Author: William

Democrats let Uncle Joe out of the basement again today just to see if anybody cared. Joe has been having many pound me too (#MeToo) moments lately just to get noticed. Joe says outrageous and provocative things just to see if he can get an honorable mention in stories focused on Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg. Here’s a few recent zingers that Joe has uttered this week with a straight face.

“150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability, more than all the wars, including Vietnam from that point on.”
Joe Biden 02/25/2020

Biden oddly suggests ‘150 million’ people killed by guns since 2007

Biden just declared that about 45 percent of the US population has died from random gun violence in the last dozen years and thinks blaming Sanders is the solution? Oh, and from that we are to think Biden is the best choice for President!! Hey Joe, most random homeless people still have enough brain cells left to know you’re full of excrement.

I don’t know if its his advanced age or dementia but the line between this life and the next is very thin in Biden’s world. Did you know that he negotiated a climate deal with a world leader that died almost 20 years before he was ever VP?

Presidential candidate Joe Biden appeared to make another misstep during a campaign event in South Carolina on Monday, claiming to have worked on the Paris Climate Accord with former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who died 19 years before the agreement was signed.

Joe Biden Claims to Have Worked On 2016 Paris Climate Deal With Chinese Leader Who Died In 1997

“One of the things I’m proudest of is getting passed, getting moved, getting in control of the Paris Climate Accord,” Biden told the crowd. “I’m the guy who came back after meeting with Deng Xiaoping and making the case that I believe China will join if we put pressure on them. We got almost 200 nations to join.”

Deng led China from 1978 until his retirement in 1992. Under his leadership, the Communist Party opened China to foreign investment and reaped the rewards of breakneck economic growth. The decision laid the foundations for contemporary China and its enormous economy.

At the same campaign event, Biden tried to demonstrate his vast understanding of Second Amendment issues with this comment:

“Who in God’s name needs a hundred rounds in a bullet, in a clip, with a gun you have?”

Biden says he negotiated climate deal with long-dead Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping

My response to Joe is that we need guns to protect us from pompous idiots like you that think you are superior to us because you got elected to office and parlayed it into a way to become millionaires at our expense. Public Service my foot.

But folks Biden wasn’t done yet.

Biden had another odd gaffe that day. Wrapping up his remarks at the South Carolina Democratic Party’s First in the South Dinner, he misspoke about which office he was seeking and made a puzzling reference to another Biden.

“Where I come from, you don’t get far unless you ask. My name’s Joe Biden. I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over. If you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden,” he said.

Biden also raised eyebrows when he recently shared an unverified claim on the campaign trail that he was once arrested in South Africa trying to see Nelson Mandela in prison, something he had never previously shared.

So, there’s another Biden, an evil Biden? Joe is he hiding in your head too? Bipolar might explain as much as it answers. Was it just a “senior moment” that you claimed to be running for Senate or were you having flashbacks to when you thought you were relevant? Speaking of relevant, invoking a bogus story that even MSNBC doesn’t believe about you being arrested trying to see Nelson Mandela.

From that great Conservative Media outlet, The Washington Post

“This day, 30 years ago, Nelson Mandela walked out of prison and entered into discussions about apartheid. I had the great honor of meeting him. I had the great honor of being arrested with our U.N. ambassador on the streets of Soweto trying to get to see him on Robbens Island.”
— Former vice president Joe Biden, in remarks in Columbia, S.C., on Feb. 11

“After he [Mandela] got free and became president, he came to Washington and came to my office. He threw his arms around me and said, ‘I want to say thank you.’ I said, ‘What are you thanking me for, Mr. President?’ He said: ‘You tried to see me. You got arrested trying to see me.’”
— Biden, in remarks in Las Vegas on Feb. 16

Biden’s ridiculous claim he was arrested trying to see Mandela

We were reminded of that episode when we saw that former vice president Joe Biden has told voters at least three times that he was arrested in South Africa while trying to visit Nelson Mandela. The New York Times has done a great job deconstructing this story, but it cries out for our own fact check and a Pinocchio rating.

The South Carolina primary, with its large percentage of African American voters, is critical for Biden’s hopes to emerge as the top challenger to the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Sanders participated in the civil rights movement, unlike Biden, and photos have emerged of Sanders being arrested during a civil rights protest at the University of Chicago.

