http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

As this is the start of a new decade, I want everybody to close their eyes and concentrate. Imagine what the House of Representatives would look like without the 55 members who have been in the House for over 20 years.

 Forty-two of these would be Democrats, including Steny Hoyer, John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Barbara Lee. Of the 13 Republicans, the only name that I recognize is Jim Sensenbrenner..The first thing that jumps out at me is this difference in the name recognition of the Democrats and the name recognition of the Republicans on the above list. Even though there are many many more Democrats on this list, it also appears that the Democrats have distinct advantage in the “big mouth” derby, as their name recognition is because they appear in front of the cameras so often. (FYI, Adam Schiff has been in the House since only 2001.)

Things are not similar in the Senate which has 15% (15/100) of its members who have been in the Senate since before 2000. Think of McConnell, Feinstein, Durban, Collins, and Schumer, as examples.
The question that is being discussed by some is whether or not having over 50 members of the House, entrenched in the House, and 15% of the Senate, entrenched in the Senate is good for the country? Certainly our Founding Father’s did not envision that our government representatives be career politicians. They imagined “ordinary people” in Congress, but this is far from what we have now. As Nick Tombuilides recently said at a Senate hearing, “the main problem with the system as it is now has to do with the power of incumbency, as 98% of incumbents get re-elected!! Once in office they have a huge advantage in future elections.
82% of Americans want term limits. This includes 89% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, and 83% of Independents. And, to boot, both President Obama and President Trump think that term limits would be a good thing! If 82% of Americans agree with both Barack Obama and Donald Trump on this issue, we should just do it. . . make term limits the law of the land. Why not?
The answer, unfortunately is intuitively obvious . . . it is those in Congress who would have to change the law. Can you imagine them voting to cut themselves off from the gravy train? No, I too am having a hard time imagining this. The argument from the “no term limit” side is that experience is absolutely necessary for the government to work. To me at this time, “ a well working government” is an oxymoron!
If the Congress ever decides to implement term limits, then perhaps we should go even further and make having a law degree an automatic exclusion from elected office. (Think, Barack & Michelle, lawyers; Bill & Hillary, lawyers; Chuck Schumer & Harry Reid, lawyers. Think Bush 1 & Bush 2, not lawyers; Ronald Reagan & Donald Trump, not lawyers.)  Imagine just how well our government in Washington would work without lawyers!

One of my son’s-in-law is very, very good at crossword (X-Word) puzzles. Doing them is like a hobby for him, and he does one just about every day. He only does the harder ones, and oftentimes he does them in ink. The New York Times X-Word puzzles are known to be among the more difficult, especially later in the week and on Sunday when they have often have a gimmick. Even these, with or without a gimmick are usually a snap for him. He will occasionally make up a special puzzle for special occasions, like significant birthdays and anniversaries. One of his life-goals is to get one of his puzzles published in the NYT, an admirable but nearly impossible goal for anyone. I also occasionally do X-word puzzles, but the difference is that I am not very good at them. However, this will not stop me from trying to help him get one published, and I have a great idea for X-Word puzzle with a gimmick.
The following are just some examples of the clues in my X-Word puzzle:
-Which President has been instrumental in creating almost four million jobs since his election

-Which president’s policies have been instrumental in creating 400,000 manufacturing jobs

-Under which president has the economic growth reached 4.2% in the last quarter

-Under which president has the unemployment rate recently reached a 49 year low 

-Under which president has both the African-American and the Hispanic

-American employment rates achieved the lowest rates ever.

-Under whose administration have 3.9 million Americans been lifted off food stamps

-Which president signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history

-Under whose administration  is the United States now a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.

-Which president secured a record $700 billion in military funding; $716 billion next year

.-Which President has been instrumental in protecting Americans from terrorists with the Travel Ban, upheld by Supreme Court.

-Which President moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, just as he promised.

