2024 Election Manfesto: Are we doomed?

Finally getting around to this. After receiving some emails on this, I am finally getting around to my election manifesto. Thanks to those of you who emailed in encouraging me. My public needs me! :-D

I must confess it has become increasingly hard to even want to type these up, as it appears that the situation is so rigged against us and such a set-up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqWZRKWT9o

And Is it "Sunset For The Golden State"?

https://www.locals.com/freedomain/search?q=sunset+in+the+golden+state&post=878370

Was that too doomy and gloomy? Or sadly accurate? And then there is this:

https://rumble.com/v5esxej-brace-yourself-kamala-will-be-announced-the-winner-no-matter-what.html?e9s=src_v1_pr

And so help me, if we see something like this again, only even more pronounced:

Honestly, why should I bother? I keep looking at the following five dismal factors:

1.       Open “top two” primaries.

I have typed about this in the past, but to rehash:  This system is vulnerable to chicanery and “sabotage voting”, and a well-entrenched incumbent can effectively “pick” his or her opponent for the November election, by covertly lending “Support” to whom s/he will easily defeat in the General Election. The corrupt weasel Governor Edwin Edwards of Louisiana (another state that has such a wretched primary process) did this in 1991, allowing an otherwise inconsequential creep named David Duke his 15 minutes of fame:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_primary

2.       Voting by mail, even after election results are being announced, and a lack of voter ID,           especially here in California.

We used to have the overwhelming number of votes cast at fixed polling stations by known addresses, with a smaller number of by mail “Absentee Ballots”. However, using the COVID-19 (Red China Flu) Scare as a pretext, changes were made to the election process that have ballots mailed out to each voter's last known address. (Do people move all the time? They sure do!)

And can we prove the the people voting are actually the ones named, without photo ID at registered polling stations? How many non-citizens and dead or fictitious people could be voting?

And such votes can be collected en masse and sent to “drop boxes”, regardless of from what neighborhood they came.

Such actions make much more likely the potential for vote fraud, “Vote Farming” (that is, making more votes after the ballot results have begun to be reported), and other chicanery - this is blatantly obvious to anyone who has objectively looked at it. And NO, IT IS NOT OKAY IF “MY” SIDE DOES IT EITHER OR DOES IT TOO.

Proponents claim that this is no worse than “Absentee voting”, often used by conservative voters in the past. WRONG. Absentee Ballots of the past:

(a) Were *requested in advance* and *had to be mailed in advance*, before the Election Day, unlike the mailed out ballots that just go to people’s last known addresses, and 

(b) Said Absentee Ballots were counted FIRST, before any of the votes cast at polling stations on Election Day were actually counted. This was why the moment the polls closed at 8:00 PM in days of old, there were sample election results already counted for the newsies to announce, because the absentee ballots, already mailed in, were counted *first*. As a result, there was no incentive back then to go out and “Vote Farm” or "Ballot Harvest" like there is now. (Newsies in those days always led with the disclaimer that the initial small percent vote count of just Absentee Ballots were not to be taken as gospel for the rest of the night, because Absentee Ballots leaned conservative. And that WAS true back then, I had no qualms with that disclaimer). 

3.       A moribund California Republican Party, which could not even bring itself to get a nominee on the ballot for some State Assembly districts.  On the other hand, in several races, more than one Republican was running for that office, dividing their minority party’s primary vote and sadly likely insuring that it is Democrat vs. Democrat in the General Election of November, given the “Top Two” Open Primary mess described above. And this election, they show how spineless they have become with Proposition 3, but more on that below.

4.       A "Deep State" of media monopoly censors and dishonest actors in the bureaucracy.

From 2016 forward, it became clear how important interactive media, or “social media”, has become to the propagation of and debate about ideas. Unfortunately, these social media monopolies have metaphorically crawled into bed with the Democrat Party USA, and other at least somewhat left of center parties in Europe and elsewhere, to stifle and block their opposition from using what are supposed to be “ content neutral” platforms, in exchange for antitrust protection.

