William – Page 76 – Really Right

Words Speak Louder Than Deeds

Eight years ago, it was our worst versus their worst and Obama won. This time it’s our loudest versus their loudest. The election isn’t over yet but there’s been a hell of a lot of jury tampering going on lately.

Trump was caught on tape saying something that many—especially on the Left seem to claim is reprehensible. Trump used words but Bill Clinton did what Trump said and worse. Nobody has accused Trump of rape but Bill Clinton is a proven sexual predator and gets a pass from the same people feigning outrage at Trump.

Isn’t that what the entire pornography industry is based on; fantasies that men have about women that they can never have. It was Larry Flint—publisher of Hustler magazine—that famously came to Bill Clinton’s defense during the impeachment and Monica affairs. What party defends and promotes pornography, perversion, and tearing down social norms? It’s in their rainbow DNA. Pornography is such a big deal that it’s even on the California ballot; we get to vote on whether those in adult films must use condoms when filming pornographic movies.

And you thought Liberals wanted to keep government out of your bedroom? Yeah, right!

Trump talks about keeping America safe while Hillary—as Secretary of State—purposely killed those in her care. Thanks to Michael Bay, at least some low information voters have heard of Benghazi.

How come Trump’s words are xenophobia while Hillary wants to expand the Obama policy of flooding the country with Muslims that want to kill and enslave us? Oh, and implement Sharia Law. People that came here used to want to be Americans, but now they want to reshape America to be just like whatever Third World hole they crawled out of.

Even after campaigning twice for president and spending a billion dollars in political ads during this election cycle, no Clinton supporter can tell you three accomplishments of Hillary. They only know that Trump is evil because he is a Republican and uses sarcasm when answering stupid questions from the Fourth Estate.

More on Taxpayer Funding in Support of Measure B

If you needed more proof that taxpayer money is being spent on supporting Measure B here is yet another nugget of evidence.
Please note that the website registrations for Yes on Measure B Link: MeasureB-Yes and the Sacramento Go Link: SacramentoGo websites are hosted by the same Internet server. Sacramento Go is the site being pushed at taxpayer expense by various cities and the county of Sacramento to gin-up support for higher taxes.

Both sites have the same Internet Protocol (IP) address. 173.236.197.171 This is more than coincidence.

It’s time to cue the music to “It’s a Small World” There are no coincidences in this campaign, it is one seamlessly orchestrated scam on the low information voters of this region. Both Republican and Democrat elected officials are united in pulling one over on the voters of this county. This is what government means when they advocate a public-private partnership.

Also please note that both the taxpayer funded flyer and the mailer from the Yes campaign are using the very same publisher. All the taxpayer funded advocacy literature is illegal and an in-kind contribution to the Yes campaign.

Map from City of Elk Grove taxpayer funded flyer

There is no doubt that both the taxpayer funded flyer and the one from the Yes campaign were created by the same company. The graphics are identical. Both were mailed a few days apart.

When you live in a one party system this kind of corruption is rampant and unchecked.

Taxpayer Money Spent on Measure B

It’s no great surprise to me—especially in a state that in now governed by one political party—that taxpayer money is being spent to try to raise taxes. Last week, a coordinated campaign flyer was sent throughout Sacramento County to promote passage of Measure B—the sales tax increase for transportation.

Depending on where you live, it was paid for by various local governments. In the Rosemont area, it was paid for by the County of Sacramento. Where I live, it was paid for by the City of Elk Grove. I’m trying to get information on which other local governments were part of this coordinated effort. I’m sure Rancho Cordova and Citrus Heights were in on it too. The flyer is made by the same publisher with some tweaks to target various parts of the county.

Besides being paid for with taxpayer money, the flyers did not have any campaign identification on them. The required committee disclosures and I.D. numbers were not on them. The flyer clearly promoted passage of the tax increase and directed people to the yes on B website.

So why is that a big deal you might ask? Because they were sent not on the basis of utility bills or tax rolls or other relationships to local government, they were sent to registered voters.

My proof is simply. The flyer sent to my house was not sent to my wife and me. All county and city utilities are in our name except for the one that is in the name of my deceased mother-in-law. No, the flyer was sent to my adult stepchildren. Their only tie to our house is voter registration. My stepson is in the Air Force and lives outside of California. The only government records with his name and our address on them is his voter registration. My stepdaughter’s only government records with her name on them are one motor vehicle, and her voter registration. No insurance, cell phones, utilities or anything else is in their names now or at any time in the past.

Voter registration records can legally only be used for political purposes.

Therefore for a political flyer to be sent to registered voters without being reported as a political expenditure is a clear violation of campaign finance law.

So we have two violations of the law in play:
1. Taxpayer money used to pay for a political mailer that is not identified as such
2. The flyer is sent to people on the basis of being registered voters

This is the second time that I am aware that the City of Elk Grove has funded a political flyer in favor of the tax increase. Clearly the elected officials at city hall are either in on this abuse of taxpayer money or not minding the store; either way is not good for citizens or the rule of law.

I’m encouraging the Sith Lord to file a formal complaint with the Fair Political Practices Committee (FPPC). Any action they take—which is a questionable proposition—would be long after the election in November. However, it might be grounds to get the tax increase challenged in court should it pass.

