Month: August 2022

“The cost of living has increased and yet you’re still expected to live on the money provided for when there wasn’t a crisis … I either can have my heating on or eat,” Grimsby, England, resident Philip Keetley told Reuters. Keetley couldn’t turn on his fan during the record-breaking heatwaves that swept the archipelago this summer, the outlet noted. He simply couldn’t afford it.

From the Daily Caller:

“‘Fuel poverty’ is defined as a low-income household spending 10% or more of their money on energy, Reuters noted. For Keetley, who lives on 600 pounds-sterling a month ($706.44), he now has to eat one meal a day despite reducing his energy consumption to the bare minimum, Reuters continued. Yet, he still spends 15% of his income on fuel. 

The lives of Europeans are changing rapidly as the energy crisis hits homes and businesses across the continent in August, with many families giving up practices we often take for granted.

Europeans are spending a record amount of their income on energy, according to Reuters. Many families are limiting their use of ovens, choosing to shower at work, and no longer ironing their clothes to cut back on the costs, the outlet reported.

British consumers can expect further price hikes throughout 2022, with costs anticipated to rise another 80% in October, according to a statement released Friday by UK energy regulator Ofgem. The average cost of energy bills is expected to reach the equivalent of $4,188, plunging millions of homes into fuel poverty and businesses into jeopardy, Reuters reported.”

Indeed Europe is in quite a pickle. A substantial amount of its energy is either “green,” or had come from Russia. Here in the U.S we are fortunate that we are … oops, make that “we were energy self-sufficient”

Luckily last winter was relatively mild throughout the country. If this winter is different, then the movie, “fuel poverty,” will be coming to a theater near you, and we will only have one person to thank … “Thank you, President Biden!”

8/31/22

californiacontrarian

8/25 & 8/26/22 were good days for those of us who believe in the Constitution as it pertains to personal and religious freedom. A good day because two separate Courts, in two separate areas of the country ruled on two different issues.

First from the Washington Free Beacon:

“A federal district court in California ruled on 8/25/22 that a state law requiring churches to pay for elective abortions in their health insurance plans is unconstitutional.

“The managed health care department’s decision to include religious organizations in the mandate came in 2014, following pressure from Planned Parenthood to “fix” the policy’s religious exemptions “to ensure that employers cannot deny women coverage of abortion services,” according to emailsdiscovered by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys. The Trump administration in 2020 withheld $200 million in Medicaid funding from California because the mandate violated federal conscience laws.

“For years, California has unconstitutionally targeted faith-based organizations, so we’re pleased the court has found this mandate unconstitutional and will allow the churches we represent to operate freely according to their religious beliefs,” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Jeremiah Galus said.

Score as of 8/25 … Constitution 1 Totalitarianism 0 !

Second from Epoch Share:

“A federal appeals court on Friday struck down a Biden administration statute that forced doctors to perform medical procedures, including gender-transition procedures, against their religious beliefs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously upheld a lower court’s ruling in Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra which protected around 19,000 health care professionals in Franciscan Alliance, a Catholic health care network, from performing medical procedures against their conscience.

The lower court’s ruling had permanently prohibited the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) “from requiring Franciscan Alliance to perform gender-transition surgeries or abortions in violation of its sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Score for the week: Constitution 2  Totalitarianism 0 ! 

8/30/22

californiacontrarian

To be clear, prior to last week I had never heard of Milankovitch much less his climate theory. In fact prior to last week I do not think I could correctly spell the name of that Serbian astrophysicist Milutin Milankovitch, after whom the Milankovitch Climate Theory is named.

Milankovitch proposed about how the seasonal and latitudinal variations of solar radiation that hit the earth in different ways, and at different times, have the greatest impact on earth’s changing climate patterns. 

I know, I know … “just another crackpot astrophysicist and from Serbia, no less!”

Most of the following is from a piece by Ethan Huff, Natural News in August, 2019:

“When Milankovitch first put forward his model, it went ignored for nearly half a century. Then, in 1976, a study published in the journal Science confirmed that Milankovitch’s theory is, in fact, accurate, and that it does correspond to various periods of climate change that have occurred throughout history.”

