Month: July 2019

Gustavo Perez Arriaga was arrested by Kern County Sheriff’s Deputies on 12/28/18 after authorities learned he was in a residence in the Lamont Area of Kern County. He was arrested because he was a suspect in the murder of Corporal Ronil Singh. The focus in this particular piece is neither that Arriaga was in the country illegally and had previous arrests, nor that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials confirmed that they had no prior encounters with the man, but rather that seven people across the state were subsequently arrested for helping the suspect avoid police (aiding & abetting). These seven people accused of helping Arriaga avoid capture have been since federally indicted.

This arresting and the subsequent indicting of these seven innocent people is racist!  It is racist because all seven are Hispanic. It is racist because all seven are from Mexico, and furthermore it is racist because the high likelihood is that all seven are themselves illegal. Why is the government harassing these seven individuals when in effect they were merely attempting to provide sanctuary for their friend, coworker, or brother. Why should these seven be in trouble when they were in reality basically doing the same thing that the State of California’s lawmakers have mandated . . . “do not tell authorities when someone who is in your custody is a potential bad hombre.” Senior Arriaga was “in the custody” of his friends in Kern County, and they were only trying to follow the California sanctuary state law! The state law signed in 2017 prohibits local law enforcement from notifying federal immigration agents about a detained immigrant’s information if the person is not accused of a serious crime. Since when is running from the police a serious crime? If state lawmakers can make it illegal for certain law-enforcement to contact I.C.E., how can it be illegal to help a friend, a coworker, or a brother?

If the authorities can go after some friend who is providing sanctuary, why can’t the victims of a crime committed by an illegal go after those who have, in effect, mandated sanctuary for that illegal? Republicans in Congress are now looking at this issue: Two  are proposing that American citizens whose families have been victimized by illegal aliens can sue the city that shielded them from deportation, i.e. the city that aided & abetted the illegal criminal. An American citizen whose family, or themselves, have been victimized by a violent crime perpetrated by an illegal could sue the state or the city that failed to enforce an ICE detainer, and thus aided & abetted. Violent crime is defined as rape, murder, and any additional statute as defined by the state. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis and Rep. Ted Budd (R-NC) have introduced the legislation, which President Trump has supported. I support this type of legislation, and I suspect that many in this country will also be supportive of this legislation.

Of course many of the Democrats in Washington will take the opposite view, and will suggest that such legislation is racist. Good! If the the Democrats in the U.S. Congress do not want to hold accountable those who are advocating looking the other way and thus aiding & abetting, when fellow Americans are being injured or killed because of the sanctuary policies, let them vote as such. Let their local constituents know which side of this supposedly “racist” fence they come down on. Some Democrats in the House are going to have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do if they side with Pelosi and the Squad on this one.

It reminded me of the heavyweight boxer who had once been a champ, and who was forced by his managers to get into the ring one last time. The ex-champion was not the fighter he had once been. He was slow and at times appeared befuddled in the arena of competition. This last fight was a disaster for the ex-king of the hill. Yes, he did manage to stay in the ring for the entire fight, but for anyone who was watching, it was clear that Robert Mueller was not what he once was. After only a few rounds no one would have been surprised if a neutral referee had stopped the fight, and mercifully made Mr. Mueller stay in his corner . . . “TKO!”

None of the news media was allowed to speak to the ex-champ after this debacle. This was undoubtedly a good thing, as Mr. Mueller looked dazed and somewhat confused  even during the early rounds. He was apparently having trouble remembering certain things that should have been on the tip of his tongue. As I watched his performance, I had pity on the poor man. Not only did he look old, but at times he almost looked as if there was some signs of early dementia. 

Who was responsible for this travesty? Who thought that it was a good idea to bring this once bright star back into the limelight? Did anyone actually think that he would be able to fend off his young astute opponent(s)? He had no counter-punch, and certainly no offensive zip. He was a “dead man walking” almost from the git-go. Who was responsible?

