In an historic first, humanity has been given advance warning that the Zombie Apocalypse is scheduled to begin tomorrow. Contrary to earlier reports, the evil corporate entity responsible for the end of life as we know it is not the Umbrella Corporation.
Umbrella Corp logo
Instead, government officials have announced that the responsible entity is a bankrupt company bent on self-preservation at the expense of humanity and what passes for civilization in this once Golden State. Enter one Pacific Gas and Electric Company. No not the cheesy 1960’s rock band but the once proud public utility.
Rock band Pacific Gas and Electric
The spark responsible for the anticipated chaos is the purposeful and simultaneous loss of electrical power in 30 California counties. The affected areas are expected to include Silicon Valley and peace loving Oakland.
PG&E 30-county blackout area
Here is the completed list of affected counties:
Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lake, Mariposa, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Tuolumne, Yolo and Yuba
San Francisco blackouts expected here
Personally, my money is on the Raider’s fans to be the backbone of the lawlessness which will ensue; especially, if the blackouts go into overtime.
Raider fans eager to do their part
If this materializes as promised, look for Silicon Valley folks to transfer critical operations to other states with cheaper and more abundant power and less government red tape.
Oh, and here is a typical newsfeed of the warning being broadcast.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is warning customers that the utility may shut off power to 30 California counties this week because of a potentially widespread wind event.
The potential Public Safety Power Shutoff could impact more than 600,000 customers across Northern and Central California, the utility said Monday night.
The strong and dry wind event, forecast for Wednesday morning through Thursday afternoon, could impact much of PG&E’s service area, which includes northern, coastal and Bay Area counties. The National Weather Service has issued a fire weather watch for midweek.
“If PG&E decides to implement a PSPS, the company expects to begin turning off power for safety early Wednesday morning,” the utility said Monday night.
If you live in one of these areas stock up on water and shotgun shells today.
Oh to identify the zombies, look for the stranger carrying your neighbor’s television set or dragging his wife down the street towards their gasoline powered vehicles. Zombies don’t drive Tesla’s in PG&E service areas.
Raiders fan rehearsing for Zombie Apocalypse
Stay tuned to this blog for further developments as the situation warrants.
When it comes to business and entertainment, China seems to be dictating American policy. Just as they govern their own nation with fear, American companies are succumbing to fear of the Dragon of the East. When given a choice, Americans are choosing profit over principle every time.
China has made a huge investment in Hollywood over the last several years. As a result, they have actively reshaped the plots and casting of many big budget movies. Sometimes the changes made headlines and other times it hasn’t. One of the earliest changes that I recall was the remake of Red Dawn.
Red Dawn 1984
In the original 1984 movie, troops from Cuba and Russia make a surprise attack on the United States and get bogged down in a protracted fight. A group of high school students wage a guerrilla war against the invader’s supply routes.
As Hollywood often does, they remade the movie in 2012. Since the Soviet Union had fallen decades before, they needed a new villain, an aggressor nation with the military might to take on the United States. The logical choice was China. However, a curious thing happened in the midst of post-production. The studio nixed the China thing and made the producers change the aggressor nation to North Korea.
Red Dawn 2012
Was China originally the country invading the USA?
Yes, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was originally presented as the invading regime, but after pressure from the PRC government and studio concerns on how it could impact the international box office, the film was digitally altered in post-production to replace all the PRC flags, posters and dialogue with that of North Korea.
Since then, it has become commonplace to change scripts or edit movies in such a way to get distribution in China. Even Hollywood “tent pole” movies like the Avengers have been altered to make it marketable in China.
Such changes are just the tip of the proverbial spear.
Today, two more news stories about compromising to please China are in the headlines. First up, the National Basketball Association (NBA).
The headline from ultra-rightwing publication Rolling Stone says it all.
In a Friday night tweet that he has since deleted, the Houston Rockets general manager expressed support for the legions of protesters who have taken to the streets of Hong Kong.
However, the problem for Morey is that the Chinese also love basketball. And thanks surely to the stardom of former Rockets great Yao Ming — now the head of the Chinese Basketball Association — Houston trailed only Golden State in popularity in the nation, per a recent survey. There appears to be too much money to be made in China for the NBA to stand up for human rights.
Yao himself responded to Morey’s tweet with condemnation, calling it “an inappropriate comment related to Hong Kong” and the CBA suspended its “exchanges and cooperation” with the Rockets. Chinese sportswear maker Li-Ning did the same, suspending its association with the team. The Chinese government also weighed in via its consulate, saying that it was “deeply shocked” by the tweet. The Rockets owner, Tilman Fertitta, quickly disowned Morey’s tweet:
Listen….@dmorey does NOT speak for the @HoustonRockets. Our presence in Tokyo is all about the promotion of the @NBA internationally and we are NOT a political organization. @espn https://t.co/yNyQFtwTTi — Tilman Fertitta (@TilmanJFertitta) October 5, 2019
The Rockets and the NBA could have stood up for Morey, for decency, and for the protesters and their human rights.
The NBA issued a sorry statement, declaring the league realizes that the tweet may have “deeply offended” Chinese fans and that they “have great respect for the history and culture of China,” as if that had anything to do with a bill that could be used to disappear journalists and critics of an autocratic regime. Morey, who The Ringer reports was at one point in jeopardy of losing his job, tweeted his own apology that read like it was dictated by his boss. Brooklyn Nets owner Joe Tsai, a co-founder of Chinese e-commerce conglomerate Alibaba, published an open letter on Facebook that referred to protesters as a “separatist movement.” Even James Harden, the Rockets’ star guard, issued a mea culpa for some reason, even though he wasn’t involved.