Biden, as a senator, was active in the anti-apartheid movement, helping pass sanctions on companies doing business in South Africa over President Ronald Reagan’s veto. But there is no evidence that Biden was ever arrested trying to see the imprisoned future president of a democratic South Africa.

Biden’s second statement — that Mandela thanked him for being arrested — also is not credible.

…there’s no excuse for telling an invented story like this.

Biden has never been shy about tooting his own horn. So it’s pretty surprising that on the eve of a primary critical to his election hopes, he suddenly recalls being arrested in South Africa — and being thanked by Mandela for being arrested. There is no evidence for either claim; neither appears remotely credible. Biden earns Four Pinocchios.

Folks when The Washington Times and Fox News agree that you’re blowing smoke up the voter’s tailpipes, then as Liz Warren might say, “Old White man in heap big trouble.”

When looking at the Biden campaign, I’m reminded of a line from the Kansas album Drastic Measures which asks, “Are you for real or are you going through the motions?”

Wednesday night I received another nonsensical email from my token Liberal friend asking about Attorney General Barr and the Stone case.

Barr has stated his displeasure of trumps daily tweets of attacking a federal judge in the middle of a federal case. It’s thought he may resign because of the unprecedented obstruction and interference.

Easy question:

Who is right and who do you support?

Do you support trumps daily attacks of a federal judge (Which means if President Warren sent the exact same tweets you would support her with a blog) and Barr should just shut up and do with the King says?

Or is Barr right, trump has crossed the line and must be confronted? And none of this is normal presidential behavior?

Here was my response

I don’t think Barr will resign.

Four observations on this trial

1 This particular judge has a long track record of treating people working for the other party differently than others. With activist judges, this often happens.

2 What is worse is that the jury foreman in the Stone case should have been thrown off the case long before it went to a jury. She was posting daily updates of the trial on Facebook and doing other things contrary to standard jury practice.

3 Third, the case itself is probably the result of a concept call “fruit of the forbidden tree.” If the FBI had properly vetted the “Steel Dossier” this case would never have happened. The logic is this, the Steel claims were the basis of the FISA warrants, since the Steel stuff was demonstrably false, the FBI should have stopped their actions investigating Trump’s campaign but instead they repeatedly lied to the FISA judge to renew warrants.

4 The investigators tried the same approach that is normally reserved for the mafia and drug dealers, i.e. find a charge as leverage on a small player to get the goods on the guy above them. They tried this with Trump but couldn’t find anything. Many otherwise fine people were threatened by prosecutors to “cop a plea” or they were going to go after their families. For example, faced with this threat, General Flynn pleaded guilty to something that he never did. These heavy handed tactics netted a few other folks too. The prosecutors in the Stone case were some of the last Democrat lawyers left from the Mueller investigation. (Reportedly Mueller had zero Republicans in his team of investigators.) The sentence that the prosecutors were asking for was way beyond federal sentencing guidelines.

The judge is well aware of my four points and would not admit that the process in this particular case was irredeemably tainted. Had she done her job and declared a mistrial, the government could refile the charges again with a new jury and perhaps different judge (or the government could toss the case).

All things being equal, the case should have been tossed. The fact that it wasn’t and the government’s lawyers were asking for an especially harsh sentence (given Stone’s age it was life in prison) was a source of frustration to many; especially Trump.

Yes his emotion is understandable but the timing of Trump’s comment was a source of irritation for the AG. It should be, Trump was really going after Barr for not acting sooner and ending the charade of a trial.

To directly answer your question, strictly speaking, Trump did not obstruct the court nor interfere with the judge, he was chiding the Executive Branch (his branch of the government) and kicking Barr in the butt. The Federal Judiciary is separate from the Executive and Federal Judges are appointed for life so Trump can’t threaten them or do anything but grumble, which he did. Furthermore, the sentencing recommendation from the Justice Department (Executive Branch agency) is only a recommendation; the judge can take it or leave it. She can do what she wants; subject to appeal.

Yes this is not “normal” presidential behavior but Trump is not a normal president. Trump calls things the way he sees them. Like it or not, you know where he stands. As for Warren or someone else Tweeting similar stuff, I don’t see it happening. Democrats usually operate differently because they view the purpose of government differently; but that is a different topic…

The next day, hours after the sentencing of Roger Stone, President Trump took to the microphone.