Hmmm … Science is a reputable journal, but for whatever reason, Milankovitch Climate Theory did not attract much attention. I have a good idea of ‘why,’ but suffice it to say the cover-up, if you wish to call it that, didn’t end there.

Again fromEthan Huff’s piece:

“Based on these different variables, (earth’s obliquity, or its change in axial tilt and the earth’s rotational axis) Milankovitch was able to come up with a comprehensive mathematical model that is able to compute surface temperatures on earth going way back in time, and the conclusion is simple: Earth’s climate has always been changing, and is in a constant state of flux due to no fault of our own as human beings. 

“It was the year 1958 when NASA first observed that changes in the solar orbit of the earth, along with alterations to the earth’s axial tilt, are both responsible for what climate scientists today have dubbed as “warming” (or “cooling,” depending on their agenda). In no way, shape, or form are humans warming or cooling the planet by driving SUVs or eating beef, in other words.”

Thus … “For more than 60 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has known that the changes occurring to planetary weather patterns are completely natural and normal. But the space agency, for whatever reason, has chosen to let the man-made global warming hoax persist and spread, to the detriment of human freedom.”

But NASA continues to fail to set the record straight, and has instead chosen to sit silently back and watch.

“In the year 2000, NASA did publish information on its Earth Observatory website about the Milankovitch Climate Theory, revealing that the planet is, in fact, changing due to extraneous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity. But, again, this information has yet to go mainstream, some 19 years later.”

Basically Milankovitch “proposed about how the seasonal and latitudinal variations of solar radiation that hit the earth in different ways, and at different times, have the greatest impact on earth’s changing climate patterns.”

Again to be clear, I am not an astrophysicist, nor could I ever pretend to be one, but simplistically either Milankovitch’s theory is either right or wrong. No reasonable person could expect either a liberal to understand the physics behind this theory, but how come NASA continues to be quiet about what it published  back in 2000? 

Is NASA actually the same as the FBI/DOJ seem to be these days … merely pawns of those in government that “know best?”

If anyone knows anybody who works for NASA, please ask him/her to explain why the Milankovitch Climate Theory or NASA’s past support of this theory is not being discussed openly.

8/29/22

Those who have made a mistake, and then admit that they were in error, need to be praised!

Recently I read a thoughtful piece by M.B. Mathews on Rip’s Newsletter elucidating the reasons why Donald Trump should not run in 2024. For those not familiar with Rip’s Newsletter, it contains well-written pieces which have a definite and a consistent conservative slant. I did not agree with Mr. Mathews, but nonetheless had to agree that Donald Trump did indeed have shortcomings.

On 8/27/22 Rip’s Newsletter had yet another piece by M.B.Mathews. It started out a ball of fire as follows:

“I recently wrote a column about why I believed Trump should not run in 2024. I was wrong. I allowed my distaste for Trump’s personality to override his virtues, which are considerable. Some people want Trump without his vices. I was among them, until yesterday, when I watched and listened to Tom Klingenstein’s speech titled “Trump’s virtues.”  It was masterful and shamed me that I did not make the distinction between Trump’s character and his virtues, the former being deeply flawed, the latter being almost perfect. I need to man up in my defense of the former President’s virtues. The speech was among the most pointed I have heard.”

As background yours truly has been a Trump fan since I saw him on Fox years before he was a candidate for President. I would guess that was in 2014, and at that time I remarked, “Wow! I like that guy. He tells it like it is.” I subsequently read his 1987  book, “The Art of the Deal,” which was part memoir and part business dealings, and I continued to be impressed. After his 2016 victory and throughout his presidency, I continued to be a stalwart fan of his. Why? … because he was a terrific president. Did I follow him on Twitter? No. Why? … because his actions were speaking louder than his words. Does he have a filter between his mind and his mouth? … Unfortunately, often times, not. Back then, when queried as to how I could like someone who said such dastardly and mean things, I would respond that I could probably not be his best friend, but he’s making a helluva President.

