http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

How many times have I said something to the effect that the sun will rise in the west when the very liberal Supreme Court Justices agree with the very conservative Justices in a non-unanimous decision. Sometimes the case is a no-brainer, and as a consequence all nine justices agree. However this past week there was a case that was decided 8-1, and the three far left Justices agreed with the majority opinion by the very conservative Clarence Thomas.

The Supreme Court ruled on 3/8/21 that a student in Georgia could pursue a lawsuit challenging speech restrictions at his college even though he sought only nominal damages.

The 8-1 decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, said that Chike Uzuegbunam — who was silenced by Georgia Gwinnett College officials even after he had obtained a permit to proselytize and handout religious literature — can seek nominal damages despite the fact that the school ultimately changed course and Uzuegbunam subsequently graduated.

Mr. Uzuegbunam sued, saying Gwinnett College’s policies violated his First Amendment rights, and to his credit he did not back down. Supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom, he took his case all the way to SCOTUS.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in the 8-1 decision, said a request for even a token sum, typically a dollar, satisfied the Constitution’s requirement that federal courts decide only actual cases or controversies in cases. The fact that the college had withdrawn the speech code challenged in the suit, he wrote, did not make the case moot.

“Despite being small,” Justice Thomas wrote, “nominal damages are certainly concrete.”

From ABC News:

“When public officials violate constitutional rights, it causes serious harm to the victims,” said Kristen Waggoner, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Uzuegbunam in the case. ‘When such officials engage in misconduct but face no consequences, it leaves victims without recourse, undermines the nation’s commitment to protecting constitutional rights, and emboldens the government to engage in future violations. We are pleased that the Supreme Court weighed in on the side of justice for those victims.’”

Without going into the details of the case, who do you think was the dissenter? One doesn’t have to think very long to determine that the lone dissenter was Justice John (“we cannot take up any election cases as there will be riots in the streets”) Roberts. He continues to make a case as to why Supreme Court Justices should not be appointed for life. His decisions are all over the lot, and some do not appear to make much sense. On this one the Chief Justice said the majority had turned judges into advice columnists. Huh??? Chief Justice Roberts did not make much sense here . . . again!

Free speech finally wins one, despite Justice Roberts standing for basically nothing.

At the present time there is no doubt that the Washington Post made “a mistake” by misquoting what the President Trump said on a phone call with a Chief investigator in Georgia’s Secretary of State Office, Frances Watson back in December, 2020. As you might recall at that time President Trump was questioning the vote counts in multiple states.(Also recall that millions of Americans were similarly questioning the same thing . . . and many still are.)

Could this type of questioning be detrimental for those on the left? . . . Possible?

Could their thinking have been along the lines of . . . “perhaps the best defense against such questioning would be a good offense.” . . . Possible?

As we all know the Washington Post is a widely read nationally syndicated newspaper. Could the thinking by someone back then have been something like this? . . .  Maybe the best way to distract the nation away from any further such questioning of some election results would be to go after President Trump by besmirching his reputation. Perhaps a quote from a telephone call would tilt opinion against the President.

But there was no such quote. Could it be that someone then suggested an anonymous source for such a quote? Hmmm! . . . Possible?

Conveniently after reporting that Trump was trying to twist arms in Georgia by stating, “find the fraud,” the audio of that phone mysteriously disappeared. Hmmm!

Could it be that there actually was a recording, and that recording was purposely “misplaced?” . . . Possible?

But then . . .a miracle!

The audio of the approximately 6-minute call between Trump and Frances Watson, the chief investigator of the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, was published by The Wall Street Journal on March 11 and shows Trump never told anyone on the call to “find the fraud,” as was reported by WaPo back in December. 

Oops! Double oops, WaPo! Now a retraction of sorts.

Wapo’s response to this latest miraculous recording resurrection:

“The recording revealed that the Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source,” it said. “Trump did not tell the investigator to ‘find the fraud,’ or say she would be ‘a national hero’ if she did so.

“Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find ‘dishonesty’ there. He also told her that she had ‘the most important job in the country right now.'”