Movie Review: Targeted

My wife thought my previous version of this review was too harsh so I’ve rewritten this blog to reflect her critique.

Last night there was a nationwide screening of the documentary Targeted: Exposing the Gun Control Agenda.
Link: Targeted The Movie
The film was made by Jesse Winton and his father Randy . This is the Winton’s second film. Their first was on the subject of adoption.

I saw the movie at a theater in Folsom, CA. Jesse and Randy were both in attendance. I have known them for several years. Also in attendance was the sheriff of El Dorado County—John D’Agostini—who is featured in the film and Paul Shaver—who portrayed the gun maker in the film.

Targeted is the story of 20 year old Jesse Winton as he explores gun control and the Second Amendment. The story was believable and compelling. It reflected the Winton’s family values without being “in your face” about it. It was logically presented. The movie makes an historical case for the linkage of bearing arms and freedom. It begins in the present and explores the background of where the Second Amendment originated. It presents a logical case for how the Founding Fathers built upon the work of others and asserted that the Declaration of Independence was an expression of existing beliefs about the relationship of a sovereign to his people. The film was about an hour long plus the panel discussion that follows.

The film is a challenge to the American people to embrace their heritage. Winton reminds us that Rights come from God not government; therefore, government has no right to deprive people of Liberty; especially with false promises of security.

There will be another showing October 5th. I recommend that you get a few friends to go see the movie. However, please be careful how you invite people. If you mention the title of the movie on Facebook, know that your post and account will be subject to censorship or worse.

Other Thoughts

Please sir, can I have some more?

The thing I really wanted to see more of was politicians calling for gun control that had no idea what they were talking about. These video clips were presented in a staccato fashion and the moment passed too quickly.

I know this project took about three years to get from concept to cinema. I also know that there is lots of great footage that literally didn’t make the final cut. I hope they add a feature on the DVD to give us a look at some of this material. My recollection is that they have some great footage of Diane Feinstein saying some outrageous things about guns (probably on more than one occasion).

Comments on Production Quality
Production and editing were good; especially considering the shoestring budget that was used to make the film. Photography was good but a few spots were too dark or a little off on the exposure settings. Some shots using magnification were slightly pixelated—most of these were outdoor shots of scenery. (That’s the risk you take when you need to get something on the first take.) The film’s audio was well done; however, the panel discussion following the film had some audio issues but I’m not sure if it was from emulating stereo sound or just the challenges of miking five people simultaneously during a live production.

The most difficult thing to watch in the film was the television clips at the beginning. Several were hard on my eyes because the video quality was poor. It seemed like they were made with a camera in front of a television set or lifted from low quality YouTube uploads. Perhaps it’s one of those things where it looks great on a monitor but when magnified to the proportions of a movie theater screen, it just shows all the blemishes that seemed minor on a television.

HD Antenna

The HD antenna that I deployed when our family “cut the cord” was really marginal. The antenna was located in our attic but many local channels were downright unwatchable. All we were able to get on some stations was pixels that changed every four or five seconds and highly fragmented audio. To watch many shows, I had to catch them on Hulu the following day. Watching the evening news was impossible on many stations and ditto for live sports.

Just in time for the new television season—such as it is—I went to Frys and bought a new antenna. (Assembly required) I then got up the nerve to get on the roof to install it. Our ladder is too short to reach the roof and standing on the top step is a dicey proposition—especially when working by yourself. Thankfully, my eleven year old is willing to help his old dad by holding the ladder.

I removed the DirecTV dish and replaced it with the new antenna. I used the same mast but had to exclude some parts from the clamp assembly to get it to fit.

It may not reach the advertised 70 miles but we do get more channels and at a much better quality. After filtering out the Spanish language and home shopping stations, we still have a fairly good variety of over-the-air stuff to choose from.

Trump v Clinton: Debate 1

At the insistence of my wife, I had to sit thru the presidential debate last night.

My first impression was that Lester Holt is a dolt. He was so in the tank for Hillary—yes, unlike Democrats, I can spell her name correctly.

Lester was not evenhanded in his treatment of the candidates and intervened whenever Trump starting pressing Clinton on issues. Whenever the audience would applaud Trump, he would scold them but said nothing when Clinton supporters became vocal or would applaud. His questions were heavily slanted to the Left and never probed into Clinton’s failures. Trump had two opponents on the stage last night.

I was disappointed that Trump did not press Clinton on Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, and all the foreign money that she is taking from the Islamic world. Trump also did not press the fact that one in five households has no one working and there are 95 million people out of the workforce under the economy of Obama.

What I must remember is that Trump was not there for my benefit, he was there to “look presidential” to the low information voters in a few swing states. If he can win the hearts and minds of these people that haven’t paid attention to politics until now, then he just might win.

If I was to score the debate on points, Trump won but not outright. Holt largely kept away from Clinton’s weaknesses and kept attacking Trump using her talking points.

I hope that next time Trump will better explain his economic ideas. His target audience is a bunch of economic illiterates that don’t understand that “the rich” pay most of the taxes in this country and our tax policies are punitive toward success and risk taking. Trump let Clinton get away with repeating the myth that that government creates jobs—no she didn’t use those exact words but if you look at the definition of what she said, that is what it means.