Anyway these questions are just a sample of my X-Word puzzle questions. The gimmick is that all of the Across answers as well as all of the Down answers are the same . . . Donald Trump!
Happy New Year, 2020

I am writing this at the risk of offending some of my friends with rooftop solar panels, but by the end, I hope that they will agree that “fairness” is sometimes merely a relative term. Let’s start out by admitting that our public utilities here in California cannot operate at a loss, as any any company that operates at a loss will not be in business for long. Imagine what living anywhere in this day and age would be like without electricity. Certainly those with rooftop solar panels and storage batteries would be better off than the rest of us. All will admit that we need electricity in grocery stores . . . and even those with electric cars will admit that we need traffic signals and Nordstrom’s. Nobody wants to live without the local utilities. Would it be fair or practical to insist that the utilities in California operate at a loss ? Probably not.

But “Houston, we have a ‘fairness’ problem!” Tens of thousands of rooftop solar units combined with the state’s program of compensating owners of rooftop solar, known as net metering, has resulted in higher rates for everyone else. For example, added cost for PG&E customers, about $130/yr., $36/yr. for SCE, and $200/yr. for SDG&E. Electric service providers up and down the state are proposing fees to try to obviate this inequity, and the Merced Irrigation District has already approved a $65/month fee on customers who install solar panels starting in January, 2020. What is fair? For the most part those who do not have rooftop solar panels are those who cannot afford them. So in essence this means that those on the lower part of the economic salary scale are the ones who are already paying these higher rates, and the more rooftop solar units that are put in, the more they will have to pay.

Is this fair? It sounds eerily similar to the recent gas tax increase that practically excludes those who have electric cars  . . . and who are the ones who are getting stuck paying to maintain the roads? Hint: Those who are benefitting are those who can afford electric cars, and I suspect that most of these electric car owners also have solar panels. Ummm!

On the other hand, a lot of those who already have solar panels say that part of the reason they put in the solar was so they would not have to pay monthly electric bills, and charging them a monthly minimum fee at this juncture is not fair! A dilemma! But let’s take a step back and look at this “dilemma” in general terms. Isn’t this just another example of the liberal members of the global warming religion (the Democrats) passing legislation that in essence harms those among us, who are least able to afford it? Yes, paying a minimum monthly fee if you have solar panels may in some ways be unfair, but if you could pay the 20+K to put up your solar panels . . . suck it up, as you can afford it!

For those of you not aware, and this includes myself, Christianity Today (CT) is an evangelical journal that was founded by Billy Graham many years ago. (Just to be clear, the Graham family has not had anything to do with the journal for years.) Anyway CT recently came out with an editorial criticizing President Trump and siding with the Dems for his impeachment.(Just to be clear, Franklin Graham, the son of prominent evangelist, has had nothing to do with CT for years, and has spoken out against the publication and it’s political posturing. In fact Franklin Graham said that his father, Billy Graham, thought that Donald Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation. He also pointed out the Billy Graham voted for Mr. Trump in the last election.)

The editor in chief of CT, Mark Galli, recently penned an editorial which in essence said that President Trump’s actions were “profoundly abnormal,” and the president of CT, Dr. Timothy Dairymple, subsequently agreed with the position of Galli’s editorial. (Just to be clear, this is the same Mr. Galli who in 2016 referred to those who voted for Donald Trump as basically uneducated and blue-collar.) 

Interestingly, while at the gym last week, I glanced at one of the TV screens that happened to be on CNN, and noticed it’s headline “Prominent Christian Group Comes Out in Favor of Impeachment.” (Just to be clear, this was an accident . . . me watching CNN, that is. I merely glanced, but in that one glance knew that if CNN was reporting it, there was something “fake” about that headline.)The response to CT’s editorial position was impressive to say the least, as almost 200 evangelical leaders from across the country penned a letter to CT’s president, Dr. Dairymple. Those who signed the letter made it clear that they were not “far right,” but rather both “Bible-believing Christians “ and “patriotic Americans.” To summarize this response letter it was clear that not only did they disagree with CT, but in fact, they felt quite the opposite as they quoted many of Trump’s policies and beliefs that are pro-Christian. (Just to be clear, I have not seen this response statement from the 200 evangelical leaders mentioned on CNN [just to be even more clear, as stated above, I do not watch CNN, however a friend of mine told me!])