That last bit of rank submission to an autocratic regime captured the full extent of the NBA’s sellout to China. Several politicians on the left and right, including presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Ben Sasse (R-MO), called out the NBA’s cowardice. Even Rockets fan Ted Cruz took a principled stand:
We’re better than this; human rights shouldn’t be for sale & the NBA shouldn’t be assisting Chinese communist censorship. — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) October 7, 2019
Wow. Folks when Rolling Stone is singing the praises of Ted Cruz, you know that something is seriously wrong.
The next story probably won’t make it to your INBOX but it goes much the same way. Before getting into the particulars here’s a few nuggets of background. eSports is a big thing in a small segment of popular culture. This is where aspiring kids go to make millions of dollars playing video games competitively. A big hub of this activity is South Korea. Blizzard Entertainment was purchased a few years ago by Activision. Blizzard is best known for their World of Warcraft game. Hearthstone is a virtual card game that is modeled after Warcraft type characters.
Blizzard’s Hearthstone
The popular player ended a recent livestream with a call for his country’s liberation in a post-game interview. “Liberate Hong Kong,” Ng Wai said. “Revolution of our age!”
During the Hearthstone Grandmasters stream, the Hearthstone Pro was wearing a mask similar to those used by rioters in Hong Kong.
After the livestream ended, Ng Wai was immediately removed from the game’s Grandmasters rank and the developer is currently withholding his tournament prize money. The player also received a 12-month ban from the game’s professional events. The player will be unable to participate in Hearthstone eSports until October 5th 2020.
Unfortunately, government interference within China is a constant issue for its citizens. Even amongst the horrendous police brutality shown within the Hong Kong riots, the country still finds time for rampant censorship. With some developers being destroyed for slight anti-government inclusions, Blizzard’s huge Chinese presence does need to be protected in a business standpoint. From a moral and ethical standpoint, however, Blizzard is certainly not looking good.
For those of you that self-identify as low information voters, this is why I have problems with the way we conduct business with China. This also should help explain why I support President Trump’s efforts to change our relationship with China. Do I agree with everything Trump does with China? Probably not, but his instinct is correct. America businesses that put profit over principle are behaving shamefully.
Democrats are having a revolution in their midst. The leadership doesn’t know how to stave-off the insurgency of the Broad Squad and likeminded socialists in their midst so what can they do? Oh, how about unite by fighting a common enemy? Perhaps, someone that they hate almost as much as the Republicans. Amongst themselves they say, “Let’s investigate Donald Trump. Let’s impeach Donald Trump. Let’s imprison Donald Trump.” In their Keynesian little minds they reason that Trump has to be guilty of something, how else could he become rich?
If you pay attention to the Democrats, you learn something very significant about them; namely, they always accuse others of doing what they do. In their mind, when they do something, it’s just natural and right but when others do it, its corruption, shameful, or otherwise wrong. It matters not the subject, you can find this in so many areas of public policy and discourse. One of their favorite accusations is racism, but did you notice that they are the only ones that care about a person’s race. The rest of us care more about the content of one’s character, but everything Democrats talk about is based on skin color and other categories that only they care about.
Likewise, they are now accusing Donald Trump of doing what Joe Biden actually did as Vice-President; the difference is that Trump never did it and Joe did. Thus Democrats have one rule for themselves—the ruling class—and another rule for everyone else. The corollary is that it’s patently unfair to hold people to the same standard.
But why impeachment? Is this Nancy Pelosi’s Hail Mary pass to achieve the impossible or her last ditch effort to hold on to the Speaker position? Both?
I think you have to go back to the time when Democrats last hated someone as vehemently as Trump and that President would be Richard Nixon.
Richard Nixon
(Democrats didn’t hate Ronald Reagan, they just didn’t take him seriously and unlike Trump, Reagan was a likeable guy and worked with both parties.) Democrats came off the 1972 revolution when Pelosi’s generation took control of the Party and were promptly focused on crucifying Richard Nixon. Nixon was Vice-President during the McCarthy hearings and hated communists. For many, it was payback time. Nixon was only guilty of trying to protect his friends but back then that was enough to run him out of office. Nixon was ultimately forced to resign because of phone calls—sound familiar. Why do you think no tape exists of Trump’s call to Ukraine? Nixon had tapes and was crucified for it in Congress. Now because Trump has transcripts and not an actual recording of the call, Democrats will try to use that against him. Do you see the circular reasoning employed here? If you have a tape we’ll use it against you and if you only have a transcript and not a tape then we’ll use that against you too because that means you must have something to hide.
I think the Democrats are trying to relive the glory days of Watergate but the glory is only in their heads and not based in reality. Neither the Broad Squad and their fellow travelers towards Communism nor Donald Trump are going to let this reenactment end like last time.
The impeachment effort has already come off the rails because the narrative has been proven to be based on lies, innuendo, and fabrications.
President Trump is a bull in a china shop. He says inadvisable things to inadvisable people, mainly because he is inadvisable – literally no one can advise him. The vast majority of things Trump says are ignored or brushed off by those who understand the difference between bloviation and manipulation. Still, Trump’s constant stream of noise can make it difficult to tell the difference between the two.
So when an intelligence community whistleblower came forward with an allegation that, on a call with the Ukrainian president, Trump proposed a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government – release of military aid in exchange for a Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden – the allegation didn’t appear absurd on its face. The timeline, after all, seemed to match up: Trump allegedly suspended military aid to Ukraine personally a week before talking with the Ukrainian president, only to release the aid after the holdup was met with public scrutiny.
Then, the Trump administration released a transcript of the call, in which Trump used the typical New York real estate wheeler-dealer language of favors: favors related to investigations surrounding CrowdStrike, the firm tasked with analyzing the hack of the Democratic National Committee in 2016, an investigation that concluded with allegations of Russian interference; favors related to helping Rudy Giuliani investigate the origins of the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation; favors related to investigating the Bidens. The theory seemed to be gaining credibility.
