in essence, Europe relied on a single energy provider, and is now vulnerable to extortion and intimidation, just as was predicted by a speaker at the U.N. in September, 2018. 

Q: Who was that speaker who predicted what is happening today?

A: None other than President Donald Trump.

I’ll wager that the German diplomats are no longer laughing at what he said. 

“Who’s sorry now?”

9/8/22

From the Epoch Times:

“Without fanfare, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 11, 2022, reversed all its COVID-19 guidelines. In fact, many have noted it appears the CDC wanted to bring as little attention to it as possible. This is understandable, considering the new guidelines more or less admit the original rules were in error, without actually specifically stating as much.

The new guidance is listed in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) under the title, “Summary of Guidance for Minimizing the Impact of COVID-19 on Individual Persons, Communities, and Health Care Systems — United States, August 2022.”

In essence the CDC said, “Oops, our bad!”

The following for those of you who are not aware, summarizes what the non-remorseful CDC is now saying:

• The CDC is now advocating for taking personal responsibility and for everyone to decide for themselves “which prevention behaviors to use and when (at all times or at specific times), based on their own risk for severe illness and that of members of their household, their risk tolerance, and setting-specific factors”

(Wow! What a novel idea  … have everyone assess their own risk and act accordingly. For those individuals whose rights were trampled by the CDC’s gospel, the CDC is now basically saying, “Oops, our bad!”)

• The CDC is also giving up on discrimination based on COVID jab status, stating, its “COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur.” They also admit natural immunity exists and works.

(Wow! Again another novel idea which is not so novel  … Natural immunity!! So concerning the mis-advising on the common sense of natural immunity … “Oops, our bad!,”)

• Testing is now reserved for those who “are symptomatic, or have a known or suspected exposure to someone with COVID-19,” isolation is only for those who are symptomatic and have tested positive, and contact tracing is now restricted to health care settings and select “high-risk congregate settings.”

(Wow! Common sense wins again. No more isolating anybody and everybody because we, the CDC says so. Err, that’s changed …”Oops, our bad!!”

• The CDC’s about-face appears to be politically motivated, to give the Biden administration a “win” before the midterm elections. Post-election plans include “the biggest vaccination campaign in history,” so tyrannical overreaches may later resume, even as mounting data show the COVID shots are causing depopulation.

(Wow! Nothing like an upcoming election to clear away the fog. The CDC is essentially now saying, “Forget all of harm we have caused over the last few years, because now we are now proclaiming, ‘Oops, our bad!!’”)

9/7/22

What do the Democrats actually stand for? Now here I am not talking about the run-of-the-mill man on the street, who is a Democrat because his father or mother was a Democrat. Rather I am talking about Democratic politicians, mainly those in D.C. To me it seems that whenever an issue comes up, they first check the polling and then say whatever the polls indicate would be the correct thing to say. If they have been consistently backing X, but the polling indicates that backing X is not what most of the country is backing, then do they say “mea culpa, we were wrong on this one?” … No way, Jose! They basically shift their position and note that they have been backing Y all along. For example, on backing the police vs. defunding the police. Dem. politician, “Oops, there is an election coming up, and so now we must appear to be backing the police, and insinuate that we have been backing them all along.” Their modus operandi is to lie and to gaslight.

Similarly if up to date facts come out that indicate that their position was the wrong position in the past, do they say “mea culpa, we were wrong on that.” No, not on a bet!

Take for example the recent data on how far behind school children have slipped because of remote learning. Dem. pol, “Oops, there is an election coming up in a few months, so we had better make it look as if closing schools was the work of the Republicans, and not us.” Their modus operandi is to lie and gaslight.

From the Daily Mail:

“When a reporter questioned Karine Jean-Pierre, White House Press Secretary, about dismal test results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — which showed average scores for nine-year-olds declining five points in reading and seven points in mathematics — she lauded President Joe Biden for purportedly spearheading a return to in-person instruction, and blamed Republicans!”