Seriously, it is time for the GOP to rediscover its inner Teddy Roosevelt and do some serious “Trust Busting” on social media and the computer programming industries. The Social Media figures like Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Jack Dorsey (formerly Twitter) have shown more arrogance to questions by Congress than John D. Rockefeller or J.P Morgan ever did.

I will give credit to Elon Musk for buying a controlling share in Twitter and freeing up that platform for Right patriots again, but just relying on one right-of-center monopolistic Captain of Industry, to fight another left-of-center monopolistic Captain of Industry, is just *not* as reassuring as having some serious anti-trust action against the social media monopolies and against the technology monopolies. 

It has become sadly common for social media outlets to ban points of view they do not like, regardless of how innocuous and how inoffensive the point of view is. Any effective “meme” or portmanteau or rhetoric that the Left of Center and Democrat Party Controlled Social Media does not like, it blocks, sometimes overtly, but often “shadow-banned” covertly, that is, you can post it, but they will use the program algorithms to make sure hardly anyone sees it. If a guy as rich and powerful as Donald Trump can be in effect “Blacklisted” from social media, what chance do you or I have at bucking their one-party “Consensus”? (I don’t care what you think of the man, but if *he* goes head to head with the social media censors and loses, what chance do you or I have getting our point of view across? Think about that). 

Already, we are seeing YouTube go after pundits they do not like, just before this election:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2fgOjRmOyc

It has also become clear that a once nonpartisan bureaucracy and civil service has been weaponized to go against political opponents like Donald Trump with utterly bogus indictments, bogus prosecutions, and out and out fabricated events. The whole Russia Hoax, fabricated by the Obama Administration and the Hillary Clinton campaign - using the CIA, FBI, and NSA to do it - truly DOES make Watergate look like "a 3rd rate burglary".

And the response of the once crusading journalists of Woodward and Bernstein fame? Not just crickets, but *Thunderous Applause* at such political corruption by what was supposed to be a non-partisan Civil Service. Again, regardless of what you may think of the oafish Donald Trump on a personal level, this is simply the Democrat Party engaging in Stalinist "Show Trials" against political opponents. And it would not be okay if a Republican incumbent tried to do such Deep State corruption against a Democrat challenger either. For example, Bernie Sanders is a crackpot, but it would be utterly wrong and dangerous to try to fabricate collusion with Red China charges against him either. 

But I guess the worst of it is:

5.       Moronic people who believe in moronic slogans. How many of you have obnoxious                  "Karen" type neighbors who have banners and yard signs like this?

 To which I can only reply:

But I suppose we must try and vote anyway, right? We have no right to complain if we did not do what we easily could, right? So GO OUT THERE AND VOTE. 

On that note, let's start with the Ballot Propositions:

BALLOT PROPOSITIONS:

Proposition 2 – School Bonds - NO. The rationale here among proponents is essentially, "We Have to Bankrupt our Children to Save Them." What are the problems with this?

(a) BONDS ARE NOT "FREE MONEY". This is a $10 billion bond measure ($17.5 billion with interest – or $1,300 per household) to pay for public schools and colleges.  Bonds cost more than mere tax hikes.

(b) Student population is not growing. Despite spending record amounts on education, enrollment in California has *declined* since 2014, while sadly, student achievement has crashed. How much of that decline is due not to facilities, but to faulty "Woke" (sic) curriculums, and increasing numbers of students with limited English language proficiency? So the real problem there is not the facilities.

(c) Q: When IS an appropriate time for bonds? A: New or expansion capital construction.

There may be a little bit of that here, but most of the bond financing here is for *repairs* of existing facilities. And that's BAD financing to repair with bonds.

(d) And again, that stupid Leftist yard sign comes to mind: "No Human Is Illegal". Really now? Are we obligated to take in the children of mass migrants, even when we can't seem to educate our own?