Then it seemed to fall apart. It turned out that the Ukrainian government apparently had no clue that Trump was even withholding military aid – and without such a quid, there couldn’t be a pro quo. The Ukrainian president publicly proclaimed that Trump hadn’t pressured him. The whistleblower report turned out to be third-hand gossip rather than first-hand information. And allegations of a cover-up imploded as the Trump administration released information ranging from the transcript to the whistleblower report itself.
Two other thoughts on the impeachment thing. First, Trump has a right to defend himself from the accusations of the Democrats; to expect him to just sit there and take it like George W Bush did for eight years is not going to happen. Trump will vigorously defend himself. Second, Trump promised to investigate the corruption of the last administration. Clearly Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden deserve scrutiny given their known behavior while in office. There is enough on the public record, often in their own words, to indict either. Is this impeachment push a ruse to thwart forthcoming criminal charges on one of them?
Folks, this impeachment thing will result only in the termination of Joe Biden’s candidacy for President. As others have predicted on this blog, Biden couldn’t win, place, or show in any early primary states anyways. Given the weak Democrat field, it is possible that someone else may step off the sidelines and enter the fray. The filing window will begin closing soon in some states but if the field remains like it is, I see Trump easily winning reelection. I can’t speak to the other side but by their actions, Democrats have boosted the enthusiasm for Trump voters to an all-time high.
The other wildcard to watch is the Supreme Court. I think it highly probable that Justice Ginsburg will not be on the court come next fall. A looming court vacancy will upend anything else the Democrats might do between now and then.
I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.
Here are both sentences from the conversation related to Joe Biden. Per the transcript, this was a 30 minute call.
There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.
Oh, lest you think the Biden thing is some deep, dark secret, sorry, its not. Link to unedited video and transcript is embedded in quote below.
Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn’t resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.
“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.
Nancy Pelosi is taking a page from Barack Obama and that’s not a good thing. Obama’s phrase while in office was “Leading from Behind.” Nancy is Speaker of the House and Leader of the House Democrat Caucus; however, both titles are in name only. The Impeachment Express was leaving the station today with or without her when she gave up and hopped on board just to save face. Nancy’s days are numbered, both in office and on the planet. The Democrats are charging full bore down this track with no map or destination in sight.
Today’s action reminds me of Nancy’s quip about Obamacare, “We have to pass the bill to know what’s in it.” Nancy and company don’t know why they are Impeaching President Donald Trump. The Caucus feels that he surely deserves it for something, they just don’t know what yet. Think of today’s vote as a huge fishing license to subpoena the world.
As long as the Republicans, less Mitt Romney, have the majority in the Senate, this turkey will never fly. In addition, this action will put even more distance between the House and Senate and further isolate the Democrat minority in the Senate. One practical result will be Republicans pushing even more judicial appointments through without Democrat input.
The first casualty of this nonsense will be the Presidential aspirations of Joe Biden. As many have reported elsewhere, Biden did all the things that they are accusing Trump of doing with Ukraine. As Vice-president, Biden is even on tape bragging about his part in holding up one billion dollars in aid until Ukraine fired the prosecutor in charge of investigating their government’s corruption. The time from Biden’s demand to Ukraine’s compliance was about six hours.
Oh, in typical Biden fashion, he came out in full support of the Impeachment vote. Note to Joe: standing in from of the train and cheering for it to go faster when both your feet are between the rails is not proof of superior intelligence. Maybe Biden is elevating “career politician” to a new category in the Darwin Awards.
In contrast, Trump maintains that any delay in aid to Ukraine was to get our so-called allies in Europe to get off their butts and take out their wallets to have some ownership of the situation. To quote a sports phrase, Europe needed some skin in the game. Sadly, for the Democrats, this is the same thing Trump said in the last campaign… you know, the one he won. Trump does what he promises, and the Establishment just can’t wrap their tiny minds around that fact.
Also, Trump said that this delay in aid was not linked to any request about investigating Biden’s son. He was simply letting Ukraine’s government know that America has a new leader that believes in letting the chips fall where they may, even if it happens to be on the family of a public figure in our country.
Trump told reporters Tuesday that his request to withhold the aid was due to his desire to see greater European contributions to Ukraine’s defense, and not linked to whether the country would investigate the Biden family, which media outlets have reported Trump brought up on the call with Zelensky.
Given all the political posturing today, Trump promised to release the transcript within 24 hours. Hardly the move you’d expect from a guy the media is trying to cast as a modern-day Richard Nixon.
Folks, give the track record of both sides, how can a rational person believe the Dems. We are back to the era where it’s not the evidence but the seriousness of the charges.
“The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.” Tom Foley, Democrat, Former Speaker of the House.
Folks I don’t want to rehash what others have already said on this today but as I thought about recent events, I couldn’t help but think of Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia being killed on the stone table—which of course is a retelling of the crucifixion story of Jesus Christ. Here, the evil forces thought they had decisively won; however, the actions that they took ultimately insured their own destruction.
As Trump was happy to point out, not a single Democrat voted today on the basis of anything other than a single, uncorroborated story.
If Trump is exonerated when the transcript is released, then what?
I think this is the desperation Hail Mary pass with no time on the clock; and with it, the Democrats have sealed their doom for 2020. Democrats have played three years of prevent defense and Trump has been scoring at will against them (at least when Republicans decided to join him on the field).
Prevent Defense allows easy scores
This can’t end well for the Jackass team. As their quarterback, Pelosi will get the blame even though we all know she hasn’t been calling their plays for a long time.