President Trump blasted Roger Stone’s treatment by the criminal justice system, the Justice Department and the jury forewoman in the GOP operative’s trial Thursday in a blistering address in front of an audience in Las Vegas, saying Stone has a “very good chance of exoneration.”

Trump says Roger Stone has ‘very good chance of exoneration’ in Las Vegas

Trump said that Stone, though “definitely a character,” was a “very good person,” and that the jury in his sentencing had been tainted by an anti-Trump activist. “These people know more about bad juries than anyone else, the sheriff, the mayor. You’re my experts okay?” he told the room of previously incarcerated people. He said the jury forewoman “started going a little wild, was very happy,” when Roger Stone was determined to be guilty of obstruction last year, and it was later revealed she had a social media account full of anti-Trump posts which she did not disclose to the courts.

The jury forewoman, Tomeka Hart, even posted specifically about the Stone case before she was selected to sit on the jury, as she retweeted an argument mocking those who considered Stone’s dramatic arrest in a predawn raid by a federal tactical team to be excessive force. She also suggested Trump and his supporters were racist and praised the investigation conducted by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which ultimately led to Stone’s prosecution.

Justice Department prosecutors initially had sought a sentence of up to nine years for Stone, but senior officials at the department later called for a lesser sentence. Attorney General William Barr’s move to intervene in Stone’s sentencing led to all four members of the prosecution team quitting the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Thursday also said the initial recommendation was excessive. Her sentence of 40 months in prison was considerably less than that — yet far more than the probation sought by his defense.

It is great to give an answer to a bewildered Liberal and the next day have POTUS agree with many of the points that I raised at his very next public appearance.

Who is Tomeka Hart?

Below are some Tweets for Tomeka Hart, the foreman of Stone’s jury. Please note that all Tweets in this post were created before she was put on Stone’s jury. Stone’s trial began November 6, 2019. Also, Hart had previously run for Congress as a Democrat. Hart also regularly posted on Facebook about Trump but has since purged much of that content.

Oh, Tomeka Hart works for Bill Gates. Yuck!

Hart, committed perjury by not disclosing her bias during jury selection. Oh, please note in the biography above that Hart is a lawyer and knew what she was doing. She should not have been on the jury, let alone its foreman, and once the judge was presented with proof that Hart was biased, a mistrial should have been declared. Like us, Trump is ReallyRight.

I was minding my own business today when my token Liberal friend texted me a meme on President Trump with the statement, “Trump claims he’s the chief law enforcement official.”

The text accompanying the meme was accusatory in tone. Let me give you the conversation.

Liberal: Hey William, question for you. In addition to the King of earth and Jesus Christ, trump now calls himself the chief law enforcement officer of the land. So if Warren is elected president will she now be the chief law enforcement officer?

Me: The Executive Branch of government is charged with enforcing the law, the Legislative Branch makes the law, and Judicial Branch resolves and tries the Law. What’s the big deal? Gavin Newsom is technically the chief law enforcement guy in California. All federal people, like Attorney General and Federal Prosecutors, are under Trump, since he is President.

Almost all Federal government employees, as a percentage, work for the Executive Branch.

Lib: So would Warren be the US chief law enforcement officer like trump is?

Me: Sure, whoever wins in November will be chief law enforcement official for next four years. That’s basic Constitution not rocket science.

This power is where Trump or Newsom gets power to pardon or commute prison sentences.

Lib: I’m not sure what page of the constitution where it states the president is the chief law enforcement officer of the US.

Me: Since all law enforcement people work under him, and he appoints the department heads and has power to remove them, this makes him chief of law enforcement. Same idea as him being Commander of the military. He is charged with enforcing the law and protecting citizens.

This power of the President is supported by the Supreme Court and has been upheld in numerous court cases.

Trump appointed Mueller and had the power to fire him without cause at any time.

If Chief Executive is not chief law enforcement guy then who is?

Lib: The Attorney General has always had that role until now.

Me: He may have day to day role but who hires and fires Attorney General? The President.

President delegates authority but not responsibility. Remember “the buck stops here?”

Lib: Ya, I know that saying but it doesn’t pertain to trump since he never once has taken responsibility for his actions instead he attacks others and lies.

Me: Your emotional response does not negate a factually true statement.

And, poof! Just like that the conversation was ended.

