http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

A marked contrast between two states.

From Zero Hedge:

A new report has found that Tennessee posted the largest net gain of U-Haul trucks than any other state in 2020, making it U-Haul’s top growth state for the first time. 

Growth rates are determined by the net gain of one-way U-Haul trucks entering a state versus leaving that state in a given year. U-Haul keeps tabs on more than two million one-way U-Haul truck customer transactions annually, allowing the company to observe migration trends, according to the report published by Texas and Florida were the top two other destinations. For three consecutive years, Texas had the largest net gain of one-way U-Haul trucks before Florida displaced it for the number one spot last year. Texas and Florida were the top two other destinations. For three consecutive years, Texas had the largest net gain of one-way U-Haul trucks before Florida displaced it for the number one spot last year. 

Before the pandemic, Americans fled from liberal-run states and metro areas because of high taxes to conservative states that were business-friendly, such as Texas and Florida. The pandemic certainly amplified the exodus

On the flip side, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Oregon were the top five states with the most significant net loss of U-Haul trucks. 

Whereas Tennessee was #1 for in-migration, California was #50, meaning that it was #1 for out-migration. Others at the bottom of that list included Illinois (#49), New Jersey (#48), and Massachusetts (#47). Does anyone see a pattern here?

Why would anyone want to leave California? The climate is outstanding. (I recall wanting to move to California many years ago while watching winter football games being played in 70 degree, sunny weather, while the temperature outside in Illinois was 20 degrees.) The nearby ocean is awesome, and the mountains are within driving distance. Again, who would want to leave? Perhaps we could ask Elon Musk, who is relocating to Texas. Why is he leaving?

From bizjournal.com:

As Covid-19 descended on California in March and April of this year, economies began to shut down and the debate raged over what businesses were deemed “essential.” Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, and Alameda County authorities went back and forth over whether the Tesla plant in Fremont should be allowed to reopen.

This dialogue was punctuated by a pithy tweet from Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who describes herself as a progressive Democrat, “F**k Elon Musk!”

At that time, we had no idea how much that tweet, and attitude, would cost California.

Nine months later, Elon Musk is gone. He is selling all his personal real estate in the state. He is now a resident of the state of Texas. He has moved his philanthropic foundation to Texas, too. This year, 2020, Elon Musk is likely paying billions in state tax. Next year, 2021, he will be a resident of another state.

In the last few weeks, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (NYSE: HPE) and Oracle Corp. (NYSE: ORCL) have both announced they are moving their headquarters to Texas, with other potential moves in the pipeline.

In a nutshell, California state income tax is the highest in the nation, California’s ranking for “business friendliness” is the lowest, and we have elected representatives who would lob crass, vulgar F-bombs at the people who are paying the freight. 

Strong work, Ms. Lorena Gonzalez. Is she perhaps just another example of uninformed dumb California voters electing uninformed dumb State Representatives?

(BTW: Ms. Gonzales is married to Nathan Fletcher, who is the “Covid czar” in San Diego, despite the fact that he has no medical background and a very limited business background. His degree is a B.S in political science from Cal Baptist. Basically he is a politician who was initially a Republican, but is now a Democrat!  Any apparent similarity to “the villain” in my book, The Keneally Chronicles, is purely coincidental.)

No, the heading is not a misprint of the title of the song by Paul McCartney and Wings. Here I am referring to what Rand Paul said just the other day.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on 1/15/21 warned senators about the possibility of Americans’ leaving the Republican Party if they move to impeach President Donald Trump.

As everybody by now is aware that this entire second impeachment fiasco is a purely partisan attempt to blame the January 6 Capitol riots on the President . . . a partisan attempt by vindictive Democrats.

From Wayne Allen Root:

“Here’s the thing. Trump has had hundreds of rallies for six years now. Millions have attended, maybe 20 million-plus. And there’s never been one window broken, one property damaged, one person shot, one police officer attacked. Yet after one incident in D.C., it’s used as a trigger to ban and censor mention of the fact that the election was clearly stolen; to ban, censor and impeach President Trump; to ban and censor conservatives; and to label all 74 million Trump voters as “domestic terrorists.”