If you live in many parts of California and your finances are a mess, then you probably know that Paul Blanco is your best bet to get a deal on a car. Paul Blanco targets his marketing at folks that generally don’t qualify for vehicle loans thru traditional dealership financing.
Paul Blanco locations in CA & NV
We will continue to provide much-needed services to Californians without a great credit score but who must have transportation to live, work and raise a family… — Paul Blanco
Yesterday, news broke that California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, filed a lawsuit against Blanco for being unethical.
A 32-page complaint filed Monday in Alameda County accuses the company of running a sophisticated scheme to lure customers into a dealership only to later lie about their incomes and the value of the cars they were purchasing to convince lenders to approve the loans.
The company paid for ads promising customers could get their credit checked over the phone, a tactic designed to avoid the embarrassing experience of having a loan denied in person. Call center operators had detailed scripts, which would include telling customers to “please hold while I process your application,” only to return five seconds later to congratulate them on meeting the credit criteria for “several of our lenders.” But Becerra says an unnamed manager at the call center said operators would not process loan applications at all. Instead, the act was a ruse to collect information and generate sales leads.
Once customers arrived at the dealership, Becerra says the company would lie about how much money a potential borrower earned each year to deceive lenders. An audit by one finance company found that out of 320 incomes reported from the company’s location in Fresno, more than 78% of them were inflated by at least $500 per month.
Becerra also said the company made lots of money by selling optional add-ons, such as insurance or service contracts, by falsely telling customers they were required by law. In some cases, Becerra said customers did not know they were purchasing add-ons because employees would hide the paperwork by placing their hands over the disclosures – a technique employees at the dealership referred to as a “hands-down close.”
“We’re talking about hardworking families who make every dollar count, seeing their hard earned money swindled away by dishonest tactics that put them in unaffordable debt,” Becerra said.
My first thought upon hearing of this suit yesterday is “Who did Blanco forget to pay off in California’s Democrat Party?”
Neither Xavier Becerra nor his predecessor Kamala Harris seems to have cared too much that Wells Fargo Bank, headquartered in San Francisco, “…signed up thousands of auto loan customers for costly car insurance without their consent, resulting in many having their vehicles repossessed.”
The scandals continue at America’s third-largest bank by assets, Wells Fargo. Already reeling from a fake checking and credit card accounts crisis that cost former CEO John Stumpf his job, the firm admitted on Thursday evening it placed hundreds of thousands of unnecessary insurance contracts with its auto loan customers.
In total, Wells Fargo said between 2012 and 2017 it placed approximately 570,000 customers into a form of insurance called collateral protection insurance, which duplicated their existing coverage. The CPI product, which protects lenders against vehicle damage, is often not a feature of many automotive loans because car buyers’ are covered under their existing auto insurance. Wells Fargo used a third party to place CPI policies when it believed customers were not covered under their insurance. However, the bank now says it accidentally duplicated coverage and added unnecessary costs to customers’ monthly loan payments.
Becerra’s suit accuses Blanco of similar behavior as Wells Fargo but on a much smaller scale. In a quick Internet search, I couldn’t find any mention of Harris or Becerra being in the forefront of going after Wells Fargo for much more egregious behavior.
Please note that Presidential wannabee Kamala Harris was San Francisco District Attorney and then California Attorney General during most of the period when Wells Fargo was ripping-off customers literally right in her front yard. Makes me wonder where Wells Fargo was spending their PAC money while this fraud was going on?
Don’t forget, California does require auto insurance and so do lenders. Did Blanco offer insurance as a way to have some level of vertical market integration just like the Democrat’s favorite, Warren “Uncle Pennybags” Buffett? It is well documented elsewhere on this blog that Buffett has made much of his fortune off the backs of the poorest Americans, some of it doing the exact same thing for which Blanco is accused.
Blanco website offers auto insurance if you need it
I know some dealers offer insurance coverage in case you don’t have any. Given Blanco’s clientele, perhaps after 17 years in business, he found that this was the best way for his customers to get insurance by building it into the payment.
Maybe this is all just a misunderstanding because Blanco simply forget to send his annual contribution to our pay-to-play Insurance Commissioner, Ricardo Lara?
Blanco did pay his protection money to the Liberals in 2018 but apparently not enough recently.
SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — More than six months after a deadly shooting in her backyard, the grandmother of Stephon Clark is finding some healing from a helping hand.
This renovation of love started with digging up some physical and emotional dirt. It was six months ago when Sequita Thompson’s South Sacramento backyard became a crime scene after the shooting death of her grandson.
Amid the turmoil of the last six months and pleas for progress on the deadly officer-involved shooting has been a call for healing.
Word got around that the home was in need of a facelift. That’s when local car dealership owner Paul Blanco stepped in. He Donated $25,000 to give Thompson and her family a fresh start.
Folks, I’m not necessarily defending Blanco, just trying to point-out that other businesses in California exploit the poor much more than Blanco is accused of doing and they get a pass. Have you seen the interest rates at the payroll advance company in your neighborhood? Most folks are paying about 30 percent interest on revolving charge accounts including appliance purchases, credit cards, and the like. As long as they have the word “bank” in their name, such confiscatory rates seem to be legal.
Talk about disproportionately hurting the poor, have you see gasoline prices in California versus the rest of the country. Gasoline prices here are about a dollar a gallon more than most other states thanks to our State government. On top of that, the Legislature then steals the money collected on fuel taxes and puts it in the General Fund instead of maintaining our roads. Becerra’s Party is doing this without fear of reprisal or repercussions.
It looks to me that Becerra has decided to “shakedown” Blanco for being good at what he does. As many lawsuits as Becerra has filed against Donald Trump, I’m surprised he has time for Blanco. It really makes me wonder what Blanco’s voter registration is. This suit is the type of political grandstanding I would expect from Becerra in a hotly contested election year.
