http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

Is it vindictive, vengeful, or venomous? 

Is it retaliatory, rancorous, or ruthless? 

Is it malicious, petty, or just cruel? 

The question is “why is Joe Biden hurting the little guy?” 

Are the slew of executive orders issued by Biden in his first day or so on the job meant to demonstrate that he is in charge? Is it a feeble attempt to destroy Trump’s legacy with a stroke of the pen? Or is it a way of paying off those who supported him? My answer to these choices is, “all of the above.”

However my original question still remains, “why is Joe Biden hurting the little guy?”

From Freedom Wire:

Why is he halting the process of lowering the price of life-saving treatments for low-income Americans? Biden signed an executive order freezing Trump’s previous order forcing health centers to reduce the costs of insulin and Epi-pens to those who need those medications but cannot afford them.

Trump’s original order giving a hefty discount on the two life-saving medications would apply to individuals whose insurance have a high cost-sharing requirement, have a high unmet deductible, or have no health care insurance.

The new rule was supposed to be implemented as of 1/22/21, but has been delayed until March 22, 2021.

The Biden Administration gave no specific reason as to why the order helping low-income Americans will not go into effect for 60 more days.

Why is Joe Biden hurting the little guy?

With a stroke of his pen, he stopped construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline with the immediate loss of 11,000 jobs. These construction workers and pipe fitters have families. Why is Joe Biden hurting these little guys?

Biden’s minions thoughtlessly assigned National Guard troops that were in DC to sleep on the floor of a parking garage, in freezing temps, with cars parked there and one bathroom.

Why is he clueless about the little guy?

Why did he create a new hurdle for high school girls? Now ruining so many chances for scholarships with his “progressive” transgender programs allowing boys to compete against girls. 

Why is he purposely hurting the little guy (gal)?

Going back to the original questions at the top of this piece as to why he is intent on hurting the little guy . . . I think the answer is, “It is all of the above: It’s vindictive, vengeful, venomous, retaliatory, rancorous, ruthless, malicious, petty, cruel, as well as just plain dumb.”

The word of the day today on Dictionary.com is “ad hockery,” which means “ a reliance on temporary solutions rather than on consistent, long-term plans.”

Barack Obama was the leader of the pack here with his deluge of ad hockery executive orders when he knew that he could not get any of his liberal ideas through Congress. President Trump continued this ad hockery approach when he realized that basically nothing he advocated would ever pass through Nancy Pelosi’s tight fist in the House. But Joe Biden is vying to be the ad hockery king with his slew of executive orders on his first day in office. (Could it be that he had a lot of people to payoff, and so he had them all write their own executive order?)

Ad hockery may well become one of my favorite words . . . so, get ready!

Speaking of favorite words, one of my actual favorite words is “oxymoron.” The definition of which is exemplified in phrases such as “military intelligence” and “cruel kindness.”

Perhaps the ultimate oxymoron can be summarized by glancing at the headlines in my local “newspaper” of 1/23/21 (“Senate Agrees to Begin Impeachment Trial Feb. 9”) and 1/24/21 (“How does a nation heal?”). [This was sent as a letter to the editor to my local newspaper, ergo this is very likely the only place that you will read it.]

President Biden sounds good when he puts forth a plea for “unity.” Does he actually understand what that word means? It doesn’t mean “my way or the highway.” Putting forth innumerable executive orders on his first day in office, and on the same day calling for unity is likely just the start of the ad hockery oxymoronic presidency of Joe Biden.

FYI: Yes, President Trump put forth a lot of executive orders, but as best I can remember, he never put forth a hypocritical call for unity.

I am going to start my post-Biden inauguration piece by saying that I am in the seventy percent – solidly in the seventy percent that think that Biden should not be in the Oval Office.

Right upfront, I am a Republican . . . or at least I have been a Republican.

I have reviewed a number of different polls concerning mainly what Republicans feel about the past November election, and the remarkable thing to me is how that seventy percent figure continues to show up.

I realize that most of you are probably tired of hearing about the election fraud, but I just read about a report from Peter Navarro in which he explains what many ordinary Americans already perceive. Peter Navarro, Ph.D., authored this report entitled “Yes, President Trump Won,” which was the latest installment in his 3-volume series demonstrating that the election was stolen.

His three-part Report carefully describes the many irregularities and statistical improbabilities that were observed in the election. In the six disputed states studied by Dr. Navarro, the number of illegal or questionable ballots far exceeded the number needed to change the outcome and deliver the state’s electors to Trump.  