Is Rand Paul right? What do the people think?

Again from Mr. Root:

“The results are in. The support for President Trump is so overwhelming even liberal media and pollsters can’t hide the truth. Trump-hating pollster Frank Luntz had to admit 91% of Trump voters would vote for him again and 78% of Trump voters believe the election was rigged and stolen.

A poll by the liberal Axios and Ipsos shows that 62% of Republicans support Trump’s belief that the election was stolen, while 69% don’t blame Trump for the Capitol violence.

But a much higher 91% of Trump voters support Trump’s contesting the election results. Ninety-six percent believe Trump makes the GOP a stronger party. Ninety-two percent want Trump to run again in 2024.”

Vengeful Democrats and the media keep trying to bury Trump and demoralize his supporters, but what did President Trump actually say in his speech before the storming of the Capitol?

Trump said, “And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down anyone you want, but I think right here. We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave Senators and Congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity.”

Did I miss the line that was meant to incite?

Hmmm!

Going out on a limb here, when the dust finally settles, it will be shown that those who breached the Capitol’s security were mainly Antifa, and the riot had been carefully planned well before the Trump speech.

In addition, Rand Paul will prove to be right.

Let’s be clear right from the beginning . . . pandemics are bad. Better said, pandemics are horrible. With a pandemic people will get sick, and people will die – many people will die, and many, many, many more people will get sick. However bad it is, let’s not make it worse.

Most everyone has bet all of their chips on the vaccine, and without question the vaccine will help. However, the rollout of the vaccine is already beset with delays, seemingly due to unpreparedness in some states, e.g. California.

When this pandemic is looked in retrospect years down the road, many will ask why the concept of herd immunity was not recognized and acted upon earlier – perhaps from the beginning? From my point of view, in the end this will turn out to be the only logical solution. Keeping those at low risk sequestered is insanity. Keeping college students restricted to their dorms, and keeping elementary-aged school kids out of in-person schooling will turn out to be one of the biggest mistakes of this young century. Not using common sense and advocating for herd immunity instead of lockdowns has turned something bad into something worse. (For those interested, there is a chapter on the practical use of herd immunity in my fictional novella, The Keneally Chronicles.)

However, the focus of this piece is about how “those who know best” have made things worse, and continue to double-down on their failed policies with the detrimental effects on innocent bystanders, namely small business and restaurant owners.

The following stats are from a Wall Street Journal article by Andy Puzder on 1/5/21:

• The latest lockdowns across the country will be deadly for the small businesses that have endured the pandemic this far. While there are no official numbers yet, business data show significant losses. Yelp’s Local Economic Impact Report found that, from March 1 through Aug. 31, nearly 100,000 businesses listed on Yelp had closed permanently due to the pandemic, an average of more than 500 a day. 

To me this certainly sounds like making a bad situation worse !

• Consider restaurants, America’s second-largest source of private employment. According to the National Restaurant Association, 110,000 have permanently closed and more than 500,000 are “in an unprecedented economic decline.” In November alone, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported, restaurants and bars lost 17,400 jobs as new state lockdowns took effect.

To me this certainly sounds like making a bad situation worse !

If blue states, and here I am speaking specifically about California, really want to help those who are down and sinking fast, perhaps they should start by not making a bad situation worse. 

Namely, instead let’s make things better for small businesses and restaurant owners. Let them open up, so that both the owners and their employees can feed their families.

Just today I read about two amazing stories that are truly scary, especially here in the U.S. Are we as a country sinking, and sinking fast?

The first story involves the ongoing battle in New Jersey between a gym owner and the governor of that state.

First the background from Townhall:

Atilis Gym co-owner Ian Smith has made a name for himself for standing up to New Jersey’s COVID-19 restrictions on businesses, despite Governor Phil Murphy’s repeated attempts to shut him down through citations, fines, arrests, having their business license stripped, and their doors locked and barricaded.”