The likely outcome of this is that Blanco will agree to a fine and a change in business practices.
Neither Becerra, nor Kamala Harris before him, had a reputation for upholding the law; only the parts that they personally agreed with. (Can you say Proposition 8?) It’s sad when the chief law enforcement officer of the State has one set of rules for his friends and another for everyone else. Such behavior nullifies the concept of equal protection under the law and makes the law arbitrary and a political weapon. In the old days this was called tyranny now it’s just standard operating procedure in this once Golden State.
Folks, the way I see it, many states are running roughshod over the Constitutional rights granted to us as Christians under the First Amendment. This is especially true in regard to social issues. What I don’t get is where are the attorney groups that claim to represent us? In California, they all seem to have given up hope and just disappeared.
I think the defense for folks like us is very simple. Here’s a thumbnail of how it goes.
The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as a necessary condition to insure its passage. Colonists wanted specific assurances that abuses that led to the revolt against Great Britain would not occur under this new government. The Constitution was presented as a framework for a limited national government with enumerated powers—only those things specifically granted by the Constitution were permitted; thus, anything not specifically allowed was off limits to the new government. Representation and the ability to raise revenue were both strengthened when compared to the Articles of Confederation which preceded the Constitution.
The First Amendment acknowledges three areas of freedom: assembly, press, and religion plus the right to ask government to right past wrongs.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I would like to narrow the scope of this post to freedom of religion; however, please note that the restriction is upon Congress not the States or the people. What is forbidden is a top-down mandate of the national government setting up a national church or interfering with a person practicing their religion. At the time of ratification, a majority of states had state sponsored churches.
This arrangement created by the Constitution was in place for about “Four score and seven years…”
Following the Civil War, the nation adopted three Constitutional Amendments. One of these, contains the infamous Interstate Commerce Clause, which was the basis of implementing much of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Lesser known however is that the Civil War Amendments also forced the States to adopt the Bill of Rights. This note is typical of what you find in the legal literature.
The 14th Amendment is important, but the first clause is the most important. Prior to the 14th, states were free to ignore the Bill of Rights; a series of Supreme Court rulings made it clear that the Bill was to apply to acts of the Federal Government only. With the establishment of the 14th, the Bill, or at least parts of it, is made to apply to state law, too.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a big deal when applied to the current problems that we are facing. Since the Bill of Rights must be enforced by the State as well as the national government and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land; when the State, at some point in the future (like now) passes a law that conflicts with the Bill of Rights, they should lose every time.
Given this, I think any legal defense of religious beliefs must spring from this bulwark. To give the State any credence when they pass a law that violates our rights is unacceptable. When litigating a religious freedom case, we must lay a foundation that includes the idea that the authors of the Law were purposely targeting our beliefs and trying to outlaw and/or criminalize our beliefs.
For many years, the attitude of the Legislators in California has been if you don’t like what we do take it to court. They frequently state this in committee meetings at the Capitol. They may take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution but in reality, they don’t care. They will do what they desire and make no effort to be guided by an awareness of Constitutional limits.
As a result of this disdain of their obligations, I think any case that cedes the legitimacy of such laws is flawed. In my opinion, the best defense is put the law on trial not your client.
I think that attorneys in such cases need to lay a foundation that does two things: enters necessary Constitutional arguments for appeal and offer the jury an opportunity to nullify the law by acquitting your client.
I know trials try to introduce the minimum amount of evidence to persuade a jury but in a case like this, you need to give the jury and appellate court enough in the record to work with. Both need to be reminded of the history and heritage of our system of government. What this case is all about is a conflict between a protected individual (or class of people) and a subsequent law which is imposing a different and conflicting worldview upon folks that are put in the position to “obey God rather than man” Acts 5:29. In the final analysis, any law, no matter how well intentioned, that is at odds with biblical law is illegitimate.
My preference in such cases is get to a federal court. I think that generally speaking, you’re wasting your time in state courts; especially in places like California. Machiavelli said that justice cannot be had without money and this applies to such Constitutional cases.
Should you ever be involved in such litigation, please note that the folks on the other side of the table are also created by God and are due the courtesy granted to those made in his image—however flawed we humans may be. As such, when a conflict occurs between your religious freedom and a law demanding that you violate your beliefs, you have at least four options. Please consider each in light of your particular circumstances.
Option 1 is duke it out in court and go the distance. Please prayerfully consider if God has chosen you to be the person to litigate this issue. As Jesus said, count the cost. Also, God has called us to be faithful and leave the result up to him. This does not guarantee that you will win just that he will grant you the grace to endure this trial.
Option 2 see if the other party is willing to agree to litigate the case just to see what the court has to say on the law. Courts only agree to hear cases and controversies. Courts are not into playing “what if” …games. It occasionally happens that parties may both agree to disagree, present a vigorous case for their point of view, and see what happens.
Option 3 could be that the government offers you what they consider “a reasonable accommodation.” This option may not get you the result that you desire, i.e. the law being changed, but gets you out of being the one in a compromising position. For example, you might get out of teaching the LGBQ lesson to your students because someone else is brought in to teach it. Not the optimum result in your eyes but your conscientious objection was accommodated by the employer. Some laws specifically ban the ability to opt out for conscience sake so what do you do then?
Option 4 is a direct appeal to cost versus benefit of litigation. Many years ago, it was not unusual to spend upwards of a million dollars to litigate something all the way to the Supreme Court. I suspect it costs even more now. I will pick on the Elk Grove School District for this example because about 20 years ago, they went all the way to the US Supreme Court over the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Suppose a teacher with 16 years’ experience gets caught-up in a controversy related to a conflict between his religious beliefs and the school’s curriculum. In such a case, it would be better financially if the District just bought-out the balance of the teacher’s contract by paying the balance of retirement to the 20-year mark and discharging said teacher than it would to litigate the matter. Also, should the district lose, they then owe back-pay and perhaps some type of damages. Given that, writing a much smaller check to CalSTRS is a bargain for them, they might be willing to do this.