Debating Clinton presents so many potential targets that it’s understandable that Trump let some opportunities get past him. Trump was solid on the race trap that Holt tried to set and did well explaining his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. Trump also did well deflecting the Media Matters type attacks that Clinton tried to hit him with towards the end. Trump does use satire and exaggeration and when Clinton tries to take him literally and hit him with it, she looks stupid.

I think Clinton blew her wad last night and is out of ammo for the next round but Trump is just warming-up. Voting in many states will be underway before the next debate and Trump has momentum.

It’s Official: Wells Fargo Customers to Get No Restitution

The headline says it all
Wells Fargo Customers May Never See Their Day in Court, Experts Say
Link: NBC Business

The reason is simple; Wells Fargo employed the law firm of Dewey, Screwum, and Howe. These slick guys inserted a mandatory arbitration clause deep in the bowels of the bank’s fine print and weasel words so in order to open an account with the stagecoach bank you agree to “…mandatory arbitration contract clauses that protect banks from class-action suits.”

The short version is as a bank customer,” you have the right to remain silent…” because by opening an account you waive all your rights to legal protection.

Oh, lest you think this unique, go read your Internet service agreement or other consumer contracts. The software I’m using to write this blog is not mine even though hundreds of dollars were paid to acquire it. I don’t own the software, just a license to use it. It still belongs to Microsoft.

Like home ownership, much that you pay good money for is not really yours; you just use it at the pleasure of the King and his agents.

SEIU Back to the Table

Veggie Tales has a movie called “The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything” That is what I thought of when I read the latest message from the SEIU to it’s members:

On Oct.10, our bargaining team will return to the table. Our members have demonstrated their support of the bargaining team each week by staying visible; showing solidarity and committing themselves to continuing the fight.

Link: SEIU 09-21-2016

SEIU has done nothing of substance to improve their position in negotiating with the State but they seem ready to declare victor—if they can get anything from the Brown Administration. Are they the Union that doesn’t do anything?

Placer County Measure M

I received an email yesterday that concerns Measure M in Placer County. Coincidently, it is also a sales tax increase to fund transportation just like the one in Sacramento County. The old saying about following the money appears validated again.

I have analyzed the financial support for Measure M with Placer County so far and found the following from the main committee filings. Numbers are below. This leads me to the conclusion that developers have great hope of being subsidized by this tax increase. When some groups have put out $40-49k this early in the election, how many millions in tax breaks are they expecting, if this is approved? There are zero individual, concerned citizens who have donated to this measure. 93% of the donations are from the development industry and the rest are from the Roseville Chamber PAC, which arguably has a significant number of developers in it. In addition, Uhler’s phony League of Placer County Taxpayers (more developers) has been involved with robocall surveys to neighbors to support the measure. How is a tax increase in the interest of taxpayers!!!???? We need to get the word out to the community about who really supports this and why:
Heavenly Valley LLC——————$1k
Blackburn Consulting—————-$3k
Roseville Chamber PAC———-$10k
Westpark MPC5 LLC—————-$49k
Placer Vineyards———————$40k
Richland Developers—————$40k
Y & C Transportation—————-$2.5k
Total Contributions = $145.5k

The contents of the email appear to be spot-on in their analysis.

See campaign financial disclosure for measure M
Link: campaign Financial Disclosure forms

Ballot arguments can be found here
Link: Ballot Arguments

SEIU and Rights

This week’s message from the SEIU to state workers is stand strong.

Throughout California, Local 1000 members are purpling up and standing shoulder-to-shoulder to show the state we’re committed to fight for a contract we can all be proud of. We’re telling the state their current contract offer does not value or respect the services we provide and we won’t stop until we win a contract we can all be proud of.
Link: Weekly update Sep 14th

Besides the obligatory slap at management this week, the item that really caught my attention is the section on rights. I get told what my rights are as someone involuntarily represented by SEIU but it got me to wondering. Let’s change the context slightly and see if I really have the rights SEIU is claiming.

I’m a Christian so do I have these rights too?

Support our God
You have the right to support our God and to express pro-Christian opinions to other employees and to management.

Wear our Christian colors
You have the right to wear buttons and stickers and to wear Christian clothing.

Display our Christian materials
You have the right to post and display Christian materials inside your workspace.

Distribute our Christian materials
You have the right to distribute Christian materials during non-work time.

Post our Christian materials
You have the right to display Christian materials on appropriate bulletin boards.

Attend our Christian meetings
You have the right to attend Christian meetings on nonwork time.

Somehow I think this is a one-way street.

If I were to offend someone with talk of Christ, I would get a stern talking to by my supervisor and told to cut it out.

If I involuntarily took money from my coworker’s desk it would be called theft but in government it is called a “fair share” payment to SEIU (“Fair Share” is 99.5 percent of what union dues cost.)

If I display too much Christian stuff and offend someone I would have to take it down but if I want to advocate socialism and statism then it’s my right; nay, my duty to do so.

So is working for the state a “hostile work environment”?