Perhaps inside the mind of the liberal New Jersey governor as he escalated the fight, “How dare that sob challenge my authority! Doesn’t he realize that I am the governor and what I say, goes?”

Recall that when asked about the constitutionality of some of his lockdown policies back in August, this same Phil Murphy responded to Tucker Carlson, “That’s above my pay grade, Tucker, so I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.”

So earlier this week the vindictive Democratic governor escalated the fight, and more importantly escalated his “coup like” actions against the Constitution.

From Ian Smith:

“As of this morning, without warning, and without permission, and in the middle of litigation, Governor Murphy took it upon himself to empty our bank account entirely, to the tune of $165,000,” explained Smith on a video posted to social media.”

I wasn’t aware that in the U.S  a governor could  essentially steal money from someone’s bank account. Certainly in a Banana Republic that could and in fact does happen, but in the U.S.? If a governor can do it in New Jersey, can it also be done in your home state? . . . Scary! Sinking fast?

The second story is just as amazing.

From Fox Business:

“Following last year’s efforts to ban Trump Administration officials from speaking on campus, Harvard University students are now circulating a petition that calls for revoking degrees from Trump supporters and aides who attended the elite Ivy League institution.

“The petition is entitled, “Revoke their Degrees,” and was circulated by four students who attend Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, FOX Business has confirmed. It calls on the university to be “Prepared to take a stand for representative democracy and against violent white supremacy,” by specifically revoking degrees of three Harvard graduates who are supporters of the president: White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX).”

Wow, it’s hard for me to understand how four students could have the chutzpah to make such a demand, and at Harvard, nonetheless!

Scary! Sinking fast?

Imagine this down the road … someone saying to an accountant or to a doctor. “Sorry, but you no longer have the qualifications to work as a CPA or as a physician, because your alma mater has revoked your degree.”

“Impossible!” you say?? 

To which I respond, “If someone can just take the money out of your bank account because you disagree with him, certainly it’s just a matter of time before someone else, perhaps four students, can take away your degree.”

Really scary !! 

This will be a preview of coming attractions, or perhaps not.

Very shortly we will all know what Joe Biden really knows about the fraudulent election. He will not come right and say something, but rather thought and logical thinking will be required. (In other words the Dems will not be able to follow what I am about to say.)

Basically there are only three possibilities as he continues to deny that his election was fraudulent.

One – He was not aware of the fraud, and still doesn’t know what occurred, because no body had told him.

Two – He knows full well what actually occurred, and in fact was all-in  with it from the beginning.

Three – He is telling the truth when he says that no fraud occurred,  because no fraud did occur.

Stop laughing and follow along with the upcoming logic. 

I am discounting #3, because fraud did occur … the only question is how much? Enough to swing the election? Unfortunately because of the reticence and the cowardice of SCOTUS, we may never know the answer.

Certainly #1 is a possibility because the safest way to assure that Biden would not spill the beans, would be to keep him in his basement and never clue him in as to what was going to happen on election night. This way he could continue plausible deniability because he actually was not involved.

That leaves #2. . . . He was in the thick of it. 

From Reuters:

Shortly after the election, fifty-two percent of Republicans said that Trump “rightfully won,” while only 29% said that Biden had rightfully won.

Asked why, Republicans were much more concerned than others that state vote counters had tipped the result toward Biden: 68% of Republicans(R) said they were concerned that the election was “rigged,” while only 16% of Democrats(D),and one-third of independents (I) were similarly worried. Assuming an equal amount of R,D, and I, this translates into about 38.8% of Americans who feel that the election was rigged.

Now let’s assume that Joe Biden is an honest man. If he was really interested in the well being of future America, could he possibly allow almost forty percent of Americans to continue to believe that they were living in a Banana Republic with fraudulent rigged elections? No, he couldn’t. 