My Comments

Can you imagine a California Liberal appealing to enumerated powers of the Constitution to limit the government?

Sadly, hell has not frozen over. A Liberal has not seen the light and become a Constitutionalist.

Trust me, this guy is OK with Obamacare, open borders, and all the extra-Constitutional actions of the federal government—which he has never once complained about–but when dealing with Trump, he then tries to limit the President to only enumerated powers??? Folks, I just don’t get it.

Another funny one? On a previous occasion, this guy complained that under Trump, the federal budgets are too large. So his brilliant solution, he wants a Democrat in the White House. To which I responded, if Hillary or anyone else in the Dem field won in 2016 or this time around, the federal budget would be even bigger. Grrrrr!!!

Folks, I don’t mind disagreeing with people or that others have a difference of opinion but what really frosts me is when they have one standard for the people that they like and another for everyone else.

Sadly my friend has no interest in learning for himself what Trump is doing. He can only parrot stuff he’s heard from some place on the Internet.

Bottom line is you can’t use reason to talk with a person that can only engage issues on an emotional level. Yes I know the proverb about fools and their folly but on the other hand, why should I expect the spiritually dead to exhibit signs of life? My friend needs Christ not an amended voter registration card. Thanks to Trump, I have more freedom to practice my religion and engage with lost souls.

No, this post isn’t a slam on the third party of California but on KCRA-TV and the Associated Press. Folks I don’t know if this is sloppy writing or a purposeful dis of the once Grand Ole Party but the lead of this story is constructed in a peculiar way. See if you agree.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —California voters will be able to change their party affiliation and update their address at polling stations on election day under a new law approved in time for the March 3 Democratic primary.

The change was particularly sought as it will allow the state’s 5.6 million independent voters to register with a party by signing off on only one form on election day. Democratic presidential campaigns hope the law will boost the number of registered Democrats and participation in their primary.

California voters can switch party status on election day

It strikes me as weird that the way this story is constructed; no acknowledgement is mentioned that Republicans can vote too. But does this story only apply to Democrats? The perspective of the author is that there is only one party in California.

A different view

Here is the lead for the same story from the San Francisco Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO — Californians will be able to update their party registration on election day, allowing independent voters to participate in the upcoming Democratic and Republican presidential primaries.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Thursday simplifying the process for voters to update their party preference or address at any point in the final two weeks before an election, until the polls close. SB207 allows voters to fill out a short form to amend their registration information at their voting location or the county registrar’s office, rather than requiring them to reregister and take a conditional ballot.

California voters can now switch party registration on election day

Two comments about the Chronicle story. First we learn that the law applies to all voters not just Democrats and second the Chronicle actually gives you the bill number and links it in their story.

SB-207

So what does it do?

This bill would permit a voter, from the 14th day immediately preceding an election until the close of polls on election day… to change the voter’s residence address or political party preference by submitting to the voter’s county elections official a written request containing the new residence address or political party preference and signed under penalty of perjury. The bill would require a ballot or provisional ballot to be provided to the voter, as specified, and would require that the registration of the voter be immediately updated.

SB-207 Elections: voter registration: partisan primary elections.

The bill was passed by a 2/3 vote of both houses of the State Legislature last week and was signed by the Governor yesterday. So as predicted many years ago, California now has same day registration. Since Democrats planned this change a decade ago, one wonders why the sudden urgency after voting has started and two and half weeks before Election Day.

Oh, in case you missed it, the net result of all the election changes here is that Iowa’s Democrat vote count will be a shining example of efficiency compared to getting California’s final vote totals. Even before this legislation, final results were expected to take many weeks. Kind of begs the question as to whether a Sander’s election night victory will Bern away once the dead and illegal voters are counted in the days following the election.

Talk about Operation Chaos!

Addendum: There was another bill enacted last fall (October 2019) related to late and same day voter registration. The bill signed last fall required verification of voters prior to counting their votes.

Legislation signed Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom expands conditional voter registration in the state. Voters who register conditionally on Election Day will not have their ballots counted until their registration has been verified.

Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs New Law Expanding Same-Day Voter Registration

However, under the new law, the process of registering or changing registration is streamlined. (Completion of a full voter registration form is no longer required during last 14 days.) Also, it appears that ballots cast are no longer segregated and counted separately.

My initial interest in the article was the assumption that only Democrats will be voting on March 3rd.

