Author: William

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.

Just when you thought Trump could wipe the political sweat off his brow, now this. Iowa Democrats—who ran their own caucus process—now say that their problems are Trump’s fault.

After first blaming an app for the inability to declare Monday night, a problem that still lingers even as frustrated candidates have packed up and moved on to New Hampshire for the nation’s first primary, the state party is blaming the president’s supporters.

Workers manning the phones in Iowa after the state’s disastrous caucus on Monday reportedly claim that President Trump backers flooded the hotline number for precinct chairs that led to even more confusion and disarray.

Trump supporters flood hotline for Iowa precinct chairs, adding to the confusion: report

Ken Sagar, a Democratic central committee member in the state, told a conference call Wednesday that on the night of the caucus, Trump backers were calling in to voice their support for the president, Bloomberg reported.

Ok, given that their creator and CEO is running for President, is Bloomberg news a credible source for this report? Just wondering….

Assuming that bogus calls are the problem with the Democrat backup plan—which is a stretch—how do you know the callers are really Trump supporters? They could be drunk fraternity brothers prank calling.

Can you imagine that as being an equally valid reason? Next they’ll say it was calls from Russia. Bottom line is Democrats had four years to figure this out—it worked OK four years ago—except for the part where Bernie won.

In related news, Democrats in other states are taking steps to prevent a repeat of the Iowa fiasco. The Troll has assured me that this counting problem would not be an issue in states where they use paper ballots. His sources claim that Home Depot is giving Democrats a contractor’s discount for portable drills so they can automate their ballot stuffing operations. Democrats are paying extra to buy batteries from Elon Musk because they are so good that they only need to be charged once every four years.

DNC Chairman Tom Perez is on the record as saying that Democrats are committed to preventing voter interference in future elections.