Hmmm!

Now there are a couple of big problems with WaPo saying “Mea Culpa” , now in mid March, 2021.

First: Someone “misreported” (“lied” is perhaps a more accurate word) at a time when it was important for liberals to throw water on that potential spark which was questioning the veracity of some of these vote tallies.

Second: Could it be that WaPo knew that this anonymous source, if there actually was one, was lying? It does not appear that WaPo confirmed this anonymous source – which would have been what an honest newspaper would have done. Since there was no independent confirmation, could it be that someone figured that “dishonesty was the best policy?” . . . as long as there was no recording of what was actually said on the phone who could say different? . . . Possible?

Third: While WaPo issued a retraction of its syndicated story, I did not see that retraction in my local newspaper. Could it be that this retraction was not syndicated? Furthermore, could it be that those newspapers further down on the syndication chain were told not to carry that retraction in their local paper? . . . Possible? On the other hand, could my local liberal newspaper have made its own decision to not report that retraction story to its readers? Possible?

Fourth: . . . It gets worse! These same erroneous “quotes” were also reported by . . . brace yourselves . . . NBC News, ABC News, USA Today, PBS News Hour, and CNN, many of whom supposedly “confirmed” these “quotes” through their own anonymous sources. Hmmm! Nothing like one anonymous source confirming another anonymous source about some “fake news!”

One would hope that perhaps some good could come from this skullduggery. (again, another word for “purposely lying”) Could it be that a lot of those recently converted to “anti-Trumpism” (“he has tarnished his reputation forever by his post-election antics”) would learn not to believe a lot of B.S. promulgated by the liberal Main Stream Media? . . . Possible, but unlikely!

Now one needs to wear a mask to go inside just about anywhere, because “those in the know” say so! Britain has just stated that there was no risk of contracting the virus while at a beach, and we have known for a while that the chance of catching or spreading the virus while outside is minuscule, even though for quite a while, beach going was verboten. Granted if someone sneezed in your face while you were outside, all bets would be off, but again there is only a very small probability of this happening. At this point just about everybody has accepted mask wearing as a fait accompli. A “when in Rome philosophy” is just easier now days.

As best I can tell no one has protested and vocalized that diktats to wear masks are unconstitutional, even though they probably are. (except possibly where private businesses are concerned.)

The next stop on this voyage aboard the ship, “The Un-Constitution”, will be the demanding of proof of vaccination to do X,Y, or Z. Right now one must wear a mask to travel just about anywhere, but how far are we from demanding demanding proof of vaccination to travel anywhere? What about demanding proof that one has gotten the vaccine as a prerequisite to work? Impossible, you say? Actually it is already beginning. 

From the New York Post:

“Restaurant staffers in New York joined the list of people eligible for the shot earlier this month. Not long after, management at a Brooklyn eatery emailed staffers to let them know they were eligible, and later said the vaccine would be “mandatory” for all employees.

Bonnie Jacobson, 34, told The Post that the management at Red Hook Tavern canned her on Monday because she balked at getting the shot immediately.

Jacobson, who has been married since October 2019, stressed that she’s not an anti-vaxxer and “fully supports” people being inoculated, but said she wants to wait for more research on the coronavirus vaccine’s possible effects on fertility.”

Hmmm! 

Certainly since the vaccine has only been around for two months, it is reasonable to say that no one knows if there is an effect on one’s future fertility. Is Mrs. Jacobson’s concern beyond the pale? 

The response of Red Hook Tavern . . . “Tough! You’re Fired!” Red Hook Tavern must feel pretty confident of its position concerning this issue, as at this point since there has apparently not been any dramatic side-effects from the vaccine. However, if the vaccine proves to have some serious side-effects, would diktats like those from Red Hook Tavern hold up in court?

Yes, older people have died in the week following their vaccine, but their death has been deemed something that would have occurred anyway. (If a ninety year old dies from a stroke six days after getting the vaccine, it is not unreasonable to say that the stroke would have occurred anyway.) However there are reports of younger individuals dying within close proximity to getting the vaccine.