Everyone who lived through the Covid pandemic knows that it was the Democrats and the Teacher’s Unions that delayed any school reopening concepts, and a very partial list includes:

-White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield on Feb. 2021

responded to a question about opening schools during a February 2021 interview by pushing for “mitigation measures” such as vaccinations and social distancing.

-Education Secretary Miguel Cardona in May 2021 

-American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten in July 2021

-Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) in July 2021 said, “we should not rush to reopen schools” after she was pressed by anchor Jake Tapper about the possible costs of remote learning. 

-Beto O Roarke (D,TX) in August 7, 2020: “By all means, do not reopen schools” This in response to an executive order from Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX) that barred schools from delaying their start date.

My conclusion … The Democrats are the party of lying and gaslighting.

9/6/22

As some of you might be aware here in California we are having a heat wave with temperatures up to and over 100 in many parts of the state. The National Weather Service says 100-degree temperatures are currently hitting Los Angeles, the state’s most populated city. Sacramento and other areas in the Central Valley, meanwhile, are forecast to hit 113 degrees F on 9/5 & 9/6. San Jose, another heavily populated city, will see temperatures over 100 F on 9/5 & 9/6.

If one is old and infirm these very warm temperatures are a real health threat. FYI: I am old, but not infirm, and so the health safety measure that I have come up with is not just for my own safety, but rather I am focusing on the safety of others.

From the Epoch Times:

“Authorities in California extended a “Flex Alert” telling residents to conserve energy, including not charging their electric vehicles. The alert has been in effect for several days in the midst of a heat wave that is slated to last through Labor Day.

The California Independent System Operator, the manager of the state’s power grid, issued the statewide Flex Alert from 4 to 9 p.m. Residents are urged to set their thermostats to 78 degrees Fahrenheit or higher, avoid using major appliances, avoid charging electric vehicles, and turning off unnecessary lights.”

How are we going to keep our elders safe during this time of thermal danger? I have a solution. Instead of forcing them to sit in the dark, sweating in their now non-air conditioned homes, perhaps they should go for a ride in an air conditioned car. But … oops, they could only go for a ride in their air conditioned gasoline powered cars, as the EVs cannot be charged during this heat emergency.

I don’t know about you, but I know where I am going to be today between 4-9 pm … listening to Sirius XM while cruising around in my comfortable non-EV vehicle!

9/5/22

californiacontrarian

Doctor Cadegiani is a board-certified endocrinologist with a master’s degree and doctorate degree in clinical endocrinology.

On 8/31/22 he published a peer-reviewed study by the online medical journal Cureus. The study was conducted on a strictly controlled population of 88,012 people from the city of Itajaí in Brazil.

At this point you might be wondering why I would choose a highly credentialed physician for my Sunday piece. The answer is twofold. First, the study was about the effectiveness of one of my favorite topics  … the use of Ivermectin in Covid. And second because Dr. Cadegiani has some spunk. To the critics of his study who are sure to be Ivermectin doubters, Cadegiani wrote on Twitter, “An observational study with the size and level of analysis as ours is hardly achieved and infeasible to be conducted as a randomised clinical trial. Conclusions are hard to be refuted. Data is data, regardless of your beliefs.”

It comes as no surprise to me that Cadegiani’s study demonstrated the benefit of Ivermectin in multiple categories of Covid patients.

A summary of the study from BlazeMedia:

“Individuals who used ivermectin as prophylaxis or took the medication before being infected by COVID experienced significant reductions in death and hospitalization.

According to the study, those who took ivermectin regularly had a 92% reduction in their COVID death risk compared to non-users and 84% less than irregular users.

‘The hospitalization rate was reduced by 100% in regular users compared to both irregular users and non-users,’ the study stated.

The impressive reduction for regular ivermectin users was evident despite the regular users being at a higher risk for COVID deaths. The regular users were older and had a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes and hypertension than irregular and non-users.”

“A summation of the study read, ‘This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.’”