Also my local newspaper has not mentioned the united response from the almost 200 evangelical leaders in support of President Trump (Just to be clear, I cannot recall the last time this paper has said anything supportive of President Trump.)

Just to be clear, I am a rightward leaning patriotic American who although not evangelical, agrees with the 200 evangelical leaders who penned the letter in protest to the audacity of CT. How about you ?

What is the Student Action Summit, Turning Point, USA, 2019 ? I had never heard of such a group or the summit. What is it? 
It is an annual three day event for conservative students between 15-25 years of age. This year it was held in West Palm Beach, Florida in mid-December. Admission to this event is by invitation only. Potential attendees must fill out an application, which includes a 200 word essay on one’s own political philosophy, and a “tell us about yourself” essay (300 words or less).

After filling out their applications, 5000+ students were then invited to attend this year’s session. This event is heavily subsidized, with the attendee responsible for only his/her travel, meals, and a $30 admission ticket to all of the General sessions as well as breakout sessions. Speakers at this year’s three day event included Senator Ted Cruz, Congressman Matt Gaetz, Dinish D’Souza, Rudy Giuliani, Candace Owens, Sarah Sanders, Ben Shapiro, and many more including the keynote speaker . . . President Trump.

Wow, can you imagine the once in a lifetime experience of a being able to hear the President speak. President Trump did not disappoint. He spoke for an hour or do. He spoke about windmill farms, his accomplishments as President, the impeachment fiasco, and the plight of conservative students. The crowd’s response was reminiscent of the crowds at each of his rallies . . . raucous, energetic, and overtly enthusiastic. (Note that a lot of these students are our potential leaders of the future.) Oh, to be a student again, and have a chance to fill out an application for this annual event!

BTW, when asked who he would prefer to run against in 2020, he responded, “Joe Biden,” who in contrast to President Trump, has a difficult time keeping his supporters awake! 

President Trump held a rally in Battle Creek, Michigan on the night of 12/18/19. The last time a president visited Battle Creek was President Bush in 2004. The raucous crowd of more than 5400 packed the Kellogg Arena. Battle Creek is in Calhoun County, which went for Obama in both 2008 and 2012, but was one of twelve Michigan counties that flipped to Trump in 2016. Almost as if it were planned, 12/18 was the night that the House held its vote on impeachment. When the House impeachment vote was announced, the crowd responded with cheers of “Four more years,” and “U.S.A., U.S.A.!” The impeachment vote in the House did not discourage the crowd, but rather made it more enthusiastic. Will this Battle Creek, Michigan response be a predictor of the nationwide response to this Democrat debacle? 
According to Brad Pescale, there were some interesting stats on the Battle Creek crowd for President Trump’s “Merry Christmas” rally and speech:

-92.2% were from Michigan; the rest came from Illinois and Indiana, both close to Battle Creek. (Does this imply that the people of Michigan are fired up about President Trump and the 2020 presidential election? If those that are from Michigan are fired up now, how much more so will they be in November, 2020?)

-17% of the crowd were Democrats ( I find this to be an amazing statistic. These Dems were not there to disrupt . . . only one disruptive woman over the 2+hour speech. Why would these Democrats stand in the long lines and brave the cold to see the Republican President? The only reasonable answer to that question is that they wanted to check him out for themselves – if they were considering voting for him next year, they wanted to see if he was the real deal. BTW: He is!)

-15% had not voted for 4years (This group are not “voting groupies.” They do not vote in every election, and did not vote for anybody in 2016, which was only 3 years ago. Why were they at this “Merry Christmas” rally? Again the only plausible answer is that they are planning on voting in the next presidential election. They have voted in the past, and they plan to vote again in 2020. For whom? Take a wild guess!)