Yep, the Liberal rag that has plagued northern California for over 150 years and the rest of the country for a few decades has filed for bankruptcy protection. McClatchy can’t pay their retirement payment that is due next month—we have previously documented this—so they are filing for B.K. and trying to slough-off their pensions onto the Federal government.

The overall reorganization plan seeks to address an estimated $700 million in debt. It would also put a hedge fund in control of the 163-year-old journalism company.

McClatchy expects fourth-quarter revenues of $183.9 million, down 14% from a year earlier. Its 2019 revenue is anticipated to be down 12.1% from the previous year. That would mean that the publisher’s revenue will have slid for six consecutive years.

The company expects to pull its listing from the New York Stock Exchange as a publicly traded company and go private.

Sacramento-based McClatchy files for bankruptcy protection

The company’s value is so low that they are being kicked out of the New York Stock Exchange—can you say penny stock? Thus they have to go private, the statements above are lipstick on the pig.

Folks, McClatchy’s bankruptcy filing will only allow the death spiral of this company to crash in a controlled manner. Color me skeptical, but somehow the company’s leadership will walk away with fully funded stock portfolios while retirees might get their pensions cut and they put taxpayers on the hook for the liability of 25,000 current retirees.

The newspaper chain also said it expects to transfer management of its $1.4 billion pension plan to the U.S. government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. The costs of the company’s pension plan, a legacy of an era in which the newspaper industry was rich with profits, weighed it down in recent years.

Although bankruptcies can result in pensioners receiving less than they were due, McClatchy said Thursday that it believes its plan “would not have an adverse impact on qualified pension benefits for substantially all plan participants.”

Newspaper chain McClatchy files Chapter 11 bankruptcy after pension woes, print declines

McClatchy’s pension plan was founded in 1944 and covered nearly 24,500 people as of Jan. 1, 2019. The company also assumed other pension plans with various acquisitions in recent decades. By July 2019, the company’s pension shortfall totaled $805 million, according to a court filing.

Folks, to me this is tragic on a lot of levels but a long time in coming.

There is humor (or hubris) to be found in all this. The following quote encapsulates what’s wrong with this company and always has been.

McClatchy spokesperson Jeanne Segal said in an email that there would be “no layoffs associated with this filing. Our newsrooms are operating as usual, providing strong independent local journalism essential to the communities we serve.”

Folks, this paper has never been a provider of independent journalism. That is laughable on its face. McClatchy has been the official mouthpiece of the Democrat Party on every issue they have ever covered. Yes, they will occasionally throw a token Democrat under the bus if it furthers the Party as a whole, but who remembers Joseph Montoya anyway?

The hedge fund involved with putting McClatchy on life-support parroted the McClatchy spokesman, saying they’re “committed to preserving independent journalism and newsroom jobs.”

Translation, “we gave McClatchy enough life to lie about Republicans and President Trump for a few more months (or years) before we give this organization the needle.”

McClatchy and the rest of the mainstream print media should be under mandatory reporting for in-kind contributions to the Democrat Party because they are incapable of independent thought. These guys are a joke. The faster this company is euthanized, the better off the rest of us will be.

“Elections have consequences.” It’s the political way for winners to tell losers: “Tough luck, you lost. Get over it.”
—Barack Obama 2009

Donald Trump has been cramming that statement down the Democrat’s throats for over three years now. But this last week, he has taught them a new corollary to that sentiment, failed impeachments have consequences too.

In what the mainstream media thought was a preemptive strike, they made the case that failed impeachments shouldn’t have any repercussions. Consider the following from Bloomberg news.

President Donald Trump mostly stifled his fury toward the impeachment … Now that he’s been acquitted of two impeachment charges, they’re bracing for payback.

It may be about to begin.

It’s not just the witnesses — such as Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, an NSC analyst — who could face retribution for speaking out. The deeper anxiety among many career national security officials is that Trump, feeling vindicated by the Senate’s acquittal, will act on longharbored suspicions that bureaucrats at the State Department and the NSC are out to undermine his agenda.

Unburdened by impeachment, they fear that Trump could unleash his anger at the foreign policy establishment he’s long equated with what some of his advisers and supporters call the “Deep State.”