In Georgia, for example, there were 51 times as many questionable ballots as the number of votes that separated Trump and Biden. In Wisconsin, the ratio was 26 times; in Arizona, 24 times; in Pennsylvania, 12 times; in Nevada, 6 times; and finally in Michigan, there were 3 times as many improper votes as the reported margin between the presidential candidates.

This Navarro Report certainly seems to add additional credence that something was rotten in Democratic Denmark on 11/3/20.

Since President Trump spoke to the massive crowd on January 6, several major polling organizations have surveyed the American people, and the polls all found that an overwhelming majority of Republican voters agree that Trump actually won the election.

Now here comes that repeating 70% number.

First up was the well-respected Quinnipiac poll, in which 73 percent of Republican voters answered Yes to the Question: “Do you believe there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election?”  

Next was a CNN/SSRN poll, which reported that 71 percent of Republicans told its pollsters: “No, Biden did not legitimately win enough votes to win the presidency” 

An even stronger result was found by the ABC News Washington Post poll, in which 65% of Republicans said they believe there is solid evidence of fraud in the 2020 election, while only 25 percent of Republicans disagreed.

As to the phony “insurrection” on Capitol Hill, the Quinnipiac poll confirmed that 80% of Republicans do not hold Trump responsible, while 71 percent disagree with those who characterize the incident as a “coup attempt.” 

The CNN/SSRN poll found similar results: 72 percent of Republicans said Trump was not responsible for those who “stormed” the Capitol.

The Washington Post’s poll shows 66 percent of Republicans believing that Trump acted responsibly on January 6, and 78 percent say Trump bears little or no responsibility for the disorderly conduct of a few.

I think the next few weeks will be crunch time for Republicans. If the Republicans in the Senate go ahead with this inane impeachment boondoggle, one could easily see 70% of the country’s Republicans becoming ex-Republicans.

I usually do not get interested in things that are basically New England in nature, but the other day I read something from the Boston Globe that piqued my interest. Even though the subject matter was specifically about a New Hampshire vs. Massachusetts issue, it is about taxation and it likely will become even more of an issue as more and more individuals continue to work from home.

In this particular situation Massachusetts says that if you live in Massachusetts, you pay state income tax in Massachusetts … okay so far. 

If you physically work in Massachusetts, but live in New Hampshire (actually Boston is very close to the New Hampshire border), you pay taxes in Massachusetts on the income earned in Massachusetts … okay so far.

But the following s the curveball.

From Townhall:

What about a New Hampshire resident who used to commute to Massachusetts for work, but no longer commutes?

A no-brainer, surely. If you don’t live in Massachusetts, and you no longer work in Massachusetts, then Massachusetts should have no right to tax your earnings. What could be more self-evident?

Until last spring, that was the law. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue itself said so: “Compensation for services rendered by a non-resident wholly outside Massachusetts, even though payment may be made from an office or place of business in Massachusetts,” the department affirmed in a 1984 ruling, “is not subject to the individual income tax.” 

Then came the pandemic. Massachusetts declared a state of emergency and ordered non-essential workplaces to close. Many of the 84,000 New Hampshire residents who had been commuting to jobs in the Bay State switched to working from home instead. Under the straightforward rule that had been in place for decades, Massachusetts could no longer tax their income.

So it created a new rule!

For the first time ever, Massachusetts was claiming the authority to tax income earned by persons who neither lived nor worked in Massachusetts. So New Hampshire sued.

New Hampshire isn’t fighting alone. Fourteen other states, including New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Iowa,  have filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to take up its complaint. They urge the justices to reassert and reinvigorate a basic principle of the Constitution’s federal system: that the power of states to tax nonresidents’ income does not extend past their own borders.

Is this problem and this subsequent lawsuit all a consequence of lockdowns? If certain states did not deny individuals the chance to work at their physical place of business, would have as many people started to work from home. Are these “states of denial” now in some financial trouble? Is Massachusetts a state of such denial?

The reason I find this of interest is that people are leaving California in droves. Some because they can now work remotely from a state where not only are taxes less but also the cost of housing and the cost of living are both significantly less. 

California is soon going to be in trouble when some of its high earners continue to work online while living in another state. It’s only a matter of time before California tries to claim a share of that income. 

Three cheers for New Hampshire in its lawsuit against Massachusetts!

Fiction Alert! (I do not want anybody offended, if perchance his/her name is Sue, Josephine, Pat, or Clair.)

Those on the left asked, “What took him so long?” The U.S had many problems, and so it certainly made sense for Josephine Biden to clearly state that biological gender makes no difference. That was in January, 2021. 