-15% had voted in only one of the last four presidential elections (To me this may be the most important group for the Republicans, and the worst group for the Dems, as this group for the most part in the past hasn’t given a sh** who is president. To go from  someone who typically does not care enough to vote to someone who is now attending a “Merry Christmas” rally is a big deal. It is this group that will increase turnout, as for over a decade they mostly did not turn out, and as we are aware, voter turnout will be very important to ensure a Trump victory in 2020. Make sure you-all plan to vote!)  

In our local paper, there was a recent article from the N.Y. Times about an Ohio school that was planning to drug test its students. The article was on both “the who, the what, and the when” of this drug testing program, but also on the legality of such testing. Since this school, Stephen T Baden High School, was a Catholic school, David Bloomfield, a law professor, said, “The school seems largely within its rights to come up with this policy.” I am going to assume that the parents of these Hamilton, Ohio high school students would like to know if their son/daughter are vaping or using drugs or alcohol. If for some reason they do not want their son/daughter tested, then they can just pull the child out of that school, and then they will not know.

In 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled 5-4  that public schools could randomly test its students. My question is, “If random drug testing of students is legal, why is it not done more frequently? Why is it not done in every middle school and high school in this state?” I suppose that the standard retort to ubiquitous random drug testing of students would have something to do with  . . . infringing on one’s privacy, unreasonable search, etc. If I am a concerned parent, would I want my child randomly tested for drugs? It’s hard to imagine a concerned parent who would not want to know if a son/daughter were using drugs, although in one local private school apparently some of the parents were concerned that a positive drug test would somehow find its way to a college application. To me this is perplexing . . . “better that my son/daughter get into a good college; if he/she is on drugs, so be it!” Huh?? I am not sure that I can refer to these parents as “concerned.” Of  course, there will always be parents who don’t really give a toot, but I would not put them in the “concerned parent” group. If my child is using drugs, I want to know.

I suppose that the other argument against random drug testing of all students is cost. Certainly these tests cannot be done for free. Someone would have to pay. To me I would view this random testing as similar to an insurance policy, and the best insurance policy is one that you never use. If my child or grandchild is sporadically tested, and is consistently negative . . . wonderful, and I will gladly chip in to pay for this testing. Again, if my child is using drugs, I want to know.

From the perspective of the state would it be beneficial to know which and how many students were using drugs? In the short run, this information would be hard to accept for some, and possibly be of little value to a fair number of parents. However, in the long run if only a small number of students are identified and consequently are able to get off the drugs, the benefit to the state would be well worth the price of the testing. Over the long run there would be less crime as these individuals would not be forced to get money for repeated fixes. Instead of having more drug addicts siphoning from the system, the state would have more individuals contributing to the system. The apropos question is: “Does the state really want to know?”

I do not pretend to understand the British political system, but I do understand the somewhat now almost universal struggle between the elites, who think that they know what is best for he rest of us, and the common folk who have to live day to day with the policies that are pushed through by the “know-it-alls.”
Many years ago, pre-Brexit, we went on a Baltic cruise that originated in Southampton, England. Because it was relatively easy for Brits to get to Southampton (no air travel involved), 75% of the passengers were from Great Britain. Every night we shared a dinner table with random Brits from just about everywhere in the U.K, but predominately from non-London, England. The thing that impressed me the most from these random dinner conversations was how unhappy the English people were with the present state of their country. This feeling seemed to be pervasive, and so when the “surprise” results of the Brexit vote were tallied, I was not surprised!
That brings us to the present day and the overwhelming vote in favor of pro-Brexit Boris Johnson and the Torys. (Like I said before, I do not pretend to understand the British system of government, but I think that the Torys are akin to the present day U.S. Republicans, and Boris Johnson is somewhat like Donald Trump.)  