His “managers,” Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, were responsible. They were the chairs of the two committees that “dragged this poor man through this needless hell?” Because of their selfish actions, Robert Mueller’s legacy will be that of a washed-up, somewhat pitiful, out of touch old man. Why did Rep. Schiff (D, CA) and Rep. Nadler (D, NY) find it necessary to subject Mr. Mueller to this needless humiliation? Do they owe him an apology? Damn right they do! Thus far I haven’t read or heard any suggestion by anyone that an apology is warranted. For me and for presumably for many Americans an apology would be the right thing to do. Will they ever own up and apologize to him? Never! Not a chance!

I want to make it clear from the beginning that any similarity to the Georgia situation involving Erica Thomas, Minority Vice Chair, Georgia House of Representatives is purely coincidental.

The other day when out driving with my wife, we noticed a motorist wanting to make a left turn from a non-left turn lane. Unfortunately the recalcitrant female driver was blocking the cars which were now stacked up behind her from going straight. My wife commented, “Wouldn’t it just be better for everyone involved if she admitted that she was in the wrong lane, and drove on straight ahead. It just seems that everyone these days is only thinking about what is better for me, me, me!”

Although we did not witness what happened next, apparently the man in the car behind her opened his door to inform her that she was in the wrong lane. “This lane is only for those that wish to go straight.” She then opened her car door and took a step towards him shouting, “I am nine months pregnant!”

He responded, “Whether you are pregnant or not, this is still not a left turn lane.”

“But I have my nine year old daughter in the car right here next to me!”

Again he responded, “Whether your nine year old daughter is there or not, this is still not a left turn lane.”

“But my husband is in the Army and is stationed overseas!”

“Whether your husband is stationed overseas or not, this is still not a left turn lane.”

After she told him to go back to where he came from, he called her “a lazy bitch” and left.

Apparently later that day she posted a tearful distraught rant on her Facebook page where she threatened to have him arrested for “assault.” She stated that she “feared for her life!” She suggested that he was probably a Trump supporter, even though it later turned out that he had an Obama/Biden bumper sticker on the front and a Clinton bumper sticker on his rear bumper.

“He can’t speak to me like that in a publix place.”

I later heard that there was an actual video of the entire episode as well as subsequent T.V.interviews with them both, and while he continued to remain calm, she continued her melodrama and constantly interrupted him.

While I have formed an opinion of who is right and who is wrong in this situation, at this point, you may be asking me about the color of the skin of the man and the woman.

Actually I did not notice!

Just when you think you have seen it all, and heard it all, you read about something and all you can do is just shake your head. What you are going to read about in the following paragraphs is true. I am not making this stuff up, despite rumors to the contrary. I do have to admit, however, that I have thus far been unable to document with a one-hundred percent certainty that these O.S. women are Democrats . . . despite rumors to the contrary!

Right now, you are probably asking, “WTF is O.S.?” O.S. refers to Objectum Sexuals, who are individuals who are in love with inanimate objects. Apparently they believe their love with the objects is reciprocal and that they can telepathically communicate with them.

The following is from a July, 2013 post from Psychology Today:

“Arguably the most infamous objectophile is Erika LaBrie who “married” the Eiffel Tower in 2007 (and now calls herself Erika Eiffel). She first met the Eiffel Tower in 2004 and fell in love with it immediately. She visits her “soul mate” as often as she can afford to, and she claims her relationship is as real as that between any two consenting adults. Prior to her relationship with the ET, her object love empowered her to become a two-time world champion in archery (her first object love was her bow called ‘Lance’). While falling in love with an inanimate object is rare, Erika is not alone. Erika La Tour Eiffel married the Eiffel Tower and then took its name. But she doesn’t like referring to the structure as “it” because “calling something an ‘it’ instantly means it’s inanimate.” She gets “a sense” of an object’s gender. According to her, the Eiffel Tower is female.” Erika Eiffel is not alone. 

The following is from the New York Post, July 19, 2019:

A woman says she has several love interests, but none of them can hold a candle to Lumiere — a 91-year-old chandelier she plans to marry. Amanda Liberty, 35, who changed her last name from Whittaker during a prior long-distance relationship with the Statue of Liberty, is ready to finally settle down with the light of her life. The bride-to-be said she has been in an open relationship with multiple light fixtures, but decided to get hitched to Lumiere, which she regards as female.