As you can see, some solutions benefit an individual while others all of us.
I do think we need to find a way to reintroduce jury nullification into our courts. Jury nullification exists to be a check on tyranny and clearly much coming out of state legislatures in Democrat areas qualifies as tyranny. This is where we need to be “wise as serpents and gentle as doves” Matt 10:16.
We need to lift a page from the other side and use linguistic gymnastics and find a more modern name for jury nullification. Perhaps this would be good to slip in when explaining that the Bill of Rights applies to the states now. Weave in some history about the evolution of the jury system as a check on the courts; otherwise why have a jury at all, just let the judge decide. Then in the closing remarks bring it back up again as the historic right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. Once the judge allows the concept to stand via testimony many days or weeks ago prior to closing arguments, he can’t put the genie back in the bottle later.
I’m still working on articulating my thoughts on this issue, but I just don’t get the feeling that our side is putting up a vigorous fight in the courts. Is it me, or do you get the feeling that they’ve just rolled over and ceded the ground to the pagans? Let me know what you think. Am I on the right track with this line of thinking?
There is nothing more iconic and universal in the United States than car ownership. Besides the Second Amendment, nothing symbolizes our freedom more. Which I guess is why the Left needs to attack it.
Yesterday, two news stories surfaced about Democrats wanting to outlaw cars and their private ownership. First up was Gavin Newsom responding to Donald Trump. Trump wants to strip California of its right to set its own standards for vehicle pollution. And then Presidential wannabe, Andrew Yang, commenting on cars and climate change.
Folks, when I see a California Democrat accusing a businessman (Donald Trump) of threatening business, I know I’m about to take a journey of imagination through the Twilight Zone.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom slammed the Trump administration and Republicans for their “complete silence on state’s rights, but also free enterprise” in light of President Donald Trump’s decision to curtail state-set emissions standards.
“They’re calling private sector corporations to the mat and threatening them,” Newsom, a Democrat, told CNN’s Don Lemon on Wednesday night on “CNN Tonight.”
Folks, FYI, when you see Newsom talking about state’s rights then you know something is off. Newsom is using the State’s rights argument to flaunt Federal law. This is how California can have sanctuary cities, decriminalization of drugs, refuse to prosecute illegal immigrants that commit crimes, etc.
Then Newsom goes on to claim that he is for free enterprise? Really? OK Gavin, then why is free enterprise almost nonexistent in your state? Why are businesses, the middleclass, and retirees fleeing your state by the thousands every month?
Why is it OK for California to dictate to automakers what emission standards should be but the national government should butt-out?
What Newsom is calling “state’s rights” is newspeak for unchecked tyranny.
For decades, California has effectively forced the rest of the nation to adopt their auto emission standards because manufacturing is easier to one standard than too many.
California’s waiver under the Clean Air Act allowed it to set standards tighter than the federal government’s, which have been adopted by more than a dozen states and became the de-facto nationwide standard because automakers do not design different sets of vehicles to meet standards in different states.
Compared to the 1970’s, California has about triple the population and a fraction of the amount of air pollution. If you look at a cost/benefit graph of costs, we are at the point where any decrease in allowable emissions will cost a significant amount.
Folks, it’s one thing for California to want to have lower emissions from cars but California wants to outlaw car ownership altogether. California also aspires to be the first state in the nation to outlaw internal combustion engines for both cars and trucks. Trump is wanting to free the auto industry from the crazy standards that California and former President Obama agreed to for the next decade.
California has this strange idea that we are “green” and into “sustainability.” This of course is self-delusion and nonsense. Look at the collapse of our recycling program. We can’t send our crap to China anymore so it just goes from the recycle bin to the landfill. Which is worse, our current air quality or the long-term effects of all the stuff we bury that gets into the water table? If California was serious about the environment as they claim then we would recycle all our trash within our own borders. As previously stated on this blog, Elon Musk is better suited for this task than trying to run a car company.
Also, if Gavin cared about the private sector then why is there a bill on his desk (AB 1482) to confiscate all residential rental property and setup a statewide scheme of rent control? Why are Democrats clamoring to bifurcate Proposition 13 and jack-up the tax rate on businesses? Why do entry level jobs have to pay $15 per hour?
The article continues:
“Federalism be damned; state rights, 10th Amendment be damned; Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon be damned,” Newsom said Wednesday when asked why he thought a Republican administration was exerting its power over a state-level decision — traditionally a cornerstone of conservative policy.
Newsom pointed to Reagan’s efforts as the state’s governor in 1967 to address smog in Los Angeles, arguing that it led to the bipartisan Clean Air Act signed by Nixon, a fellow California Republican, in 1970.
Newsom raises a good question in the above quote but clearly he is shading the facts to make an argument he doesn’t really believe. On this side of the Civil War and the New Deal, what is the Tenth Amendment to a Liberal? Just that he acknowledges the validity of the Tenth Amendment might be viewed by some as an accomplishment. When Democrats are saying good things about Nixon and Reagan in the same sentence, it should make you wonder why. Newsom is cherry picking data points to make a prima facie argument.
The only real question that you need to have about the above quote is “What is the nature of the agreement that California can set stricter emission rules?” Is it a regulation or a law? If it’s a regulation then as head of the Executive Branch, Trump can change it, if it’s a law then only Congress can change it.
Contrary to the way Newsom framed his complaint, this is not the first time that California and the Federal government have butted heads over vehicle emissions.