Proposition 3 – Anything Goes Marriage: NO.  The California GOP apparently lacks the spine to take a principled stance on this, so I will. I will admit that fiscally this is a very small issue, and I am reluctant to devote a lot of typing to it, but I think a principled position needs to be spelled out. My principled position is this: 

(a) Changes to the California Constitution should require "supermajority" votes, not just a simple 50% plus one vote, in the same way and for the same reasons as the Federal Constitution requires supermajority votes to change it.

(b) While California *should* have same-sex partnerships spelled out for loving people in that lifestyle, but California should also stop short of calling it marriage, because such people are just not "Breeders", with all the legal implications that carries, and

(c) Just as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization

overturned 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

for trying to read something magical into the Constitution that Just.Is.Not.There, and restored the 9th and 10th Amendments of the USA Constitution, we will see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges

which has imposed same sex marriage on the whole USA, overturned in the same way, and for the same reasons, sooner or later. 

By the reasoning of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, Obergefell v. Hodges also read something magical into the Constitution that also Just.Is.Not.There. Sorry, you "Enlightened" and "Progressive" Federal tyrants, issues like these have to be hashed out legislatively in the state governments. 

There is no reference to abortion or same-sex relationships whatsoever in the Federal Constitution, not so much as an "I'm on the Pill, honey, honest" or "I'm a little bi-curious". This means these issues are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." 

Some background: California initially passed, by a substantial supermajority, a law proclaiming that Marriage, legally defined, was only between a man and a woman. However, at that same time, California has legislatively changed to have same-sex partnerships with most, if not nearly all, of the same aspects of marriage. 

And as far as I was concerned, this was great. I do know people in such loving same-sex relationships, perfectly fine people, and I totally understand and respect their desire to have those legal aspects of a marriage that could apply to them, like spousal benefits, transfers of property, and important medical and other personal decisions of that nature. Which is all just and fine, and which California had legislatively passed prior to the Obergefell judicial hijacking.

Note to any Churchy readers who might find such relationships abominations - the facts are that such people exist, and there needs to be a reasonable and just legal framework in the secular and temporal law of the here-and-now world for them. In other words, here you should "render unto Caesar what is rightfully his" (Matthew 22:15–22, Mark 12:13–17, and Luke 20:20–26). Whatever you think is happening to each of us in the Afterlife, on this Earth, we must Make The Law Make Sense Again, as Donald Trump would undoubtedly agree. 

Anyway, along came Obergefell, which, like Roe, hijacked the issue to the Federal Level, which I argue was wrong above.

So why do I stop short of calling same sex partnerships marriages? Because they are not "Breeders", (which was apparently a slur against the straight people, oddly enough) and that means a lot for a whole host of legal issues.

But Same Sex people could adopt or have surrogate mommies, you say? Well, such actions are First, Extralegal, and Second, Artificial. 

NOTE: *I am not making a value judgment* by using those terms; I am simply stating that adoptions are "extralegal" as in going beyond the legal relationship (and they are also extralegal for traditional marriages as well; a married couple cannot just go out and snatch an orphan up without the proper legal work either). And they are "artificial" in the sense that they cannot happen naturally in the framework of the same sex relationship, as outside legal agreements also need to happen there.

Moreover, might there need to be wording about consenting adults in this? That seems like a reasonable issue to bring up. 

That brings me back to that Leftist yard sign, where part of it reads "Love is Love". 

Really now? Is the love you feel for your sexual partner the same as the love you feel for your children? Your pets? Your dear friends? Even the ancient Greeks, a very homosexual society, understood different kinds of Love and had different words for it: Eros, Philios, Agape, and so forth. If the ancient gays understood this timeless wisdom, why not the modern ones?

Anyway, that was a lot to type about what is fiscally a small issue, so moving on.

Proposition 4 – Water Water Everywhere But Not a Drop to Drink: NO. 

(a) Again, BONDS ARE NOT "FREE MONEY". This bond measure is even worse than the one in Proposition 2 above! Here’s another $10 billion bond measure (which will actually amount to $19.5 billion as well, as it goes on a bit longer than Proposition 2 above) purportedly for water and “climate activities.”   

(b) We PASSED a bond issue just like this one a couple of years ago. 