Trump Impeachment Fury Sows Fear of Payback Among Diplomats

“Active-duty officers are scared of word getting out and then facing retribution, not just from the president but also from political ambassadors,” said Lewis Lukens, the former deputy envoy in London who was removed last year by Trump’s choice to lead the embassy there, New York Jets owner Woody Johnson. “The president’s acquittal will reinforce in his mind that he can get rid of career people, not just at State, who he thinks are blocking or slow-rolling his agenda.”

So far the fallout from impeachment has been relatively muted. Gordon Sondland, the hotelier and U.S. ambassador to the European Union — who testified there was a “quid pro quo” in Trump’s Ukraine dealings that everybody knew — continues his work in Brussels.

Folks, the digital ink on this story was not even dry when the stuff hit the fan. Alexander Vindman and his brother were sacked by Trump along with Ambassador Gordon Sondland.

Donald Trump has recalled the US ambassador who testified in the impeachment inquiry against him, becoming the second prominent witness to be fired in the aftermath of the president’s acquittal on charges of abuse of power and obstruction.

“I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Gordon Sondland said in a statement released on Friday evening. The hotelier from Oregon became a diplomat after donating $1m to Mr Trump’s inauguration committee.

During his explosive testimony at the impeachment inquiry, Mr Sondland contradicted claims from Mr Trump and his top aides that there was no quid pro quo when the White House withheld aid from Ukraine as a way to pressure Kyiv to launch an investigation into former US vice-president Joe Biden.

His recall came within hours of the dismissal of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the US army officer who told impeachment investigators that Donald Trump made “inappropriate” demands of his Ukrainian counterpart.

Lt Col Vindman, a Ukraine expert, was sacked from his post at the National Security Council and “escorted out of the White House”, his lawyer said

Donald Trump fires US ambassador to EU and impeachment witness

But President Trump was just getting started.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway on Monday hinted that additional officials could be forced out of their roles following the ousters last week of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Ambassador Gordon Sondland — both high-profile witnesses in the impeachment investigation of President Donald Trump.

Asked during an interview on “Fox & Friends” whether there will be more dismissals in the days to come, Conway said…

Kellyanne Conway says more officials may be ousted after Trump’s Senate acquittal

With the digital ink not dry on that story, it was announced that Trump fired 70 more people from the National Security Council.

In some sense, as Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner reported, Trump “is making good on his promises to ‘drain the swamp.’”

In this case, he’s targeting leftist appointees to the NSC hired by his predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama.

“Officials confirmed that Trump and national security adviser Robert O’Brien have cut 70 positions inherited from former President Barack Obama, who had fattened the staff to 200,” Bedard reported. “Many were loaners from other agencies and have been sent back. Others left government work.”

Trump Fires 70 at NSC, Biden-Burisma Questions Remain

Folks, look for this purge to continue under the radar. Trump values loyalty above all else and he will do what it takes to get the Executive Branch to be responsive to the Chief Executive.

If you recall, President Bush was plagued with similar subterfuge with holdovers that he kept in his Administration—note that this malady doesn’t affect Democrats because they keep no holdovers.

Lastly, is Alexander Vindman the real life Radar O’Reilly?

Oh, and some folks left today as a result of the government not throwing the book at Roger Stone. Seems like this guy is being prosecuted as the result of tainted FBI warrants. Roger is full of BS and going to jail while Biden did worse and gets a pass. Not fair. I think all the Mueller related cases need to be dropped in light of the lies that the FBI told FISA to spy on the Trump campaign.

Joe Biden, the gift that keeps on giving, has delivered on camera again. This time while campaigning in New Hampshire.

He insulted a college student, “You’re a lying, dog-faced pony soldier.”

Here’s the news story:

The student, Madison, of Mercer University in Georgia, began by asking Biden how he could remain competitive in the race after that performance.

“It’s a good question,” Biden responded. “Number one: Iowa’s a democratic caucus. You ever been to a caucus? No you haven’t. You’re a lying, dog-faced pony soldier. You said you were; but now you got to be honest. I’m gonna be honest with you.”

Biden had used the bizarre phrase in January as well, in response to a question about President Obama’s broken promise that individuals would be guaranteed the option to keep their doctors under the Affordable Care Act.

Biden, in New Hampshire, jokingly calls student ‘a lying, dog-faced pony soldier’

This past December in Iowa, Biden slammed a voter who questioned Hunter Biden’s business dealings as a “damn liar” who needed to take an “IQ test.”