I have a friend, Ken, who lives just outside Liverpool, England and I dropped him an email, basically asking him about this recent election. Since his response was like a novel (too long to read in one sitting), what follows is akin to a Cliff Notes version, but in his own words: 

”YAAAAAY!!!!!  At long last the people have had the opportunity to say what they really feel and the Left Wing Extremist, AntiSemitic, Brexit Betraying – Labour Party has finally got the message that they have not been listening to the ordinary people who they were supposed to be representing!!!!
But, even  now, listening to them, these way off-centre lot are clinging to their policies suggesting that the only issue was Brexit. As soon as the exit poll results were revealed, the £ shot up against the $ and the euro. Business heaved a sigh of relief and share prices rose, the Jews were far happier, Israel found one more friend and people felt that someone was in power who understood them.
Labour got the 2nd referendum they belly-ached about – and how???!!!
The Illiberal anti-Democrats lost their leader (Which serves them right – They were the real offenders who were determined to completely override the 2017 referendum).

He continued on:

“God has delivered us and, in response to prayer all across our land, He has given us an unconventional leader just as He has given America a similar man. A liberator from Globalism. A man who loves his Country.”And later on in his epistle:“Yes, there is finally a sense of optimism in the land. Time after time people are saying, “I voted Labour all my life, as did my dad and grandad, but now I have voted Tory for the first time because Boris is listening to the people.” If he gets it right then Boris may have wiped out the Labour Party. It must be acknowledged that Nigel Farage started this liberation and I have a great deal of respect for him. I am encouraged by so mach that President Trump is doing and saying but there are many snakes who are out to get him. I believe that God’s hand rests on your President. He is chosen by God for these important days and the greatest thing that He has done was to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”
I do not think that it is necessary to quote my friend, Ken, any further, as I am sure that you get the idea! I believe that he is a voice of the common man in England.
12/17/19

There was a recent story out of Michigan where a teacher forcibly ripped a “Women for Trump” pin off of a female students’s sweater. Was the teacher’s behavior inappropriate in this situation? A rational person would have to say, “yes,” as it is hard to imagine an appropriate reason for this type of behavior. Perhaps the teacher could have said, “I do not like Mr. Trump and although I do not agree with a lot that he does, it is your prerogative to sport such a ridiculous pin on your sweater.”

This type of behavior has been referred to as T.D.S. For those who may not know T.D.S. stands for Trump Derangement Syndrome, and the implication is that those who are affected with this disorder act inappropriately in certain situations . . . specifically in certain situations in which another individual expresses something that is complementary to the President.

There are multiple other stories of emotional and sometimes borderline violent behavior in response to someone with a a MAGA hat or a pro-Trump bumper sticker. Are these all examples of T.D.S.? Probably yes, although this type of behavior should more precisely be characterized as T.G.B. (Third Grade Behavior), as a third grader often cannot control his/her emotions, and might grab a fellow classmate’s L.A. Dodgers baseball hat and step on it. A third grader might even attempt to forcibly remove a “Go Dodgers” pin from a classmate’s sweatshirt . . . err, on the other hand this behavior may even be considered too immature for a third grader! 
In January, 2019 Psychology Today  had an article  on whether T.D.S. actually exists. This was written by a Ph.D. out of McGill University, and suggests that those who demonstrate extreme examples of T.D.S. should probably have a mental health evaluation. (No, I would not bother to read this article as it is a bunch of drivel!)

In my opinion, the disorder of T.D.S. would more aptly apply to CNN and it’s commentators who are over the top negative concerning anything that Donald  Trump does. My guess would be that many of those individuals who demonstrate T.D.S.-like behavior are those who watch an excessive amount of CNN.
However to be Fair and Balanced, I have a confession to make. Just like an individual admitting to his/her problem at an AA meeting, I have to admit that I am afflicted with  P.T.F. (Pro-Trump Fanaticism)! I agree with just about everything that he does. I often do not agree with the tone of his tweets, but I do agree with his message. I like it when he exposes Democratic drivel, as pure B.S. I like it that he sticks his finger in the eye of political correctness! In contrast to T.D.S. and CNN, I do not excessively watch Fox News . . . in fact I now watch Fox infrequently. 