Also from the New York Post:

“A former Detroit news anchor who worked at the country’s first black-owned television station died a day after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, a report said.

Karen Hudson-Samuels, 68, who also worked as a producer and news director at WGPR-TV, was found dead in her home by her husband, Cliff Samuels, CBS Detroit reported.”

The question that I have is whether or not at some point in the future the general populace will say, “Enough! Let us make our own decisions concerning what we will and will not do . . . based on the Constitution.”

Does anyone in a governing position in this country have the nerve to do what President Reagan did forty years ago? Granted, Ronald Reagan did many things forty years ago, but I am here referring to August 5, 1981.

Does anybody remember what he did on that date? 

This is neither a random date nor a random question. I am refreshing everyone’s memory because of something else that is happening in 2121.

The following are the facts  . . . the ( ) are my personal feelings:

From History on This Date, August 5:

On August 5, 1981, President Ronald Reagan began firing 11,359 air-traffic controllers striking in violation of his order for them to return to work. The executive action, regarded as extreme by many, significantly slowed air travel for months. (However, there have been no adverse long term consequences to his decisive action.)

Two days earlier, on August 3, almost 13,000 air-traffic controllers went on strike after negotiations with the federal government to raise their pay and shorten their workweek proved fruitless. The controllers complained of difficult working conditions and a lack of recognition of the pressures they face. The same day, President Reagan called the strike illegal and threatened to fire any controller who had not returned to work within 48 hours. (The important thing to note is that President Reagan had the cajones to identify a critical problem in this country.)

On August 5, President Reagan carried out his threat, and the federal government began firing the 11,359 air-traffic controllers who had not returned to work. (Not only did he identify a critical issue for the country, , but he had the cajones to follow through on his threat.)

In addition, he declared a lifetime ban on the rehiring of the strikers by the Federal Aviation Administration. On August 17, the FAA began accepting applications for new air-traffic controllers, and on October 22 the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified PATCO, the union of the air-traffic controllers. (Those who felt that Reagan was bluffing eventually recognized that they shouldn’t have challenged Reagan.)

So here we are forty years later, and the question is does anyone in charge have the cajones to do anything similar to what Reagan did back in 1981?

At present we have a critical nationwide problem. Children across the country are suffering in a multitude of different ways because they are not in school. Not only is the plight of our country’s children being ignored, but also millions of their parents, especially those in the lower socioeconomic are likewise being slighted. For the good of the country and its future, all of the children need to be back in school full time.

(Here I am referring to full time in-person school, not the “dancing with your sister”-like Zoom school.) In a realistic sense, the kids should be back in school next Monday, but we all know that some school districts will continue to lallygag even possibly into the beginning of the next school year. 

My suggestion – Reaganesque-like action . . . 

“By May 5, 2121, all schools and all teachers need to be back on the job, in their classrooms, full time.”

The different districts across the country should begin that transition now. No more tap dancing. Teachers that are not back on the job on that date should be fired, and just like back in 1981, never rehired!

This type of concrete action should have been taken on August 5, 2020, but unfortunately wasn’t. It is needed now, and hopefully would be an example of how those in charge should act when the next pandemic hits.

In a practical sense, does anybody now in charge have the cajones of a Ronald Reagan?

Nationally, does Joe Biden?  HEAVENS NO!

Locally, does Gavin Newsom of California, the state with the least in person education in the nation have the cajones? HELL NO! 

Odds are that the vast majority of people in the US have no idea who John James is. For the uninformed he is a West Point graduate, an Iraq War veteran, a businessman, and a loser in the recent Senate race in Michigan. His opponent, Gary Peters (D), got 49.9% of the vote, and won the Michigan Senate race by 9335 votes.

Other notes of interest about John James. He was born in Southfield, Michigan which is in Oakland County and abuts on the border of Wayne County (Detroit). In other words he is a local guy, and furthermore John James is black.

Statewide Mr. Peters got 49.9% of the vote and beat John James by 92,635 votes.