For those of you who have little medical knowledge or little interest in Ivermectin, please note the following for the drug that the all-knowing Dr. Fauci, the CDC, and the FDA all but banned in the U.S. to treat Covid:

-88,012 individuals in the study

-hospitalization reduced by 100% in regular users

-92% reduction in their COVID death risk compared to non-users

    and 84% less than irregular users.

-Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in   

    mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 

    compared to the regular use of ivermectin,’ 

Think what you will, but in my book this guy is to be admired and looked up to, as his study is uber impressive. You can be assured that this study will be ignored by ‘those who know best’ here in the U.S. 

9/4/22

californiacontrarian

I did actually take one economics class in college. Undoubtedly it was Econ 101 or its equivalent. Just because I took that class, it doesn’t make me an expert in economics. However, a lot of basic economics is common sense. Theories of supply and demand are likewise common sense, and one doesn’t need Econ 101 to understand or explain this basic economic principle.

Simplistically, when you limit the supply of something, the price of that thing will go up. Now obviously this basic principle doesn’t apply if the thing that is now limited is not something that has an underlying demand. For instance, if you limit the supply of bubblegum, the price of bubblegum will not necessarily rise, because there is not an overwhelming demand for bubblegum. However, if you limit the supply of something that is in demand, then the cost of that thing will rise. And furthermore, if one limits the supply of something that is in high demand, then the cost of that thing will disproportionately rise. Econ 101!

Let’s say for the sake of discussion, it’s been raining a lot and the forecast calls for a prolonged rainy stretch. Consequently, everyone wants an umbrella, and if there is a limited supply of umbrellas in your town, the price of an umbrella will go up. Econ 101! 

At some point some entrepreneur in your town will notice this supply-demand imbalance and will begin to import umbrellas from an adjacent town, and this new influx of supply will subsequently lower the cost of an umbrella. Econ 101. However, if there is no influx of umbrellas the cost of an umbrella will continue to rise as long as the need continues … as long as it keeps raining. (Granted this simplified example is before Amazon and ordering things online, but bear with me.) So when dealing with supply/demand balance/imbalance, supply can go up or down and likewise demand can also go up or down. 

Now why did I just go through this basic Econ 101 principle?? I went through this because our Bozo-in-chief obviously does not have a basic understanding of Econ 101. Europe needs energy, and as summer turns into fall, and as fall turns into winter, its demand for energy (oil and gas) will only increase. Because energy is not like bubblegum, the price of this energy will go up. And because Russia is the predominant supplier of umbrellas, it can control the price of the umbrellas that it sells, and because there is no other supplier of umbrellas, Russia can basically increase the price as it sees fit, no surprise, my friends, this is what is happening. 

From Townhall:

“Well, rather than crushing the Russian economy and kneecapping its ability to fight in Ukraine, Russia’s oil output has now rebounded to its pre-sanction level and Putin’s profits are soaring. “Russia has earned $20 billion in average monthly sales this year compared with a $14.6 billion monthly average in 2021, when economies were recovering from the pandemic crash,” The Wall Street Journal reported this week. ‘Shipments were rising again in August, data from ship-tracking firm Vortexa show.’

All that means that Biden, who was heralded by weak-kneed mainstream pundits and his fellow Democrats for uniting the world against Putin and inflicting punishing sanctions has made it so ‘Moscow is raking in more revenue than ever.’”

Well, as fans of Econ 101 will immediately realize, this was inevitable because (1) Europe needs energy and this demand is only going to increase, and (2) there is other supplier immediately on the horizon. The only reasonable supplier for the energy that Europe absolutely needs could have been, and should have been the U.S. The U.S. should have been that next town over that could have been supplying the umbrellas to keep pace with the demand. The U.S. should have been increasing its energy production. It could have increased its own energy production to meet what Europe is demanding.

But because J.B. obviously does not understand Econ 101, Russia is making a killing selling energy to Europe. This works for Russia because there is no alternate source of energy supply, as the U.S is not producing the oil and gas that it could. 

Furthermore, this is not going to change in the near future unless J.B. gets someone to tutor him in Econ 101, and even then it is quite presumptuous that J.B. will be able to understand the simple concept!