Mathews’ excellent piece of 8/27/22 made that same point over and over again. Namely, that Donald Trump’s personality does have it’s shortcomings, but he is the transformational man that the U.S. needs as the President in these times of crisis.

Again from Mathews’ recent piece:

“In 2016, we loved Trump for his outspokenness. But many seem to have changed their minds without cause; Trump is the same today as he was before he was elected. The very things we disdain today are the things that made him the man for our time.”

To M.B. Mathews …”you the man!”

I would strongly recommend Rip’s Newsletter and especially the 8/27/22 piece by M.B. Mathews. I would especially recommend this essay to all of you ‘Never-Trumpers’ and especially to those who think that a good President must kowtow to the P.C. crowd.

For a while I have regularly David Leonhardt’s columns in the New York Times. No, I am not a convert to the NYT’s slanted way of thinking, but I felt that David Leonhardt was honest, fair, and a good writer. However, recently something has changed. First, for a few weeks David Leonhardt was not writing any pieces … perhaps he was on vacation? Hoverer, then his articles were increasingly being co-written, and, to me they were just not the same. Finally on 8/24/22 even though his name was listed as a co-author of “The Morning: Deniers, enablers, accepters,” this was not the David Leonhardt that I had known and appreciated before. This article was a picture perfect example of “gaslighting.”

(For those of you unfamiliar with the term:

‘Gaslighting’ is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in their victim’s mind. Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain power and control over the other person, by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition.)

The article in general is about claims that the 2020 was fraudulent. What I found striking was that before the words, “election claims” the word “false” was consistently inserted. 

From that article, some examples of the gaslighting in the article (the underlining is mine):

“Republicans who falsely claimed that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent …”

“… Trump’s false claims of fraud.”

“ … to the false claims about the 2020 election. 

“ other Republicans who do echo Trump’s lies.”

“ … who has made false election claims.”

“ who has also repeatedly made false election claims.”

“ … who have treated false election”

To me this issue of whether or not there was overwhelming voter fraud has not been settled, but Leonhardt et al. seem to be gaslighting the reader with repeated use of the word, “false.” It was never “questionable” election claims or perhaps “unfounded” election claims or even “ alleged” election claims … always “false” election claims of fraud. 

But is the issue of “fraudulent election claims” a settled issue?

Nearly two years into the Biden presidency, allegations of fraud in the 2020 Presidential electioncontinue to make headlines.

Allegations of voting fraud are not a fringe position held by a small minority. Polling shows that nearly half of American voters have serious doubts about Joe Biden’s election victory. According to a January Axios/Momentive poll, only a small majority (55 percent) accepts Biden as having legitimately won the 2020 election, down slightly from 58 percent a year earlier.

A Monmouth University poll in late 2021 provided similar findings: a third of the American public (32 percent) believes that Biden won the 2020 election only due to voter fraud—a percentage that has not changed across five different polls conducted by the university in 2021. Nearly 3 in 4 Republicans (73 percent) hold the same belief that the 2020 election was fraudulent.

And it isn’t just the general public expressing doubt. Dozens of Republican candidates for state and federal offices have made talking about 2020 election fraud a key part of their successful primary campaigns.

As you may or may not be aware, to me, there is little doubt that the aforementioned 2020 election was stolen. Nonetheless, I do find it interesting that the liberal press is resorting to gaslighting. I wonder whether the the incessant use of “false,” is an indication that they are less sure that Joe Biden was elected legitimately. When individuals or groups resort to gaslighting, it is usually because they are trying to convince someone that they are right when in essence, they are wrong. Hmmm!

8/27/22

www.californiacontrarian.com

In an obvious move to bribe voters ahead of this year’s midterm election President Biden issued another dictum – this one on student loan forgiveness. Aye-Yai-Yai; ay caramba!

From Richard Vetter on Fox Business:

“When I learned of President Joe Biden’s latest student loan forgiveness plan, seven words, all beginning with the letter “I,” came to mind: I thought the idea was illegal, inflationary, immoral, inequitable, irresponsible, irrational and idiotic. 