The former vice president also seemingly called the man “fat,” although the Biden campaign said he had been misunderstood.

Joe also took a shot at Booty Judge in an ad that Trump would make him take back since his claimed accomplishments in the ad are nothing to brag about. Joe took credit for the Iran Nuclear deal where Obama gave them 1.5 billion in cash, saving the auto industry by screwing stockholders and giving General Motors to the labor unions, Obamacare, and other stupid stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3beFOnjBoE

For those too young to remember, Biden first ran for President in 1988. He was caught plagiarizing material in his speeches—much like Michael Bloomberg is doing in the current campaign—and Biden was forced to withdraw from the campaign.

My favorite gaff by Biden was in 2015 when he tells a man in wheelchair to stand up.

The thing about Joe is that if a camera is near, you never know what you’ll hear. For those of us that enjoy the theater of politics, Joe still has time for more such comments.

In October 2019, Garvin Newsom signed a two page bill (AB 749) into law but it looks to me that the state isn’t following it. I would like somebody that passed the bar to give me their take on my question.

While this law probably has no effect on most readers, it should be instructive to see how government really functions.

Before AB 749

Like many things, the bill is in response to a lawsuit. Below is the situation prior to the passage of AB 749.

Carmyn Fields, a former California Highway Patrol analyst, told a state Senate committee in June that she has been unable to find employment with another law enforcement agency since she reached a settlement agreement with CHP.

Fields sued the department after supervisors failed to take action when she reported her boss had repeatedly sexually harassed her. Her settlement agreement included a “no rehire” clause.

Now when she applies for other state law enforcement jobs, she has to disclose on the state application that she “agreed not to seek or accept subsequent employment with the state or any state agency.”

New California law bans ‘no-rehire’ clauses after worker lawsuits

Here is the language cited by Carmyn Fields in the Sacramento Bee article quoted above.

Have you ever entered into any written agreement with a state agency in which you agreed not to seek or accept subsequent employment with the state or any state agency?

Have you ever entered into any written agreement with a state agency involving an adverse action, rejection on probation, or AWOL termination, in which you agreed not to seek or accept subsequent employment with a particular state agency?

After AB 749

The law went into effect January 1, 2020. Here are descriptions of how it is supposed to work.

Under new Code of Civil Procedure section 1002.5 (AB 7 49), effective Jan. 1, a settlement agreement or severance agreement in an employment dispute cannot contain a provision prohibiting, preventing, or restricting an “aggrieved person” from obtaining future employment with the employer, parent company, subsidiary, division, affiliate, or contractor of the employer. The new law explicitly states that a “no rehire” provision is void as a matter of law and against public policy.

An employer may include a “no rehire” provision in a severance or separation agreement if the employee has not filed a claim against the employer. Also, an employer can include a “no rehire” provision in a settlement agreement if the employer has made a good faith determination that the settling employee engaged in sexual harassment or sexual assault.

Sara Boyns, Workplace Law: Limitations on no rehire provisions

Additionally, under AB 749, employers will need to review their standard settlement agreements to remove provisions that preclude an employee from being rehired by the employer or obtaining employment with an affiliate.

These 2020 laws look to level playing field for California workers

The bill summary written by the Legislative Counsel states:

This bill would prohibit an agreement to settle an employment dispute from containing a provision that prohibits, prevents, or otherwise restricts a settling party that is an aggrieved person, as defined, from working for the employer against which the aggrieved person has filed a claim or any parent company, subsidiary, division, affiliate, or contractor of the employer.

(AB 749 appears in its entirety at the end of this post.)

Legal Question

Given the above, why is the State of California still requiring every job applicant to answer the very questions that gave rise to AB 749?

The questions asked of Carmyn Fields, are still being asked in February 2020, six weeks after they were made illegal, allegedly.

Here is a screen shot from the California HR website from earlier this week.

Have you ever entered into any written agreement with a state agency in which you agreed not to seek or accept subsequent employment with the state or any state agency?

Have you ever entered into any written agreement with a state agency involving an adverse action, rejection on probation, or AWOL termination, in which you agreed not to seek or accept subsequent employment with a particular state agency?

Did I miss something or is the Human Resources department of the State of California violating the law?

Those with a J.D. at the end of your name, please opine.

Below is the bill in its entirety.