In both Wayne County (Detroit) and Oakland County, Joe Biden got about 4000 more votes than John James. This is somewhat surprising to me as I would have expected John James to have done better both in predominately black Detroit and in his home county. In Wayne County (Detroit) Gary Peters won by 322,221 votes, getting almost 70% of the vote. Hmmm!

As you recall there was a lot of “funny stuff” that happened in Detroit on election night. Biden’s lead grew immensely once absentee and mail-in ballots were counted. According to unofficial election results, Biden pulled in 415,465 absentee votes in Wayne County. Trump had just 130,880. Factoring in just Election Day voting at polling locations, Trump lost by just about 40,000 votes.

Wayne County wasn’t the only state that saw absentee ballots go in Biden’s favor quite heavily, but it was one that caught a lot of attention after ballot challengers outside the TCF Center in Detroit where ballots were being counted.

Now the votes for the presidential election are done! Even if Michigan’s vote presidential vote tally were to have been reversed because of skulduggery ( a nice word for fraud), Biden would have still won the necessary electoral votes to have been elected.

However, what about John James?

Remember if John James actually won the Senate would be 51-49 in favor of the Republicans. How different would that be!

I think that John James got the shaft, and as a consequence the country is getting the shaft.

Some people pride themselves on being good at giving away other people’s money. For some reason unbeknownst  to me, a lot of these individuals seem to gravitate into politics, at least here in Southern California. These politicians just do not seem to understand that those businesses whose money is being given away are not enthusiastic when politicians try to gain political points by giving away some of the hard earned profits of their business. This is especially true when profit margins are slim. 

So of course, in an attempt to make people like them, (and by the way, continue to vote for them), these pols make very questionable decisions that can hurt the very ones that they are naively attempting to help. 

In Long Beach, California, in January, the City Council unanimously decided that those who work in grocery stores will be given “hero pay” of an additional $4.00 per hour for four months. The Democrat mayor of Long Beach then signed this money giveaway mandate. The response was an anticipated one . . .  two Kroger grocery stores in Long Beach subsequently closed.

As would expected, not to be outdone, the Los Angeles City Council decided that they should do the same thing, namely give “hero pay” of an additional $4.00 per hour to their grocery store workers. Keep in mind that this money was not money that belonged to the Los Angeles City Council, but rather was money that belonged to the various grocery stores.

So in L.A what do you think happened next? Right! Two Ralphs stores and one Food 4 Less, both of which are owned by Kroger, will shut down in May, joining the other two Kroger locations that closed after a $4 hero pay hike was mandated in Long Beach.

From Townhall, in a news release Kroger said:

“The mandate will add an additional $20 million in operating costs over the next 120 days, making it financially unsustainable to continue operating underperforming locations.”

Kroger continued, “The Los Angeles City Council disregarded their own Economic Impact Report by not considering that grocery stores – even in a pandemic – operate on razor-thin profit margins in a very competitive landscape.”

(A total of 289 associates at the three L.A. stores will be affected by the upcoming May 15 closures, Kroger told the Washington Examiner.)

So let’s get this straight . . . “those Democrats on the City Councils of both Long Beach and Los Angeles (“those that think that know best”) are seemingly astounded that Kroger Foods wasn’t happy that their slim profits were being given away. As a consequence of the ineptitude and shortsightedness of those City Councils, many of those who had worked in these now closed stores in Long Beach, and in those soon to be closed L.A. stores will lose their jobs. (A total of 289 associates at the three L.A. stores will be affected by the May 15 closures, Kroger told the Washington Examiner.)

According to the LA Times, there was only one supervisor who voted against the measure, predicting what would happen if the temporary pay hike was implemented. 

“I would hate to think we’re driving [out of business] the very businesses we fought so hard to locate in unincorporated areas, many of which are working-class neighborhoods,” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger. 

Ms. Barger was indeed right on!

Be forewarned. This same sort of inept inane thinking could well be coming soon to a Democratic city near you. If you live in a city with a Democrat City Council, perhaps you should stock up on some groceries now.