Illegal – Nothing in that law (P.L.111-152) allows for the president on his own authority to dramatically change its terms. In fact, several years ago a U.S. Department of Education legal counsel memo found that it would be unconstitutional for a president to unilaterally change the terms of the law.

Inflationary- We are in times of high inflation. Forgiving student loans increases incentives for colleges to raise tuition and fees more aggressively. Even staunch liberal Democratic economists like former Treasury secretary Larry Summers and Council of Economic Advisers head Jason Furman have opposed loan forgiveness because of the impact on prices.

Immoral – It is wrong to tell some borrowers that they need not meet their loan obligations — letting some favored persons ignore legal commitments, but not others.

Inequitable – Is it fair to the millions of student loan borrowers who financially sacrificed in order to dutifully pay off obligations, while other Americans ignored their obligations, lived a bit better and are now being rewarded by the government?

Irresponsible – One estimate (from Penn Wharton) is that this will cost the government some $300 billion in foregone revenues, and that ignores the additional $10,000 in loan forgivenesses ess Biden is offering Pell Grant recipients (a majority of borrowers).

Irrational – It makes little sense to help a subset of the population that on average is fairly well off, especially for Democrats professing to be the party supporting lower-income Americans who mostly did not go to college. 

Idiotic – The assumption that this move will win more Democratic votes in November than it will lose sounds far-fetched to me. How will doubling down on progressive policies that have not heretofore proven popular advance the Democratic agenda leading up to the 2024 presidential election?

President Biden was speaking about the student debt program he ordered when a reporter asked him to comment on the challenge that the policy was unfair to those borrowers who worked hard to pay off their loans.

“Is this unfair to people who paid their student loans or chose not to take out loans?” asked Karen Travers of ABC News.

Biden’s inane insipid response: “Is it fair to people who, in fact, do not own multibillion-dollar businesses if they see one of these guys getting all the tax breaks? Is that fair? What do you think?” Biden inappropriately responded.

“What about people who paid their loans, though, struggled to pay their loans, and now others don’t have to?” asked another reporter.

Biden’s insolent response to that second question demonstrated how insecure he is … he walked out of the room!!!

Inappropriate? Yes, in spades!

And this guy is the President! Aye-Yai-Yai!!

8/26/22

californiacontrarian

I just read an amazing article from City Journal which is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank. In general the article is about the present situation of drug addiction and homelessness. I have given some thought to these problems, and I freely admit that I do not have the answer. 

I am basically of the school of thought that personal responsibility must be a stimulating factor to get homeless people off of the streets and drug addicts off drugs. However after reading this article I discovered that this is not actually what is happening, and furthermore, what is happening is insane … fulfilling Einstein’s famous quote (“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result!”).

Some facts from this same article: 

“We know that current policies don’t work. Drug overdoses have risen 500 percent in just two decades. More than 100,000 Americans overdosed last year, the vast majority from opioids. More drug abuse has been accompanied by more violence and crime, as well as increases in homelessness, especially on the street. Many cities have seen a doubling in annual homeless deaths just over the last five years. Earlier fears about heroin or the crack epidemic pale in comparison with the modern blight.”

“Most Americans understand the obvious: the government shouldn’t be supporting drug abuse and crime. The taxpayer should not feed such habits or make it harder for addicts to get clean. In a better world, the government would help damaged individuals to move ahead with their lives. But today, as many homeless people know, the government is helping them kill themselves on the public dime.”

The article is long but eye-opening that I have included how to find it and thus read it for yourself. 

“Subsidizing Addiction | City Journal (city-journal.org)”

You will not regret spending the time to read it, as it is well worth it!

8/25/22

californiacontrarian

As we are now all aware, there were two main big problems with the Covid pandemic.

First, there was no way to identify which infected patients were going to do well, and which were more likely to end up in an ICU. This led to the absolute insanity of treating college students in their twenties the same as those in their seventies and eighties with vaccine mandates, forced isolation mandates, and nonsensical universal masking and spatial distancing.