If he were striving to be an honest, uniting President and if both he and the recent election were on the up-and-up, he would certainly need to investigate to see if any fraud did occur, as only a thorough investigation could possibly bring these 40% back into the fold of believing Americans.

Follow my logic:

If Joe Biden launches an investigation into voter fraud, then #3 is the most likely possibly for what happened, and the investigation will not reveal anything.

If #1 is what happened, his “advisers” would never allow him to even mention an investigation into voter fraud. 

Therefore, if he does not launch an investigation, it mostly likely means that he was intimately involved(#2).

If I were a betting man, I would bet the farm on “no investigation,” which of course means that the right answer is behind door #2! 

In my local “newspaper” this week there is a community like forum with essays from various people in regards to “last weeks rioting by a mob incited by President Donald Trump in Washington D.C.” Initially, I was not going to read any of these essays as I knew basically what I was going to hear. Was the initial question a loaded question?

From Wikipedia:

“A loaded question or complex question is a question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

[‘incited by President Trump,’ certainly contains a controversial assumption]

Pretty clear so far.

Still from Wikipedia:

“Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner’s agenda.”[Again, here ‘the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner’s agenda.’]

Even more clear.

Typically the questioner will try to couch the question so that the one who answers may not even realize that the question is loaded. Not so here, as there is no attempt to pretend that the questioner is unbiased.

I eventually went back and read the four printed responses in the “newspaper,” and they were exactly the type of responses that one would expect with a slanted question.

Loaded ? . . . Clearly

Is this issue deserving of a response to the newspaper from yours truly? Clearly not.

It is widely recognized that especially in their coverage of matters related to Donald Trump, the mainstream media long ago abandoned any pretense of impartiality. Did their vituperation carry over to how they reported on possible election fraud? Does the sun rise in the east, and set in the west? . . . Absolutely!

Most of what follows is quoted from an article by Claes Ryn in the American Conservative:

“European experts on American elections, some of whom also had advanced expertise in statistics, have published articles or given interviews in which they claimed to have seen clear evidence that the election was ‘rigged’! In Sweden of all places, an expert on American elections published a series of articles showing that Biden’s win in the swing states simply could not be explained without assuming major fraud.” 

Hmmm, I did not read about this in my ‘newspaper.’

“The historical record indicates that when a sitting president increases his vote totals relative to his original election, he is reelected. President Trump did increase his vote, not by hundreds of thousands of votes, but by over 10 million (not counting votes of which his supporters claim that he was robbed). Trump’s support among Hispanics, a group often described as hostile to him, expanded to 32 percent, even more among Hispanic men. His support among blacks increased this year by 50 percent.”

Hmmm, I did not read this in my ‘newspaper.’

“Another basic fact: certain American states almost always go with the winner. Florida and Ohio are at the top of that list, partly because they reflect the demographic composition of the U.S. as a whole. If you add Iowa, you can predict with high confidence that the winner of those three states will also be the winner of the presidential election. Trump not only carried these states, he won them very comfortably, Ohio and Iowa by about 8 percent, Florida by over 3 percent.”

Hmmm, I did not read that in my ‘newspaper.’

“There are numerous bellwether counties across the United States that almost always vote for the winner in the national election. There are counties that voted for the winner in the presidential elections from 1980 to 2016. In 2020, with rare exceptions, these counties suddenly reversed course. They did not vote for the person regarded as the winner, but for Donald Trump. Nineteen counties have been identified whose vote is viewed as a particularly good predictor of the outcome in the presidential election. They are virtually certain to go with the winner. It has been assumed that if a candidate carries 15 to 16 of those 19 counties, he is also bound to be the winner of the presidency.