“I’m determined to have this commitment ceremony, to prove that I’m here for Lumiere and that my love is going to last,” she said. “I’m not sure what dress I’ll wear and will invite those closest to us. I’ll also be buying matching wedding rings for Lumiere and myself,” she added.

Despite rumors to the contrary, the A.C.L.U. is already planning to sue whichever baker refuses to bake the wedding cake for Lumiere and Ms. Liberty! The county clerk in the area in which Amanda Liberty lives, is purportedly going to refuse to issue a marriage license for Amanda and Lumiere. Also many of the Democratic presidential candidates are possibly going to be supporting these O.S. women at the next debate. Some of them have apparently been quoted as being ready to back the O.S.s all the way to the Supreme Court! I have this on good authority, despite rumors to the contrary!

I just returned from five days in Honduras. Before I get to the real subject of this piece, I want to go on record as saying that never once did I feel threatened or unsafe. Granted I was not walking around in the bigger cities where the gang activity is, but the issue of safety/Honduras is similar to the issue of safety/Chicago in that if you stay out of the areas that are known to be unsafe, you are fine. While I was there the subject of “the caravan” came up on multiple occasions. For the most part apparently there has been a noticeable decrease in the number of young men in some parts of the country. It is assumed that a lot of these young men have left their families behind in Honduras and have joined the caravan. There has also been a small decrease in the number of children attending school, again presumably because they have left Honduras to go north with a parent or parents.My longest discussion about the caravan was with Carlos, who is second in command with the largest non-profit, CePudo, in Honduras. Carlos is 45 years old, and is a native Honduran. His education through college has been solely in Honduras. My point here is that I think that it is safe to assume that he is attuned to what is actually happening in his country. His life is all about the poor, and helping the poor in Honduras. When I asked him about the caravan issue, he responded, “It’s all political.” Now keep in mind that he was not talking about U.S. politics, but about the politics in Honduras. (Yes, believe it or not there is politics in a poor country such as Honduras!) He further explained, “There is no way that these migrants are doing this on their own. How are they being fed? How can these people, especially the children, possibly walk the entire distance through Guatemala and then through Mexico to reach the U.S. border? Obviously they are being transported, probably by buses or pickup trucks, until they get close to the cameras, and then they start walking! Where are they sleeping at night? Where are they bathing? Someone is financing this entire operation. Perhaps, Soros.”

“Why?” I asked. He responded, “It’s all political. The subliminal message for the Honduran people is: ‘things are so bad here in Honduras that people are being forced to flee the country. If our present  government were better, people would not be forced to leave. If the opposing party were in charge instead, things would be much better.’ In general, most of the people who are being cajoled into leaving are poorly educated, and thus susceptible to to just about anything, including the caravan like migration, about which they actually know very little.”

I then asked him about the issue of the people who are fleeing because of the threats of violence and harm to either themselves or their family? “Certainly, there are situations where that occurs, but not in the numbers that are being advertised. Most of these “threats” are in the form of a “war-tax,” which is a relatively common form of extortion in the cities . . . ‘Pay us money, and we will protect you or your business from the opposing gangs’. I personally am not familiar of a situation in which individuals have been forced to migrate because they truly have their lives in danger. Again, it’s all political!”

Now I do not think that Carlos has anything to gain from implying that the situation in Honduras is not as some would suggest. “My job here in Honduras is to help as many people as I can. It is not, at all, political.”

News Flash: Billions of gallons of water have been found in an aquifer under the Mojave Desert. The water eventually flows to low lying areas called “dry lakes” where it either dries up or becomes too salty for consumption. Cadiz Inc., an agricultural company that owns lots of land in that area, wants to pump out about 325,000 gallons each year from this vast aquifer to supply parts of Southern California that do not receive an adequate amount of rainfall. Hallelujah! This seems like a common-sense partial solution to the water problem that exists in California – pump a limited amount of water out of this aquifer each year and use it for human consumption. Wow, what a stroke of good luck . . . finding this aquifer under an area that is basically of no use to anybody!

Second News Flash: Whoa! Not so fast! Supposedly, in this past December new information showed that this project would potentially dry up a nearby spring that provides water for bighorn sheep. Water for bighorn sheep . . . OMG! But wait, who in their right mind would put a potential problem for bighorn sheep over a definite big plus for either the people of California or even for agriculture in the Central Valley?