(c) Eco-fiend "Wild and Scenic River" initiatives are NOT additional water storage. The last water bond is being used to *tear down existing dams* rather than build new ones, and this measure promises more of the same.  Since 2000, voters have approved six water bond measures totaling $27 billion, all promising to enhance California’s water supply, yet the last major water project was the New Melones Dam in 1979.  Californians are now being told they must conserve water even during a flood year.  The most serious drought California faces is common sense. "Climate change" has essentially become an excuse for NOT building actual water storage. 

Proposition 5 — Changing the Supermajority rules for property taxes: NO.   

Local bond measures that drive up your property taxes require a 2/3 vote to pass.  This proposition lowers the threshold to 55 percent to pay for “affordable” housing.  

(a) as with Proposition 3 above, changing the California Constitution ought to require a supermajority and not just 50% plus 1.

(b) your housing costs will rise in order to provide for affordable housing.  Brilliant.  And remember, the state can’t account for $24 billion spent on homelessness over the last five years.   

(c) We used to have affordable housing at EVERY income level when builders were free to meet demand, and it didn’t cost taxpayers a dime. But now? If developers try to build on the edge of a city area, the Leftists cry "Urban Sprawl - Waaah!" and if developers try to renovate and build more in the center of a city area, the Leftists cry "Gentrification - Waaah!" Notice how with Leftists, you are always damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

(d) And again, the stupid Leftist yard sign: "No Human Is Illegal". If we are going to have millions of mass migrants, where are the new homes being built where all these people are going to live? And to be fair, might the opponents of Gentrification and Urban Sprawl have a point here? 

Proposition 6 – Involuntary servitude for prisoners: NO.  

This measure would forbid requiring prisoners to work.  The proponents call it “involuntary servitude”, or slavery.

Now to be fair, most of the current work programs in California prisons are "Carrots" rather than "Sticks". That is, prisoners who do them and behave well often get out of jail sooner than they otherwise would, while doing something productive and even learning a trade.

Interestingly, Craig Huey of "Restoring The California Dream", wants us to vote YES here, to pre-empt The Leftists demagoguing Republicans on this issue. See his video here:

https://restoringthecaliforniadream.com/sacramento-county/

But the reality is that The "Woke" (sic) Left will always demagogue Republicans about something or other. Earth to woke idiots: there’s nothing voluntary about serving a prison sentence! 

States like Texas require their prisoners to work to offset the costs of incarceration.  Much of the food consumed in Texas prisons is grown on prison farms.  This not only reduces the burden on taxpayers and conditions prisoners to a regular work schedule, it also means that after a day of work, prisoners are too tired to cause trouble.  This measure forbids any work requirement in California. 

But the question may soon be moot: at the rate Newsom and certain "Woke" (Sic) district attorneys are releasing prisoners, it won’t be long before there aren’t any.

Proposition 32 – Minimum Wage and Maximum Unemployment: NO.  

I totally understand the desire for more wages. 

However, the reality is that right after a law like this passes, the prices of *all* the goods and services will go up about just as much, so the minimum wage employees will be left "Running To Stand Still", as the U2 song goes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orfhLLo7XDs

AND, every minimum wage employee will end up paying that much more in taxes with his or her wages raised.

OR, they will see their hours cut back as employers try to stay in business, and they will end up working two or three part-time jobs, as has happened to many?

AND, the rest of us will find everything we buy costing that much more.

Why don't we do some things that *lower the prices* of the raw material and other inputs for goods and services?

Why don't we do some things that *lower the costs of doing business*, from legal liability to insurance? 

Proposition 33 – Allowing Local Rent Control Marxist Madness all over again: NO.  

Some background: Back when California could still elect lots of Republicans to office, back in 1995 a State law was passed that prevented most local rent controls, especially the dreaded "vacancy control", the most wretched - and Marxist - one of the lot. The rationale was that local communities could not have "beggar-thy-neighbor" housing policies that would detrimentally affect neighboring cities and counties. Proposition 33 would undo all of that.  I guess it is not surprising that as the Left takes over in California, lunacy like Vacancy Control would rear its ugly head again.