Yang on Banning Car Ownership
Andrew Yang, one of the herd of Democrat Presidential Wannabees, had some really honest and shocking words yesterday on cars as well. In short outlaw them.
Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang said the United States may have to eliminate private car ownership to combat climate change during MSNBC’s climate forum at Georgetown University Thursday morning.
He told MSNBC host Ali Velshi that “we might not own our own cars” by 2050 to wean the United States economy off of fossil fuels, describing private car ownership as “really inefficient and bad for the environment.” Privately owned cars would be replaced by a “constant roving fleet of electric cars.”
Andrew Yang
“Well I mentioned before that we might not own our own cars.Our current car ownership and usage model is really inefficient and bad for the environment,” Yang said.
The plan also includes a zero emissions standard for all new cars by 2030 and hundreds of billions of dollars in investments in emission-free ground and air transportation.
Folks as documented elsewhere on our blog, at current rates, there is not enough production of raw materials during the next 50 years to convert Great Britain to an all-electric fleet of vehicles let alone the whole world. The rare metals produced mostly via mining in Africa, South America, and elsewhere just can’t support such a demand. The utopian dream of an all-electric fleet is nonsense. And as we have previously documented, mining capacity is just one of many reasons that this can’t be accomplished.
My other thought is this, isn’t large scale strip mining, slave labor, and filling the treasuries of depots and dictators somehow tainting the idea of zero emissions? I thought Liberals frowned on rich people living on the backs of the poor, but enough about how you iPhone was made.
Folks all this emission and electric vehicle talk is just a way to deny us the freedom of mobility that we have known all our lives.
Oh, if you haven’t hear, Yang’s stock is rising in the Democrat field.
Yang enjoyed a recent polling bump and is now in fourth place in the California primary ahead of formerly “top-tier” candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.).
2020’s election is about our way of life and direction of our country. Do you want California values or American values?
Folks I’ve been saying the 2020 election is going to be California’s Values versus American Values, last week I got confirmation that others agree. In fact, one guy is asking you to put money on it by donating to Reject the Resistance.
Sacramento, CA – As the country prepares for critical elections next year, a new nonprofit group has formed to warn Americans not to follow the lead of California’s political leadership, urging voters across the country, “Don’t Californicate America.”
“California’s political leadership fancies itself as leading the resistance to all things conservative, and all things Trump,” said Frank Schubert, founder of Reject The Resistance, the recently formed nonprofit group. Schubert has twice been named America’s top public affairs consultant.
“While the politics of the resistance might generate supportive headlines, the policies that are advanced in California would be a disaster for the country. We urge voters to take a look at the ideas advanced by California’s leadership and see the mess they have made of the state.”
Reject The Resistance has launched a television ad that it plans to air in key states, and has unveiled a website setting forth some of the policies that it says would be pursued if voters reject a conservative approach to government. The advertisement highlights many of California’s problems including homelessness, filthy cities with streets soiled by urine and feces, sanctuary cities, crime, and out of control government spending and debt.
I don’t know Mr. Schubert but I find it clever that he has put this campaign together as a non-profit and not a political PAC. Thus you can give money to save the Republic and its tax deductible. The truth is, it doesn’t matter who the other side selects, they all want to destroy American values and replace them with ones in harmony with California.
I think the Babylon Bee was right when they posted that Republicans can win just be running unedited speeches by Democrats.
Two stories caught my attention today that are different but related. The common thread is the decline of our country due to departing from the principles of our founding. The first story is from Fox News and I do take issue with the author, as I hope to explain below, and the other is thought provoking.
That question has been asked lately with respect to President Trump’s planned use of federal funds to construct 175 miles of sporadic barriers along portions of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico common border.
After Congress expressly declined to give him that money, Trump signed into law – rather than vetoed – the legislation that denied him the funds he sought and then spent the money anyway.
The question regarding presidential power has also been asked with respect to Trump’s imposition of sales taxes – Trump calls them tariffs — on nearly all goods imported into the United States from China. These are taxes that only Congress can constitutionally authorize.
And the question of presidential power has been asked in connection with the presidentially ordered mistreatment of families seeking asylum in the United States by separating parents from children – in defiance of a court order.
This question of presidential power is not an academic one. Nor is it a question unique to the Trump presidency, as it has risen numerous times before Trump entered office. But the audacious manner of Trump’s employment of presidential powers has brought it to public scrutiny.
The Judge also goes on to mention the War Powers Act and other powers ceded to the President by Congress.
Signing of Declaration of Independence
Analysis and Commentary part 1
In principle, I agree with the Judge’s concerns. However, as the Judge also points out in his article, the government has been cut loose from its Constitutional moorings for about the last hundred years. We have flipped the Constitution from a national government of enumerated powers (government allowed to do only those things specifically mentioned in the Constitution) to one of virtually unlimited power where only those things specifically forbidden by the Constitution are not allowed.
The Judge also points out that “power abhors a vacuum” and “I have written before that the Republicans who rejoice in this will weep over it when a Democrat is in the White House.”
To which I respond, “Hey Judge, why in the heck do you think we hated eight years of Obama so much? He was using Executive Orders and government regulations for all sorts of illegal and immoral things.”
What I hope Trump will do is undo Obama’s Executive Orders—which he has been doing—and then, unlike Obama, get the Congress to codify his actions into law to put them beyond the ability of another President to undo by Executive Orders. Hence my hope for Trump’s reelection and Republicans to take back the House in 2020.
Folks, I hate the idea of Executive Orders, continuing budget resolutions, and judicial legislation. We have a severe case of all three because Congress will not do their Constitutional duty.