Those of us who live in this in this “up is down, and down is up” place known as California can probably make an educated guess. Of course, the answer is that the liberal Democratic State Legislature could potentially put animals over people, and, in fact, that is just what they have done . . . again! On 7/11/19 these lawmakers in Sacramento added another step by passing a bill that would require the State Land Commission to review the project before it can go forward. This despite the fact that this project has passed all required environmental reviews since 2002, and has been upheld at least 12 times by the courts! Cadiz Inc. says that reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act have shown that the bighorn sheep claim is “geologically, hydrologically, and legally impossible,” and that this latest kerfuffle is just politics. Imagine that! Someone actually thinking that the Legislature In California would pass bills purely because of politics! Surely the governor will demonstrate some common sense and veto something that is against the best interests of Californians. Err . . . don’t bet the farm on Governor Newsom will doing anything based on common-sense.

And so it goes: “Water, water everywhere, but in California, nary a drop to drink!”

“As a human being — not as Andraya’s father — it’s disappointing that, in 2019, we’re still debating who gets to participate and who doesn’t,” Rashaan Yearwood, father of the student in question Andraya Yearwood, told CBS. “You would hope we’d gotten to a place in 300-plus years as a country that we’re not debating who should be included, and who should not be.

There is no place for exclusion.”

Personally, as a human being, I find it disappointing that in 2019 we are debating this at all! The issue of transgenderism in athletics points out just how close to brink of not using any common sense the trend of looney-leftism thinking has driven us!

I am not sure who I feel more sorry for.

I feel sorry for the father, Rashaan, who evidently feels that he has to stick up for his “son-daughter.” But after reading his statement, I think I have some insight as to his “son-daughter’s” confusion. However, I do feel obliged to point out to this confused father that the U.S.A. has not been a country for “300-plus years.”

I feel sorry for the “boy-girl,” Andraya, who not only has to deal with her gender confusion issue, but also for some reason thinks it’s necessary to include him/herself in high school girls track and field events. Andraya Yearwood, a 17-year-old junior at Cromwell High School, is one of two transgender high school sprinters in Connecticut, transitioning to female.

Earlier this year, national attention was drawn to Connecticut after the success of these two transgender athletes who were allowed to compete in what were supposed to be all girls track events. The two athletes in question, not surprisingly, absolutely dominated the rest of the league.

Connecticut is one of 17 states that allow transgender high school athletes to compete without restrictions. Seven states have restrictions that make it difficult for transgender athletes to compete while in school, like requiring athletes to compete under the gender on their birth certificate (Wow, what a novel Idea!) or allowing them to participate only after going through sex-reassignment procedures or hormone therapies.(A truly major step for a high-schooler!)

But the reason that this is now news is that finally someone with “standing” in this matter, and has filed a lawsuit.

“We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralizing,” Selina Soule, one of the Connecticut students who filed the complaint, said at the time. “I fully support and am happy for these athletes for being true to themselves. They should have the right to express themselves in school, but athletics have always had extra rules to keep the competition fair.” (Very P.C., and very common-sensical.)

The Alliance Defending Freedom filed the complaint on behalf of the girls with the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights yesterday. According to CBS, the complaints “cites the federal Title IX rules aimed at equal rights in sports for female athletes.” This lawsuit will most likely eventually end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully SCOTUS will actually make a ruling based on common sense, instead of sending it back to the lower court for “reconsideration.” I do not want my granddaughters playing girl’s high school lacrosse against 6’5” 250lb. trans-athletes, as this would be much too dangerous for these high school girls.

As opposed to Rashaan Yearwood, I would say, “I would hope we’d gotten to a place in 200-plus years as a country that we’re not debating who should be included, and who should not be. This is no place for inclusion!.”