Finally, somewhat stepped up and confronted the powerful teacher’s unions – in Massachusetts, nonetheless! The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) finally drew the line on kids going back to school in April.

From Boston 25 News:

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education met and voted 8-3 on 3/5/21 to authorize Massachusetts Education Commissioner Jeffrey Riley to put a timeline on ending remote and hybrid learning.

Finally a state has the kahunas to say enough is enough.

In response to the vote Friday evening, Massachusetts’s Governor Baker released a statement:

“Learning in the classroom is the best and safest place for students to be with proper safety protocols, and our administration is pleased that the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education took this step to get more kids back into the classroom. The data is clear that students learning in the classroom can be done safely and it is vital to their emotional and intellectual health. We are grateful for the Board’s support and look forward to getting all students back to in person learning soon.”

Back in the summer, the Massachusetts school districts were required to come up with three plans: remote, hybrid and in-person learning, so schools should already have a plan in place if to return to having students in the classroom. Finally, no more delaying as a plan to return students to the classroom should already be in  place.

The details, still from Boston 25 News:

Districts must offer full-time, in-person learning five days a week for kindergarten through fifth grade by April 5, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) Commissioner Jeff Riley announced Tuesday. The deadline to begin full, in-person learning for sixth through eighth grade is April 28.

The state has not yet set a date for a full return for high-schoolers, saying only that the timeline will be announced in April, with at least two weeks of notice.

The regulations released Tuesday, 3/10, are “legally binding,” DESE writes, adding that districts that do not comply and do not obtain a waiver from the state “will be required to make up any missed structured learning time.” That may include summer school or additional lessons next school year.

FINALLY ! No more stalling!

Only two questions:

1. What took them so long to finally put on their big-boy pants?
2. California are you listening?

(BTW: Parents may still choose to keep their children remote for the rest of the school year.) 

I just read a front page article in my local Sunday “newspaper” that in a way infuriated me. The piece was titled, “Many Families of Color Wary of Return to School.” With that title, I initially optimistically had thought that there was going to be some educating of those who are reluctant to return their kids to school. Educate them as to what the statistics are as far as kids getting Covid at school and then bringing it home. Wrong! No such stats, and therefore no educating of anyone.

I also thought that there would be some encouraging stats on how impressively well kids do when they are exposed to and come down with the virus. Oops, wrong again! No such stats were presented, and thus no educating of the readers.

I also erroneously assumed that it would be pointed out that it is the poorer families, mainly those of color, whose kids are disproportionately adversely effected by being forced to do Zoom school. In fact this was mentioned at the end of the article, but was pooh-poohed in a quote from the CEO of the Chicano Federation, who went off on a non-related tangent about discrepancies in education that existed long before Covid. True as far as educational discrepancies in the past, but not related to the subject matter at hand.

Next were the individual stories from parents concerning their fears of getting sick from Covid. Interestingly members of a few of these families had already had Covid and had recovered. This would have been the perfect opportunity to educate these families (as well as all of the readers) that their chance of getting Covid a second time is minuscule. Again no such attempt to educate.

The final disappointing straw that broke the back of the non-education scenario involved the vaccine. The author comprehensively noted the Covid stats in San Diego County for Hispanics, Blacks, and Whites. It is certainly true that the Hispanic population has had a higher percent of the county’s Covid cases (56%), and a higher percent of the county’s Covid related deaths (43%) compared to the percent of Latinos (38%) living in the county. However, while Latinos make up 38% of the population, they have only received 17% of the vaccinations. Why is that? Perhaps another perfect time to educate the readers, especially the Hispanic readers, on how safe and effective these various vaccines are at preventing Covid, and even more so at preventing Covid-related hospitalizations and Covid deaths. But no . . . another education fumble. 

Parenthetically, perhaps this would have been the perfect opportunity for the same CEO of the Chicano Federation, Nancy Maldonado, to spread the vaccine-safety and vaccine-effectiveness word to Chicanos, and maybe demonstrate that by receiving her vaccine with a fanfare of publicity.