How, then, did the 2020 election turn out in those bellwether counties? Trump won no fewer than 18 of the 19! Even more telling, he improved his performance in these counties. (A few examples of such counties are striking. Valencia County in New Mexico has mirrored the outcome of every presidential election since 1952. In that county, Trump won by 10 percent in 2020. Indiana’s Vigo County voted for every president except two since 1882. This year, Trump carried that county by 15 percent. Westmoreland County in Virginia has failed only twice since 1928 to vote for the winner of the presidential election. Trump carried that county by 16 percent. These are but specific illustrations of a trend in the competitive counties that favored Trump about as emphatically and overwhelmingly as was possible.)”

Hmmm, I did not read about this in my ‘newspaper.’

“An astonishing example of Biden meeting strong resistance is that he won fewer American counties than any previous modern American president-elect. Obama won 873 counties in 2008. Biden barely captured 500 in 2020! (Trump won about 2,550 counties.) The record of a winner? His percentage of the vote per state did not even match that of Hillary Clinton. Democrats are ordinarily dependent on the black vote being 85 to 90 percent in their favor to win a presidential election. Biden was not very close to that percentage. He received a much lower percentage of black votes than Obama and an even lower percentage than Hillary Clinton. Among black men he did not reach 80 percent, for Democrats a worrisomely low number. You might have thought that for Biden to win the election, he would have had to equal or surpass Hillary Clinton’s vote percentages around the country. But in general, the opposite was the case. He underperformed in the bigger cities, Democratic strongholds that are crucial to Democratic victories in presidential and other elections.”

Hmmm, I did not read any of this in my “newspaper.”

When you consider all of these patterns, one feature of the presidential election stands out as remarkable—as very difficult to explain. That feature casts grave doubt on Biden’s supposed election victory. What raises disturbing questions is the paradoxical exception to Biden’s weak national performance. For some reason, in just a few states, the reported Biden vote ran counter to the national trends just described. And where was this wholly aberrant pattern? Why, in the battleground states, which Trump had won in 2016. They are the states that Biden now simply had to win to capture the presidency. In those states, Biden somehow dramatically reversed his substandard trend in the rest of the country! As mentioned before, Biden could win only one of the 19 battleground counties around the U.S., but he supposedly won all of the battleground states! How could he possibly accomplish this feat? By performing very much better in the bigger cities in the battleground states than in the bigger cities elsewhere.”

Hmmm, I didn’t read any of this in my ‘newspaper.’

While all of these stats are very interesting, none of this is actual proof. However, it is very suspicious. Why didn’t the MSM pick up on any of this? 

Hmmm, don’t you wonder why you didn’t read about any of this in the ‘newspapers’ or hear about it on the TV ‘news?’

On 1/9/21 one of the headlines in our local newspaper read “Action Filed in NYE Collapse.” The article goes on to say that the City Attorney filed a civil action against both the owner of the warehouse and the organizer of a New Year’s Eve party where a balcony collapsed under the weight of dancing attendees. 

I find this civil action interesting because it actually involves two separate issues. The first involves the safety of the building and the violation of some building codes. To me the owners of the building should be liable for a poorly constructed mezzanine balcony and its collapse as well as the injuries that occurred as a consequence. No problem here.

However the second part of this civil action involves a more basic constitutional concept, as it claims that the NYE party “violated the county and state orders preventing large gatherings.” The City Attorney said that the defendants exposed countless people to Covid by hosting what could be a super-spreader event. 

Now let’s be clear. 

The basic principle here involves whether or not the government has the constitutional authority to stop group gatherings. This same principle is involved in the government’s authority to prevent an entire menagerie of different things, like restaurant dining, either indoor or outdoor, attending church services, going to a gym, getting a haircut, etc. The latest is a dictum that limits travel to less than 120 miles from one’s home . . . unless that travel is “essential.” (121 miles is bad, but 119 miles is okay?)

Although their intent may be good, iis it legal for “those that know best” to tell everybody what they can and cannot do.? Their dictums are not laws.

The party goers knew full well that they were possibly exposing themselves to Covid when they paid their entry fee. Similarly restaurant attendees, gym attendees, church attendees all know that there is a risk involved if they go to a restaurant, a gym, a barber shop, a synagogue or a church, etc. They basically accept that risk if they do these things.