One of the articles in today’s local newspaper had to do with homelessness, veterans, and hope. You might initially think that this is an unusual combination of words, but San Diego is a military town and so will have a good number of veterans. California has a relatively large homeless population, so it stands to reason that San Diego would have its share of homeless veterans, and it does. One of the worst things about being homeless is the despair that goes along with it, and one big thing that society can try do is to offer them some hope . . . hope that things will get better. The article was about a “Back2Work” program which hires homeless veterans in San Diego to work temporarily for the California Department of Transportation’s clean-up crews. The program also teaches skills to help them find permanent jobs, such as resume-writing, interviewing techniques, etc. Some  of the luckier ones will stay on at the California D.O.T. Recently Caltrans has hired more veterans through Back2Work, expanding from 3 crews to 7 crews with 12-15 workers on each crew. Bill McClinton, a Caltrans superintendent in San Diego said, “They help with our workloads. We’re kind of short right now for some crews, so it’s been very beneficial.” The program has an 84% success rate, with 153 people leaving their temporary jobs at Caltrans for other employment after three to six months.

Norma Murillo, 38, Marine Corps from 2001-2006, was one of the first to work on a Caltrans crew in 2017.  “I was homeless, unemployed, and in recovery. . . . When I started working, I started to see a little bit of hope.” In February she began a new job as a an official technician with Caltrans. Wow, I thought, “This is a great program because it provided hope for homeless veterans here in San Diego.

In an apparently unrelated story, we just got back from taking three of our granddaughters to Chicago for a few days. We stayed at an Embassy Suites and did a lot of walking – from five to six miles a day. As you are probably aware four days anywhere involves a lot of eating, especially with teenagers. A lot of things stood out on this trip, but what stood out the most to me was the number of youths, all black, between the ages of 18-25 who worked at the various places to eat. UNO’s pizza, Pot Belly sandwiches, Shake Shack ice cream, Garret’s popcorn, and Safe House restaurant all had black late-teens and young adults working as clerks, waiters and waitresses. Likewise at the Embassy Suites’ “breakfast is included,” the staff clearing the tables was made up entirely of young black women. All of these black youths were well dressed, attentive, and extremely polite. (I usually try to avoid all-inclusive words like “all” in my essays, but here I need to emphasize “all.”) I thought “what an outstanding way for these black youths to get introduced to the workforce.” Obviously these were all entry level type jobs or perhaps summer jobs,  but they were jobs! These jobs provided hope for their future.

Where am I going with this? These two apparently unrelated stories are in fact related! Here we have two separate groups, homeless veterans and black youths, who have historically had little hope for a good future. Here we have two very different stories of ways to provide hope, through jobs. In the first story Caltrans was short on some crews, and with the low unemployment rate, Back2Work used ingenuity to help homeless veterans get into the workforce, and thus provide hope for their futures.
In Chicago, something is causing entry level jobs to be available to black youth. In September 2018, the 3.7 percent unemployment rate, a nearly 50-year low, helped all U.S. workers, but it’s especially beneficial to disadvantaged groups that have struggled to land jobs — like black teenagers. The jobless rate for African-Americans age 16 to 19 fell from 20.1 percent to 19.3 percent in October, 2018, the lowest on records dating to 1972. In May 2019 the unemployment rate for black youth was down to 23.9%, up slightly, but still a dramatic drop from 49% in 2010.

Why did I see a plethora of black youth working in and near downtown Chicago? To me the answer is quite simple – The economy, the Trump economy, is driving down the unemployment rate and so employers are hiring those that they were not considering before. I am not alone in thinking this way. “As the labor market tightens, employers have to look to workers they ordinarily don’t (consider), like black teens,” says Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
This Trump economy is providing hope for the futures of many black youths in Chicago, as well as many homeless veterans in San Diego!

John Krupinsky, an assistant coach with Connecticut’s Danbury Hat Tricks of the Federal Hockey League, recently delivered a pointed speech to his team as training camp opened.

“Listen up for a second,” Krupinsky said. “First day of camp. Something really important. We’re not women’s soccer. We’re not the NFL. If there’s anybody here that’s gonna be disrespectful to either the American or the Canadian national anthem, grab your gear, and get the f— out now. ‘Because you’ll never see the ice in this arena. We don’t have that problem in hockey. We’re better than that. But there’s no sense in wasting anybody’s time if that s— was gonna happen. I don’t believe it would happen here. We’re the most patriotic sport that they have out there. Just keep that in mind, thank you.”