Advance the calendar two years and consider what a hero Josephine Biden is to a family that lives down the street . . .Pat and Clair and their boy named Sue. Please note that the fact that he was named Sue by his parents, Pat and Clair, is of only dubious importance. The parents both enjoyed sports and they wanted him to play in high school. However, there was a problem, as Sue just wasn’t very good at sports. Both Pat and Clair were very depressed since they had so looked forward to watching their boy named Sue play in various high school sporting events.

Back in 2020, they said, “Wait till Biden gets elected, as certainly he will remedy this unfortunate situation.” And lo and behold, on his first day in office President Biden signed an executive order that allowed Sue to compete in high school sports – in high school girl’s sports. “All Sue will need is a little hormone tweaking, and he, err … she could potentially make all-state.”

Actually after the hormones, Sue did play on many of the girl’s sports teams, but it was disappointing to Pat and Clair that he(she) only made all conference, and thus would most likely not receive any college offers.
As an aside their next store neighbor’s kid, Ashley, who the prior year had started as a junior on the high school girl’s varsity basketball, girl’s varsity lacrosse, and girl’s varsity swimming teams was unable to even make these teams as a senior – the trans-girls took all the available spots. 

When asked about Ashley’s unfortunate situation, “Both Pat and Clair in unison said, “Too bad for Ashley. Life is tough. Perhaps she should go out for boy’s ballet. We do not think that roller-derby is a high school sport.”

Obviously, Biden owed somebody, big time. On the first day, no less! 

There is however, a common sense solution for Pat, Clair, and their boy named Sue. Have three different sport categories in high school . . . boy’s sports, girl’s sports, and tran’s sports. That way everybody could play, and in addition, Pat and Clair would never have any difficulty finding seats at the tran’s games.

The other day I heard an anecdotal story about masks. The person who told me this story is trustworthy and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what he told me. 

The setting is Minneapolis in 2009. As you may recall, from April 12, 2009 to April 10, 2010, CDC estimated there were 60.8 million cases (range: 43.3-89.3 million), 274,304 hospitalizations (range: 195,086-402,719), and 12,469 deaths (range: 8868-18,306) in the United States due to the (H1N1)pdm09 virus.

At that time his wife wanted a mask, so he called a friend at 3M, which at that time the biggest mask producer in the world. His friend told him that they were backlogged for six months on medical face masks because of the large volume of orders from Asia. He could attempt to get one for my friend, but the probability of getting a regular medical $6 face mask within six months was close to zero. However, the friend who worked in the medical division of 3M told him that he could easily get him an N-95 mask for $3. At that time the N-95 mask was so-named because that was the name of the material from which it was made. N-95 apparently refers to that the material will filter 95% of the contaminants in the air, whether it is inhaled or exhaled.

These N-95s were cheaper because there wasn’t much of a market for them. They were mainly used by people with a grass allergy, so that these allergic individuals could mow their lawns … now here is the key . . . at that time the N-95s were meant to protect the individual from the grass spores. I repeat,- to protect the individual, as opposed to the medical face masks, as were then and today still are used in operating rooms to protect the patient from the surgeon.

Without a doubt both types of masks have improved, but I suspect that the basic difference remains … the medical mask is supposed to help the other guy, and the N-95 is supposed to help the wearer of the mask. In hospitals where there are Covid patients, the staff are individually measured for tightly fitted N-95s – so tight that at the end of the day, those that wear them have red indentations on their cheeks, and the more sensitive individuals will have headaches because they are so tight.

Wear an ordinary medical mask for a day, and  . . . what? Nothing, but on and off foggy glasses, which in and off itself tells you how tight the seal is from these medical masks. 

Now in this pandemic, we have all been told multiple times to wash our hands, spatial distance, and to always wear our masks, as if the constant wearing of these medical masks is a panacea. To me washing one’s hands, and social distancing make sense, but masks, not so much for a number of reasons.

First, medical masks do not provide a tight seal. They are nothing like N-95s, and similar to 2009, I suspect that those who have a grass allergy would not be safe when mowing lawns while wearing a medical mask.

Second, a lot of things that are supposed to be the same as medical masks, aren’t masks at all, but rather some poorly contrived stylish look-alikes that in fact could provide basically zero protection to either the wearer or to those near him. The CDC is supposed to come out with a grading for masks as far as efficiency is concerned, but so far . . .  close, but no cigar. The mere fact that the CDC thought it necessary to establish a grading system for masks and “pseudo-masks” only means that not all face coverings are functioning very well as protectors.