Prop. 33 would expand rent control in California to homes built after 1995.  We’ve tried price controls since Hammurabi, and they always produce shortages of whatever’s price is being controlled.  The immediate effect will be to see fewer houses being rented and declining maintenance on those that are.  As economists observed, “Rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing.”

Note to anyone who has not managed rental property: Money is not made in rental housing by collecting rent - that just breaks even - but by the underlying appreciation of the property. At least until the building is paid off, and after that the repair costs of aging buildings mount. And will their be controls on the rising underlying taxes and insurance and repair costs to the property? Of course not!

Proposition 34 – Non-profits for patient care spending on actual patient care - YES 

A leftist activist named Michael Weinstein runs a sprawling network that generates millions of dollars by arbitraging California’s Medical Rx program and the Federal Drug Discount program, in effect, overcharging for the drugs used in his clinics.  Weinstein then uses these funds to indulge his leftist causes like rent control (see Prop. 33).  The California Apartment Association is trying to shut him down by requiring these ill-gotten gains be spent on health care – but only in this case. 

Wouldn’t a more honest approach be to reform the programs so nobody can rip off taxpayers this way for any purpose?  Well, yes, but it is a good start!

The Leftists are calling this a "Revenge Initiative". Yes, and GOOD, you rotten creeps!

Proposition 35 – Paying for Health Care for Illegals: NO. 

In 2009, California imposed a tax on many private health plans in order to help pay for Medi-Cal.  Since then, California has expanded Medi-Cal eligibility to provide free health care to illegal aliens.  The good news: this purely socialist tax is due to expire in 2027.   The bad news: Prop. 35 will make the tax permanent, and families with private health plans will continue to pay more for their healthcare.   Only in California!

Proposition 36 – Restoring "Three Strikes" and other punishments against felony theft: YES.  

In 2014, California voters naively passed Prop. 47, which dramatically reduced penalties for crimes such as shoplifting, burglary, car-jacking and drug possession.  Who would have thought this would produce more shoplifting, burglary, car-jackings and drug possession?  But it did.  Have Californians finally had enough?  We’re about to find out.  Prop. 36 puts teeth back into many of these laws.  We still have to rid ourselves of leftist prosecutors, judges, legislators and one particularly annoying and foolish governor, but this is a start.

STATE OFFICES:

US Senate - Steve Garvey

Better him than Adam Schiff, or should I type Adam Schitt. I know, childish, but it applies. Adam Schitt is the most venal, most corrupt, and most appalling of the various Democrat US Senate candidates running. The Bogus Deep State indictments of Donald Trump? Representative Adam Schitt was the one sponsoring them on the House floor. They were debunked time and time again, but he kept it up. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republican-led-house-poised-to-censure-schiff-over-trump-russia-investigations

We must NOT have Adam Schitt become Senator. He is a horrid piece of Schitt.

Hashtag: #AdamSchitt. Yes, you can search engine that hashtag for lots of informative links.

Okay, and finally, you knew this was coming:

OTHER STATE OFFICES:

Depending upon your city or county, check here:

https://restoringthecaliforniadream.com/

Or here:

https://reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/california

On an issue here and an issue there, these two guides, the former a more Traditionalist Right, the latter a more Libertarian Right

THE PRESIDENCY:

It's Trump - or crypto-Communism. The choice is that stark.

After Kamala Harris called out Joe Biden for allegedly being a card carrying career long racist, why did she help him get elected and then agree to work for him? Because her skillset is "political whoring", and it has been since her days as an intern in the California State Capitol.

This is a lady who made her political career by becoming the live-in concubine of then California State Democrat Party Chairman Willie Brown, and as a result leapfrogging over her fellow interns in the state Capitol building. This is how she obtained appointed political offices, and later campaign "War chest" funding for elected offices. She literally slept and sucked and fucked her way to the top, apologies to my more churchy readers.