Certainly the Covid pandemic is bad. People are getting sick and people are dying, but does a pandemic (or anything else for that matter) allow the government to suspend certain constitutional freedoms? If it’s Covid this year, might it be the flu next year, or something else the following year? As is alluded to in my book, The Keneally Chronicles, should the Supreme Court have been involved in this issue from the beginning ? Is the suspension of basic freedoms for any reason by “those who know best” okay? Personally I think not, but where is SCOTUS?

The Supreme Court has been absent in the entire election fiasco. For how much longer will SCOTUS be AWOL in this other basic issue?

Simon & Schuster said on Thursday, 1/7/21, that it would cancel the publication of an upcoming book by Senator Josh Hawley, one of several members of Congress who tried to overturn the results of the presidential election.

“Simon and Schuster:

As a publisher, it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints: at the same time we take seriously our larger public responsibility and cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom,” the publisher, which is in the process of being sold by ViacomCBS to Penguin Random House, said.

The book blurb that is still on the publisher’s website says Hawley “argues that big tech companies—Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple—represent the gravest threat to American liberty since the monopolies of the Gilded Age, and proposes a democratic, hopeful path forward.”

A comment on Twitter starts: “This could not be more Orwellian . . . “

Abigail Shrier a columnist for the WSJ put this in perspective:

“You’re not entitled your book contract,’ can quickly become ‘United doesn’t have to let you onto its planes’ ‘Marriott doesn’t have to let you stay at its hotels,’ or ‘Visa doesn’t have to let you use its cards.’ And maybe that’s the point.”

As reported by RedState’s Mike Miller, ABC News has championed “cleansing” the country of the “movement he (Trump) commands.” 

“Cleansing!!” . . . Scary, and by ABC News, no less.

Gird your loins. This is just the beginning. Cancel Culture is just beginning to  pick up steam.

Will the courts try to balance the scales of justice?Will the Supreme Court come out of its recent hibernation to deal with this issue, or will it continue to be in absentia?

1/11/21

From the very beginning of Covid in the US, it should have always been about balancing the health issues and the economic issues of this disease. For the last ten months for the most part the health issues have dominated the economic issues with various levels of lockdowns being the prime weapon to combat the extent of the virus. At this point a rational person could be asking our governor, “Hey G-man, how is that working out? 

We are now in the midst of the “surge of all surges” with infections and deaths from Covid reaching all time highs, while at the same time economic casualties continue to pile up. Long ago I lost count of how many times from “those in the know” I have heard the words like, “just wait for the vaccine, and then all will be okay.” But it’s not over. I am here to tell you that the vaccine will not make everything okay . . . it will just bring in a new different set of problems.

Over the last few months I have repeatedly asked, “why are those who have already had Covid and then recovered from Covid still being treated like lepers.” Why should they be forced to continue to quarantine? They no longer have any Covid to spread, and the chance of them contracting the infection again is so small that is approaches zero. As of now those who are in this group make up only a small portion of the populace. But it’s not over.

In addition within months there will be a significant number of individuals who have had both doses of the vaccine, and thus they will also be immune. They will neither be susceptible to catch the virus nor to spread the virus. Should they continue to be under lockdown like those who have already had the virus and are thus immune to reinfection? 

Businesses will be continuing to clamor to reopen. Will it be okay for them to be open only to those who have either had the infection or have received the vaccine? Do “those in the know” have an answer to this coming problem or more important, have they even thought about this coming quandary? Will there be special I.D. cards for those who have had the vaccine? (At this point one might ask if there are I.D. cards for those that have already tested positive for the virus . . . err . . . “No”) Will one need a special “I’ve had the vaccine” picture I.D. to go to a restaurant, while still not needing an I.D to vote? Will there be a black market for these vaccine I.D.’s for the 44% of the population that are not planning on getting the vaccine? 

It’s not over . . . not by a long shot!