Thirdly, for a mask to have any pretense of being protective, it must cover both the nose and the mouth without gaps through which air (and viral particles) can sneak either through or around the mask’s perimeter, to gain entrance to the nose or mouth. If you pay attention, often the mask is not being worn properly, is not close to forming an airtight seal, or is constantly being fidgeted with, thus destroying any hope of benefit. The other problem here is that the medical masks are not fitted to the person, but rather are mass produced.

Lately, I have been paying attention as to whether or not there is an open space between the top of one’s mask and the space below the eyes. If masks were individually fitted, like the N-95s are in those who work in hospitals, there should be no such space.

These days the wearing of medical masks is ubiquitous, and just about every place of business requires them in order to enter. In Costco, the wearing of masks in adults is 100%, as one cannot enter the store without wearing one. If mask wearing was so highly protective, then one would expect that no Covid cases could possibly have arisen there. But that is not the case. To me, in Costco, or in Walmart for that matter, the wearing of masks is like a “Get out of jail free card” as far as social distancing is concerned. If you truly want social spacing, do not go near where the cooked whole chickens are kept in Costco.

With the increasing number of cases, “those who know best” basically repeatedly tell us that it is our fault that cases are rising, because we are not diligent about mask wearing. To that I say, “poppycock.” As far as I am aware, mask wearing has never been proven to prevent viral spread. Yes, I have seen the slow motion videos of sneeze particles whose trajectory is lessened by a face mask. If I have to sneeze, I turn my head and sneeze into my elbow. To me that is more effective than depending on poorly fitted, poorly designed, or just plainly ineffective face mask. President-elect Biden jumped further onto the mask bandwagon by blaming maskless Republicans for covid infections in Democratic lawmakers while they were sequestered during last week’s Capitol riot, without any ostensible proof that that is what actually occurred. “Joe, does that mean that irrespective of who was the source of these infections, that the masks did not work?”

To go out on a limb, I am suspicious that nearly ubiquitous mask wearing could in fact be making the Covid situation worse by providing a false sense of security not only for the wearers, but also for those around them

On Monday I received my first dose of Moderna’s Covid vaccine.

When a reasonable person receives something unexpected, I would think that a “thank-you” would be both appropriate and expected, and so I posted “Thank you, President Trump.” & “Thank you, Moderna” on Facebook.

As you  recall, back in March and April of 2020, “those in the know” were saying that producing a Covid vaccine in under a year’s time would be close to impossible. In fact they said it couldn’t be done!

Then came Operation Warp Speed . . .organized by President Trump in concert with various vaccine producers. Consequently, at this point, in January, 2021, we already have two different vaccines here in the U.S., and additional vaccines will be coming soon.

Like I said before, a reasonable person would thank someone for an unexpected gift. Did I miss Joe Biden and/or Kamala Harris saying how grateful they were to have received this unexpected vaccine gift when they were vaccinated? Keep in mind that Joe Biden was finally able to come out of his basement because he got the vaccine. Vice-President Harris threw stones and lobbed grenades at Trump’s vaccine, but then after the “election” got inoculated. The more I think about it did any Democrat politician say thank-you when they received his/her vaccine. Hmmm.

Now that has been “elected” and inaugurated, President Biden is preaching unity . . . blah, blah, blah.

“Joe, how about taking the first step toward unity by thanking President Trump for his efforts in Operation Warp Speed.”

Harris, and all Dem lawmakers could then also act like reasonable people, and give credit where credit is due . . . “Thank you President Trump for your effort in getting these Covid vaccines up and going.”

In addition, I think it would be appropriate for everyone (yes, I am talking to you!) . . .  everyone who gets a Covid vaccine to thank those responsible including Donald Trump and the individual vaccine producers. I will be checking on Facebook, Twitter, etc. for these thank-you’s.

Remember . . . I will be watching!

FYI : I also posted a similar, much shorter, more toned-down version of this same blog on Facebook on 1/22/21. If you have the time perhaps you could give me a “like.”

(Before reading, those of you who do not understand the title, ask your parents, or perhaps your grandparents.)

On 1/20/21 President Joe Biden signed a mask mandate requiring everyone who is on federal land to have to wear masks. (“Who is that masked man?”) Is Biden going to be like the hypocrite, Gavin Newsom, who while telling everybody in California not to go to restaurants was caught eating inside at a posh restaurant with his cronies? Honest Joe would never do that, would he? He is not a hypocrite, is he? Hmmm!

On inauguration night Biden was captured on Twitter, at the Lincoln Memorial, which is on federal land, not wearing a mask (“Hey Pancho. Hey Cisco.”) Hmmm!

In addition, again on Twitter, Biden, while addressing the media, all of whom are wearing masks, continues to not wear a mask. (“Hey Pancho. Hey Cisco.”) Hmmm!