In  contrast to those with T.D.S., I do not rip off and step on anti-Trump hats, etc. In fact before the election in 2016 I exhibited a lot of self control when the guy who sat next to me at the football game wore a red hat that said, “We Do Not Need to Make America Great Again . . . It’s Great Already!” BTW: I wonder if he had a good time at his planned “Clinton Victory Party”?

Can we just think logically here about this impeachment kerfuffle? (FYI: for those of you who think that this piece is going to be biased, “kerfuffle” is a completely neutral word that simply means “commotion” or “a fuss.”) So, in other words, can we try to think logically about this impeachment fuss? Personally, until just recently, I just did not get it.

 Is it the far left Democrats that are pushing this, or is it more the centrist Democrats?For those on the far left, does it make any sense to push through this impeachment kerfuffle in the House? (I tried to use a neutral synonym for “kerfuffle,” but according to Dictioary.com, “kerfuffle has no synonyms!) If the House impeaches President Trump, then there will be a trial in the Senate. Unfortunately, this trial will be occurring when those far left Senators that are running for the nomination, should be out on the campaign trail, especially Warren and Sanders. Far left Democrat voters are not going to be swayed by this continuing kerfuffle . . . err, useless debate, as they have already decided that they would never vote for Trump. However, the risk for the Democrats in general is that their lefty voters will stay home, if they think that their far left candidate got unjustifiably screwed out of the nomination again, like Clinton and the DNC did to Sanders in 2016.

In the past I have felt that Nancy Pelosi, although shrewd and conniving, was basically a moderate Democrat. She had her finger on the pulse of the voting public, and had not in the past been inclined to do politically dumb things. So why is she encouraging this impeachment kerfuffle . . . err, absurdity? Now only 34% of independents support impeachment, whereas at the beginning of the impeachment process, 49% of independent voters supported the impeachment process. Continuing with this kerfuffle, . . . err, baloney can only put the Democrat majority in the House at risk, and with the loss of their majority, goes Ms. Pelosi’s Speakership. It seems inconceivable that the moderate Democrats in the House do not recognize that their own re-election chances are being harmed by this continuing kerfuffle, . . . err, nonsense.

For those moderates backing Joe Biden, they should be able to see that continuing this impeachment kerfuffle . . . err, lunacy, can only harm Sleepy Joe, as it is certain that his deepening involvement in some past Ukraine skulduggery will come out. 

So, I was stumped!! . . . Until the lightbulb went on. 

I can see only one potential good outcome for the Dems in this pointless kerfuffle . . . er, ridiculousness especially with the Republicans in control the Senate, and hence a certain not guilty outcome.

Let’s think back to the elections of 2018. Basically, Donald Trump outsmarted the Democrat strategists in 2018. He paid little attention to the races in the House, but paid a lot of attention to the races in the Senate. In most past off-year elections, the party of the President in office could be expected to lose many seats, and this is what happened to the Republicans in the House in the 2018 elections. However, which part of the Legislative branch is the more important branch? Which part of the Legislative branch gets the deciding vote on Supreme Court nominees? Which part gets the deciding say in impeachments? Obviously, the Senate.

Could it be that the Democrats realize that they have no chance of defeating President Trump in 2020? Could it be that they hope to use their “not-guilty” votes against those Republican Senators up for re-election in 2020? Judge Ginsberg cannot last forever, and everybody knows it. If the Republicans continue to control the Senate after 2020, Trump will nominate and the Republican Senate will then confirm another conservative Supreme Court Justice. This would mean a rightward leaning Supreme Court for decades to come!

To me, continuing this ridiculous, pointless, and illogical kerfuffle only makes sense if the Dems can use this as a means of controlling the Senate after 2020.