His speech has gone viral, and interestingly it was apparently given squarely in the middle of the U.S. Women’s National Team’s run to the World Cup championship. How refreshing! Hooray for Coach Krupinsky.

If anybody on the Hat Tricks hockey team feels strongly about presumed. social issues then he clearly has a choice to make. Either do not play hockey for the Hat Tricks, or put on your big boy pants, play hockey, and keep your issues to yourself, out of the public eye. 

I am a big soccer fan, and I like to watch the games. I do not enjoy seeing or hearing supposed grown-ups pouting and acting out for some fuzzy causes, especially if the acting out is occurring when they are representing the USA. I did not watch the Women’s World Cup final. I did not watch any of the postgame shenanigans. I did not watch the parade in New York . . . no desire to do any of the above. I did, however, watch the U.S. Men’s Soccer Team play Mexico that same Sunday night. There were no shenanigans, no protests by either side. I got what I tuned in to see . . . good soccer!

Now that all of the hoopla about the Women’s World Cup is hopefully over, I have a few questions for the U.S. team, in general, and the players in particular. 

Is there a “Coach Krupinsky” in the U.S.A. women’s soccer higher echelon? At this point we know that the actual coach would not, could not, or was told that she should not stand up to the acting out by some of the players. So now the question is whether or not anybody is now going to do anything similar to what coach Krupinsky did? If so, now is the time! No one in the NFL had the courage to stand up to the kneeling players, and that did end well for the NFL, and the commissioner ended up looking like a fool!

The second question is about the rest of the players on the team. I understand that it would not have been a smart thing to have team dissension during the middle of a grueling international tournament. (Let the adult-adolescent captain act out, but let’s focus on soccer.) However, the World Cup is now over.

From my perception, either the entire team or most of the team agrees with Rapinoe, and has opinions similar to Rapinoe . . . or they don’t. And if they don’t, now is the time for them to speak up. When they get invited to the White House to meet with President Trump, are some or perhaps a large number of them going to go? Or are they going to follow the Pied Piper, Megan Rapinoe, like young children . . . right out of town; alternatively are they going to stand up and speak their own mind. This is important because their actions could well determine the fate of women’s professional soccer in the U.S. Even more important for the female soccer players, if the team is viewed as anti-American flag, and anti-National Anthem, this could well doom their striving for comparable pay. Most of the women on this team have gone to college, and presumably understand that in essence the public pay their salaries, as it is the public that pay to go to the games. Public opinion counts! Are fathers and mothers in the Heartland going to take their daughters to a game and have to watch demonstrably anti-American female soccer players? Are they going to pay to listen to potty-mouths like Rapinoe. I don’t think so!

Now is the time for all good women soccer players to come to the aid of their country. 🇺🇸

“A closed mouth gathers no foot!”

Oops? No, as this was not a mistake, but rather a unique juxtaposition of phrases that was seen on a billboard. However, this mixed metaphor immediately reminded me of Colin Clown-pernick, and his recent statement that purportedly had something to do with an older American flag on Nike shoes. His hypocrisy was then exposed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R,TX) on Twitter.
For those of you not familiar, this is what the ex-NFL kneeler said:“What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? This Fourth of July is yours, not mine…There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.” This statement was from an 1852 speech by Frederick Douglass, a noted abolitionist.

Sen. Cruz responded as follows:“You quote a mighty and historic speech by the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass, but, without context.”

Two critical points: 1. “This speech was given in 1852, before the Civil War, when the abomination of slavery still existed. Thanks to Douglass and so many other heroes, we ended that grotesque evil and have made enormous strides to protecting the civil rights of everybody.”2. “Douglass was not anti-American; he was, rightly and passionately, anti-slavery. Indeed, he concluded the speech as follows: ‘Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. . . . I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from ‘the Declaration of Independence,’ the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age’.”

Oops! It appears that Mr. Clown-pernick has cherry-picked only that part of the speech that suited his purpose. My guess is that he probably read Douglass’ entire speech, but chose to ignore the ending. Alternatively, he had neither been taught at University of Nevada, Reno to finish reading anything nor that slavery was ended in the 1860s, after the Civil War.