In addition, the older Biden grandchildren were seen mask-less while taking photos at the Lincoln Memorial. Actually I can understand that taking pictures of people wearing masks is bordering on the absurd. I am quite sure that they all immediately put their masks back on as soon as the photo-op had finished. Hmmm!

Now there are those who are going to say that since Joe has had the vaccine, he doesn’t have to wear a mask. Fair enough, but will he be consistent? As opposed to him being maskless in the Lincoln Memorial, when he thinks no one is looking, when he knows the camera is on him will he act differently, or will he be a hypocrite? 

While sitting alone at his desk in the Oval Office President Biden is photographed signing a return to the Paris Climate Accords . . . of course, this time, wearing a mask. “Who is that masked man?” (It’s the Hypocr . . . err, the Lone Ranger!”) Hmmm!

For a long time I have considered a dilemma which possibly troubles some politicians from time to time . . . “Should a politician be responsive to his/her voters?”

The issue involves whether or not a representative of the people should follow the will of the people who elected him/her or whether that representative should follow his/her own leanings on an issue if his/her opinion is different from those who voted for him/her. 

(Whew! That last sentence sounds like something that would come out of a politician’s mouth . . . no, I am not running for anything.)

In some situations I think that one can argue both sides of this question. For example, if the voters in a certain state are split 52-48 on an issue, I think that the representative could reasonably go either way. He/she often doesn’t usually have the time, the proclivity, or the predisposition to take a poll to see what the populace in his/her state favors. In this type of situation I think that the representative should make a decision, after all “you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

However, what if those who voted for him/her feel strongly about an issue (e.g. 80-20 against). In this circumstance it seems to me that the elected representative of the people should follow the will of those who elected him/her. 

Last week Rep. Liz Cheney had to make a decision when she had to vote to again impeach President Trump. Did she ask herself, “what would the people of Wyoming want me to do? Is it close (52-48) in my district, or is there an overwhelming preponderance one way or the other?” 

Did she have a vendetta against Donald Trump?

Did she vote the way her constituents felt on this issue?

Apparently she not not consider what her constituency would want her to do when she voted for impeachment. 

The Wyoming Republican Party blasted her decision, saying it has prompted a torrent of angry calls and emails from those who “vehemently disagree with Representative Cheney’s decision and actions,” a statement said.

Following the outcry, the Republican Party Central Committee in Carbon County, Wyoming, unanimously voted to censure Cheney, according to The Washington Times. The Committee also demanded her presence before them to explain herself.

“Our representative did not represent our voice,” said Carbon County GOP Chairman Joey Correnti IV.

According to the Times, he said she’s been completely nonresponsive so far. 

The obvious solution to this kind of issue should be left to the voters.

To me it appears that she has ridden the coattails of her father, Dick Cheney, long enough.

“Vote the bum-etta out.” 

Last week Simon and Schuster reneged on a book deal with Josh Hawley, because they apparently did not like the political views of the Senator from Missouri.

To me this was a blatant example of the political correctness of Cancel Culture, and I did not agree with this outrageous decision by Simon and Schuster, who apparently doesn’t really care what 74 million Americans think.

The following is from a Wall Street Journal article by Thomas Spence (president and publisher of Regnery Publishers):

“Some 250 self-described “publishing professionals”—mostly junior employees of major houses—have issued a statement titled “No Book Deals for Traitors,” a category in which they include any “participant” in the Trump administration.

“Readiness to silence someone because of who he is or whom he associates with is often called the “cancel culture,” but I prefer an older term—blacklisting—whose historical associations expose the ugliness of what is going on. Not so long ago, publishing professionals would have been horrified to be accused of it. Today they compete to see who can proclaim his blacklist with the fiercest invective.

“The founder of my publishing house, Henry Regnery, proudly called himself a “dissident publisher.” The conservative books to which he devoted his fortune and career were no more in favor in 1951, when he published William F. Buckley’s “God and Man at Yale,” than they have been during my own 25 years in this business. But blacklisting then, though real, was discreet. Everyone knew it was un-American. No one was proud of it.

“We’re proud to publish Mr. Hawley’s book, which his original publisher has made more important than ever. We don’t have to agree with everything—or anything—Mr. Hawley does. We ask only if his book is well-crafted and has something true and worthwhile to say. The answer is yes.”

My response to Mr. Spence:

Please put me on the list to purchase Josh Hawley’s book, “The Tyranny of Big Tech,” and kudos to you and Regnery Publishers.👏🏻👏🏻

My response to Simon and Schuster . . .👎🏻👎🏻 ( This was the only finger signal I could find!)