Frankly, I would be OK with Congress rescinding some of the extra Constitutional powers of the President, but only if they are will to do their job. Truthfully, I don’t have any confidence in either Party being willing to truly govern.
I think we are rapidly moving to rule by either an aristocracy or dictatorship. The viability of the two party system is coming to an end. Again, I assert that Trump will likely be the last Republican President ever. The Democrats have put their thumbs on the electoral scales to such an extent that a Republican winning a national election will be mathematically impossible any more. The Republican Party has run its course and will never be an effective political force in American history once Trump leaves office.
The story slug line sums it up “Bill Federer recounts eerie similarities between ancient city, modern America.”
Federer takes a survey of reasons that the Roman Empire fell and it sounds eerily like today’s news.
Roman Senate
The article dedicates several paragraphs to each of the following topics:
open borders
loss of common language
welfare state
violent, sensual entertainment and sex-trafficking
church withdrawal from involvement
birth control, planned parenthood and fewer children
immorality, infidelity and loss of virtue
class warfare
high taxes
out-sourcing
exploding debt and coinage debasement
deep state, establishment politicians
defense cuts and over-extended military
loss of patriotism
terrorist attacks
The article is long but for those that care, this is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. I implore you to read it in its entirety.
Analysis and Commentary part 2
Judge Napolitano raises three points to whack Trump: the border wall, tariffs, and immigration. I wish to respond briefly to all three.
Border Wall
Every elected official and military member in our country takes an oath that states in part “… I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” The core question is what do you do when your country is being invaded, your laws are being ignored and/or not enforced, and Congress refuses to do their job?The Judge rightly states “power abhors a vacuum” so if you are Commander and Chief, what do you do? Congress and the Judge would have Trump do nothing. Trump was elected on the promise to fix the problem and Congress won’t act because they want to deny Trump a political victory. Congress has chosen to break their oath for short-term partisan political reasons. Trump is acting because he feels that he needs to defend the country.
Border Wall
Tariffs
Tariffs used to be the backbone of funding the national government. It was the primary method of taxation that the founders wanted the national government to use. Once again the Judge is correct that tax policy should be set by Congress. However, there is another factor in the tariff controversy; namely, the defense of the country, which brings us back to the oath of office again. Congress has failed to protect our country from being at the mercy of other nations. This brings me back to the article from Federer.
Rome’s economy stagnated from a large trade deficit, as grain production was outsourced to North Africa.
Gerald Simons wrote in “Great Ages of Man – Barbarian Europe” (NY: Time-Life Books, 1968, p. 39): “As conquerors of North Africa, the Vandals cut off the Empire’s grain supply at will. This created critical food shortages, which in turn curtailed Roman counterattacks.”
For “grain” in the above quote, try substituting “manufacturing–including that required for national defense” and use “China” in place of “North Africa”. Here’s my rewrite:
America’s economy stagnated from a large trade deficit, as manufacturing–including that required for national defense–was outsourced to China.
“The Chinese could cut off America’s source of manufactured goods at will. This creates the potential for critical shortages, which in turn would curtail American’s response.”
Of all powers in the world, China is the largest nation that we potentially could go to war with, so how does it make sense to be wholly dependent on them for our way of life? Both Congress and previous Administrations have been OK with this dependence on foreign powers for our manufacturing and military technology. Without technology manufactured by both Russia and China, our military cannot operate. Without these two nations we have no Internet, communications, missiles, ships, tanks, guns, aircraft, absolutely nothing. We produce nothing and consume everything. This situation is nuts.
Chinese parts are used in all American weapon systems
Trump is trying to loosen the grip of China on our economy and national defense. Again, Congress is not keeping their oath of office and refusing to act in the best interest of our country. Once again, Congress offers no leadership on this issue.
Immigration
The statement by the Judge is just an outright lie. The Judge stated, “…the presidentially ordered mistreatment of families seeking asylum in the United States by separating parents from children – in defiance of a court order.”
Sorry Judge but the people in the detention facilities entered the country illegally. They could have filed for asylum in the United States without illegally entering our country. Those that enter by the front door don’t end-up in these places.
Second, no President purposely “orders the mistreatment of families”. Obama reversed the kids in cages thing that you knuckleheads keep wanting to crucify Trump for.
Oh, and a judge ordered it. So what? It’s not the judge’s job to make immigration policy or to enforce it. Many people crossing illegally are doing so with children not their own. That’s the problem with folks hopping the fence. You need to retroactively sort the bad apples from the harmless ones. Not everyone under 18 years of age is a saint, MS-13 anyone? Some adults have criminal histories and if they enter with children they will be separated. If they don’t like it then stay home.
MS-13 Criminal minors infiltrating American cities
This whole narrative is a bunch of crap. I won’t say it never, ever happened, but we are a good people and it’s not our practice to harm others—unless they’re unborn.
Conclusion
We all agree that the immigration system is broken, but again, Congress has failed to put forward a solution to fix it. Both Republicans and Democrats have simultaneously held the Presidency, House, and Senate and failed to pass a bill, thus in my mind, both parties are without excuse. Bottom line is some people would rather have the issue to campaign on than fix it. If you don’t like what Trump is doing—and like it or not, he’s the only one who is acting—then tell Congress to do their job and keep their oath of office.
I keep telling people that the Democrats are squandering their best chance to get things done that would be good for the country. Trump is willing to work with them but they are not. Whatever history says about Trump, it will not be singing the praises of Congress.
To close with another quote from Federer that sounds eerily like today:
The Roman emperor usurped so much power, that the Roman Senate, instead of ruling Rome and defending the rights of the people, existed only to maintain their own positions. Common people were discourage from getting involved in politics.
The Durants wrote in “The Lessons of History” (p. 92): “The educated and skilled pursued business and financial success to the neglect of their involvement in politics.”