If only there had been a simple way to identify those at high risk! 

News flash from the Epoch Times:

“Chiba University in Japan recently announced the results of a new study that found that the severity of COVID-19 is highly correlated with the concentration of myosin light chain 9 (Myl9) protein in the blood. The findings could help hospitals determine which patient groups should be prioritized for admission and discharge, and thereby reduce the burden on the healthcare system.

A research team led by Chiba University Hospital announced on Aug. 1 that they published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences at the end of July that found the higher the concentration of Myl9 in the plasma of patients with COVID-19, the more severe the patient’s condition, and the longer the hospitalization time.”

Wow if this pans out … a likely Nobel Prize for the Japanese.

The second major problem was that there was no cheap, accepted treatment. “Go home. Pray and go to the hospital if you develop trouble breathing” did not inspire confidence with anybody. I have written many times about the success of Ivermectin in other countries around the world, but here in the U.S. Ivermectin was ‘persona non grata,’ because Dr. Fauci and the FDA said so … note that neither see any live patients!!

Well, Ivermectin, is back in the news. Actually, that’s not really true, as Ivermectin was never in the news because it was banned by the all knowing FDA. However the prodigious FDA did come out with a statement about Ivermectin that was fitting to that organization … “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

Really! The fact that the “Food and Drug Administration” actually said that in August, 2021 tells me a lot about how seriously I should acknowledge what it says. Did I take Ivermectin when I tested positive for Covid? … No, I did not, mainly because to me it was just a bad cold. Did I have (and still have) Ivermectin? … Yes, although it was not prescribed for me. How did I get it? … MYOB! 

To me, the fact that Ivermectin was persona-non-grata is an absolute folly. Ivermectin has been given to millions of people in Africa to treat “River Blindness,” and the side effects of that drug are minuscule! Is it useful in treating Covid? … I do not know, but I do know that in many countries there have been impressive statistics that suggest that it is very useful for Covid. However, Dr. Fauci and the FDA have maintained that the usefulness of Ivermectin in Covid has not been proven in a controlled double-blind study … possibly true, but unrelated to the real issue, which is whether or not the FDA has either the right or the authority to prevent physicians from using drugs for off-label illnesses. FYI: Physicians use drugs for off-label treatments all of the time. Why was Ivermectin singled out?? … To me this FDA decision was obviously political – the patients be damned! Although at this point the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid seems be like shutting the barn door after the horses have already gotten out, finally this issue will be settled in court.

From the Epoch Times:

In a lawsuit filed June 2, Drs. Robert L. Apter, Mary Talley Bowden and Paul E. Marik argued the FDA acted outside of its authority by directing the public, including health professionals and patients, to not use ivermectin — even though the drug is fully approved by the FDA for human use.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division, also names the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and Robert Califf, acting FDA commissioner.

According to the complaint:

“The FDA generally cannot ban particular uses of human drugs once they are otherwise approved and admitted to the market, even if such use differs from the labeling — commonly referred to as ‘off-label’ use.

“The FDA also can not advise whether a patient should take an approved drug for a particular purpose. Those decisions fall within the scope of the doctor-patient relationship.

“Attempts by the FDA to influence or intervene in the doctor-patient relationship amount to interference with the practice of medicine, the regulation of which is — and always has been — reserved to states.”

The plaintiffs said their lawsuit isn’t about whether ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. It’s about who determines the appropriate treatment for each unique patient and whether the FDA can interfere with that process.

I fully agree with the merits of this suit, and hope that the plaintiffs are successful. I will be following this lawsuit as best I can, as assuredly you will not be reading about it or otherwise hearing about it in the Main Stream Media.

8/24/22

From the San Diego Union Tribune on November 29, 2021:

“The way out of this pandemic is through vaccines,” Mayor Todd Gloria said, “and the city of San Diego should lead by example.”

This statement was made after a the San Diego City Council vote

at a special Monday meeting in November, 2021. At that meeting the City Council of San Diego in a pair of 8-1 votes, agreed to move forward with the mandate, which requires employees to show proof of full vaccination or request a medical or religious exemption by the following Wednesday. Non-complaint employees will have 30 days to comply; otherwise they will face termination.