To me, without question this pandemic has had devastating effects on many families of color, but now is the time to educate these families so that their kids can get back to school. Publicize the statistics that should help overcome their Covid-school fears. Why do I not see anything like this in our newspapers?

3/10/21

These are Covid tidbits that you will not read in your “newspaper:”

• In some places they are using specially trained dogs to detect Covid. These dogs have a 94% accuracy in both symptomatic and asymptomatic Covid positive individuals. They are being used in airports in Helsinki, Finland and Santiago, Chile and also in Dubai. In the US these dogs have been used at Miami Heat basketball games.
• The Czech Republic and Slovakia have just approved using Ivermectin by prescription as treatment in hospitalized Covid patients who are over eighteen years old. Ivermectin (Huvemec) comes in 3mg size tablets. The dose is 0.2 mg/kg/day on days 1, 3, and 5, with a maximum daily dose of 24 mg. They have not seen any safety issues with this regime. It is not to be used in pregnancy. This Ivermectin approval is for six months.

YouTube has removed President Trump’s CPAC speech from it’s platform. This is the latest infringement on free speech. The Social Media giants, including Facebook,YouTube, and Google had been suppressing free speech  since prior to November 2020 in order to sway the election outcome. Itworked (allegations against Biden’s son seem to have miraculously disappeared!) Now four months after the November presidential election, we have a “President” who won’t (and possibly can’t) speak without a script. The Social Media giants continue to silence conservative free speech on their platforms because of absurd, made up reasons that, me thinks, translates into spite or perhaps fear.

Actually, I did not listen to Trump’s entire CPAC speech when it was “okay” for me to listen, but since it is now verboten, I have found some clips that will provide everyone with the essence of that speech, and I will provide it for free.

From Townhall:

1- What Trumpism Means

“It means low taxes. It means eliminating job-killing regulations. Trumpism means strong borders, but people coming into our country based on a system of merit so they can come in and help us as opposed to coming here and not being good for us, including criminals.”

TRUMP: “Trumpism means strong borders… no riots in the streets. It means law enforcement. It means very strong protection for the Second Amendment… It means support for the forgotten men and women who have been taken advantage of for so many years” 

2- Not Creating a Third Party

Although there has been growing speculation about President Trump breaking off from the Republican Party and creating his own political party, he said that was not the case.

“I am not starting a new party. That was fake news,” he told the crowd. “Wouldn’t that be brilliant, start a new party and let’s divide our vote so that you can never win? No, we’re not interested in that.” 

TRUMP: “I am not starting a new party. That was fake news”

3- Work to Elect Republican Leaders

The former president has vowed to work to elect Republicans up and down the ticket. 

TRUMP: “I will be actively working to elect strong, tough, and smart Republican leaders.”

4- Take Back Congress and the White House

Trump has the ultimate goal of taking back the House of Representatives, the Senate, and ultimately, the White House. He hinted at another run in 2024.

TRUMP: “With your help we will take back the House, we will win the Senate and then a Republican president will make a triumphant return to the White House. And I wonder who that will be. I wonder who that will be. Who, who, who will that be, I wonder?”

5- Election Integrity

According to Trump, Democrats across the nation used the Wuhan coronavirus to transform the vote by mail system, something the former president said is “illegal” because state legislatures failed to approve the changes.

In order to make elections that are “honest, fair, and accurate,” Trump called for “one Election Day,” which would effectively eliminate early voting. 

“We must pass comprehensive election reforms and do it now,” he explained. 

The former president said the election’s outcome would have changed if those laws and reforms were in place.

TRUMP: Democrats used the China virus as an excuse to change all of the election rules without the approval of their state legislatures… It had a massive impact on the election.”

TRUMP: “We need one Election Day, not 45, 30 — One. Like it’s always been.” 

Trump’s CPAC popular video (4 million views) was supposedly removed because the former president brought up the issue of fraud in the 2020 presidential election. (If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you!)

To me, if there was no truth to the issue of fraud in the election, there would be no reason to ban anyone from talking about it. 

As Queen Gertrude from Shakespeare’s Hamlet said, “[They] doth protest too much, methinks”