9/3/22

A few months back I opined on then potential school loan forgiveness and  … now it has happened. Joe Biden, the king, has proclaimed that a select group would have their loans forgiven. Not just a few, and that is a big part of the problem with this forgiveness plan. It is going to cost a gazillion dollars. Who is going to pay for it? Err, sorry American taxpayer.

I purposely did not go back and reread my recent blog on this same subject as I didn’t want to be accused of plagiarism  … that seems to be a  Biden speciality!

Way back when, I had a school loan … I paid it off. My three girls all had school loans … they paid them off. I am a firm believer in paying off what you owe. 

From my perspective included in this group of now ex-students who owe  money, there are a few groups that deserve extra attention.

First, as comedienne Ron White said, “You can’t fix Stupid!”(YCFS) There are those who never should have gone to college in the first place. They took out loans to do the impossible. The impossible here being graduating from college. These individuals are really getting screwed. They borrowed money they should have never borrowed. There was never any hope to start with as  … no disrespect intended … YCFS. One might then ask, “If there was no realistic hope of these individuals making it through college, why were they in college? As is true in a lot of situations …. “Follow the money.” Perhaps those colleges that gave them this false hope should pay? My compromise would be that the colleges should pay off the loans of these unfortunate individuals, if they did not make it into Junior year. However, if they did make it to Junior year, then the entire burden is on the student.

Likewise those schools that offer degrees for which there is no market … e.g. gender studies or basket weaving … should be sued by those who borrowed an exorbitant amount for a basically worthless degree. Whether or not these ne’er do well ex-students would win is irrelevant. However, it would certainly get the attention of the colleges,and who knows! 

No empathy for these ex-students.

Nonetheless, there is one group of student loans that I do have empathy for. This group is made up of parents and grandparents who put themselves in a deep hole because they signed for their kids’ or grandkids’ loans. They wanted their children or grandchildren to have a better life than they had, and I get that. Now, I can hear you saying that these parents and grandparents were just stupid, and you cannot fix stupid (YCFS).To that I would respond, “Love + hope does not equal stupid.” These are the people that I empathize with. These are the loans that our “cannot fix stupid” President (CFS-JB) should pay attention to.

It is this group that is deserving of $10K-20K of loan forgiveness.

9/2/22

californiacontrarian

Out here in California we are expecting a heat wave on this Labor Day weekend. As an aside, if global warming is the real deal, then there will be a lot more heat waves in the future of California. As a response to this upcoming weekend heat wave, California’s grid operator is telling residents not to charge their electric cars during heat waves in order to avoid straining the grid.

Furthermore, residents have been advised to take voluntary energy cuts, including setting their thermostats to 78 degrees Fahrenheit. This is because the “demand for electricity remains high and there is less solar energy available.”

To me this sounds suspiciously like what we have been hearing for the last two Covid years in reference to wearing masks … “for the good of everybody, everyone must wear masks” Recognize that on this upcoming weekend it’s … “for the good of everybody, everyone should cut their electricity usage.”  One might ask, “Is this now voluntary recommendation going to change into a mandatory one in the future?”

From my perspective there are three ways to act in the face of these possible power outages. 

One: Act like a sheep, and say, “Yes, mein führer, as you say.” Turn off your air conditioner, your fans, your TVs, etc. Read using only a flashlight, do not open your refrigerator, and use your Weber grill to cook (of course, making sure that you do not use an electric starter). 

Two: Basically say, “No way, Jose,” and live your life as you normally would. If a blackout occurs, “Que, sera, sera.”

Third: A contrarian response would be to exaggerate your use of electricity in the face of potential blackouts, and thereby hope that the actual blackouts do occur. As blackouts are a third-world-like punishment for the common folk due to the incompetence of those who know best, perhaps increasingly frequent blackouts are the only way that the sheep of California will realize that those who are mandating that by 2035 all vehicles must be EVs, should not be in charge.

I know how I am going to behave in the face of these threats of blackouts … I am known as a contrarian for a reason. What about you ?

9/1/22

californiacontrarian