Councilmember Chris Cate cast the dissenting vote.

He said he is vaccinated but believes vaccination should be a choice.”

Wow! A choice! What a novel idea! Whereas I did not know anything about Chris Cate, I wondered if he was the only member of the San Diego City Council who had heard of The Constitution.

In February, 2022 the organization ReOpen San Diego sued the city of San Diego this week over the city’s mandate that all city employees, elected officials, board and commission members and volunteers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court and challenged as unconstitutional and discriminatory the vaccination mandate City Council passed Nov. 29, 2021.

One might ask, “Why bring this up now?”

From the Epoch Times:

“A lawsuit challenging San Diego’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for municipal employees will move forward after a federal judge on Tuesday, 8/16/22 rejected the city’s request to dismiss the complaint.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said the city’s motion to dismiss did not address recent developments in case law and public health guidance pertaining to COVID-19 public health measures, restrictions and requirements.

Responding to the decision, Arie Spangler, an attorney representing ReOpen San Diego, remarked:

“The majority of governments (and employers) are now backing away from COVID vaccination mandates, the data is showing that the currently available vaccinations do not prevent transmission or infection, and the city has been unable to present any credible authority supporting its position that it has a legal right to require elected officials, board and commission members and volunteers to provide proof of vaccination in order to serve the city.

“The lawsuit also claimed: “The Ordinance and Plan are … blatantly illegal, as they violate the U.S. Constitution and state and local law and offend the foundational principles of democracy.”

Err … Here is that pesky U.S. Constitution again!

Whereas while I believe that the Mayor of San Diego and the eight City Councilmembers who enthusiastically backed this inane mandate back in November, 2021 have little knowledge of The Constitution, they are not alone. What is already happening in many states is that many of these mandates are being judged to be unconstitutional (e.g. New York, Illinois, California, etc.)

However, this fundamental lack of The Constitution goes all the way up the ladder. The previous month, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for federal employees until at least September, when the case will be heard before the court’s full 17-judge panel. Even though President Biden did graduate from law school a million years ago, I do believe that The Constitution was being taught while he was a law student.

Does any doubt that while politics played a large role in many, if not all, of these prior mandates, simultaneously The Constitution was shoved to the back burner, and the following wise words of Benjamin Franklin were forgotten … “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

8/23/22

californiacontrarian

Last week, the IRS took down a job description from its website that called for the ability to use lethal force. Why did they take it down? Could it be because with the potential hiring of 87,000 new agents, the public would be rightfully be scared to death if they discovered that the IRS was armed.

The piece advertising the IRS job went like this:

The IRS is hiring new special agents! 

Requirements include working min “50 hours per week, which may include irregular hours, and be on-call 24/7, including holidays and weekends” and “Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary.”

Why guns?

Further frightening stats:

Between March 1 and June 1, 2022, the criminal division of the IRS ordered $696,000 in ammunition, the IRS told VERIFY in an email.”

In a 2018 report, the IRS was shown to generally spend $675,000 on ammunition a year in the previous seven years. Why ammunition?

(To be fair, applying for the job doesn’t exclusively mean participating in operations within the bounds of the United States. IRS:CI HAS SPECIAL AGENT attachés strategically stationed in 11 foreign countries.)

But I am certain that the response from the IRS would be that the IRS would never use weapons against law-abiding Americans. I could have believed that prior to last week’s FBI/DOJ raid on Trump’s residence of Mår-a-Lago, where there were innumerable armed agents – not armed with pistols, but with what appeared to be high powered guns.. These armed FBI agents basically barged their way into the Trump compound, and would let any attorneys follow them around. Why big time high-powered guns?

Could armed FBI agents, armed DOJ agents, or armed IRS agents forcibly break into your place of residence, and basically do whatever they please? … Unfortunately, in this day and age if you do not agree with those presently in charge, the answer is “yes!”

8/22/22

Californiacontrarian