Even the most leftist of those interns, who are now California State Assemblymen and women or State Senators if they were really politically savvy, can't stand her as a result...

I will leave aside her *whoring* her way into power for the moment, to look at her radical Left economic madness, which virtually no one in the lamestream media is calling out:

She points to alleged "price gouging" by grocers as the reason for soaring prices for retail goods and services. The Left is trying to distract from their hyperinflation and currency devaluation policies, yet again.

Seriously, the retail grocery industry is the most competitive around. Anyone even trying to "price gouge:" would be undercut by their competitors.

Even taking into account recent significant mergers and acquisitions in the retail mass merchandiser and supermarket businesses, this industry is not anywhere near a monopoly or an oligopoly situation. Oligopoly is present in certain industries where the underlying capital costs, and hence barriers to new competitors entering the business, are quite high, so there are relatively few sellers and manufacturers. But grocery retailing isn't oil refining or automaking. There are countless supermarket and grocery chains, and there are countless mass merchandisers, even taking into account big ones like Wal-mart. 

Grocery stores make like 1-2% profit. If they can stop normal theft and breakage they can double their profits. If there is excessive theft and breakage (like the "AntiFA" and "BLM" riots which Kamala Harris condoned and even abetted) then it is an unprofitable business and you no longer have a grocery store in your neighborhood. In reality it is a volume game. Everyone has to eat so it's a reliable source of cash flow so long as there is rule of law. The profit margin is nothing to get excited about, it is basically a public service, unless you were able to barrow piles of money at low interest rates and then exploit rising prices due to inflation. In that situation, you have a better return on investment.

The primary reasons you have higher food prices is first the Federal Reserve printed shit tons of money which devalued the dollar. This was government policy. Second, government regulators created supply shocks on purpose in many ways. They locked down entire economies so that people could not work to produce and ship goods. They cut fertilizer shipments by 20% as part of the green new deal driving grain prices higher which in turn boosted the price of meat and processed foods. They cut water supplies to potato farmers to reduce a core calorie crop. They slaughtered millions of animals based on bogus PCR tests claiming chickens, turkey's etc. had covid or bird flu. Hundreds of food processing and packing plants mysteriously burnt to the ground (terrorism)... Quite frankly the left wing tried to starve the public. They want you dead and they won't stop until you stop breathing. And so they now try to distract us from all this by alleging "price gouging".

I DON'T CARE what alleged fibs Donald Trump may have uttered, NOTHING he has misstated was anywhere near like that.

And what of the mainstream media / lamestream media alleged watch dogs? For the first couple of hours after the first (of THREE) assassination attempts upon Donald Trump, CNN's  and the Associated Press webpage showed THIS:

Let that sink in.

When even the satire can no longer keep up:

https://babylonbee.com/news/california-man-arrested-for-showing-id-to-vote

https://babylonbee.com/news/media-assures-americans-that-migrants-havent-killed-any-cats-just-women-and-children

In other words, we have become a Gotham without Batman. And so, up goes the Signal:

And as Kari Lake in the next state starts losing her lead, as votes are "found"

This happens in every close election, doesn't it? The count is delayed, new votes of dubious origin are "found", and the Left candidate wins! 💀

Remember that Election Day is close to Christmas!

"Cheating Democrats, Cheating Democrats,
Right down Democrat Lane
Provisional ballots, and non-citizens
Pullin' on the reins!
Media ringin', Media singin'
"All is merry and bright"
Recount ballots and say your prayers
'Cause Democrats come tonight!

"Cheating Democrats, Cheating Democrats,
Right down Democrat Lane
They've got boxes that's filled with new votes
Dead people rise again!
Hear them bleat that "All votes count",
Oh what a dubious sight
Don't go to bed and cover your head
'Cause Democrats come tonight!

Cheating Democrats, Cheating Democrats,
Right down Democrat Lane
Claiming that "the disenfranchised poor"
Need no IDs again!
Democrats "know" that they're all citizens
That makes everything right
So don't report those ballot results
'Cause Democrats come tonight!

Cheating Democrats, Cheating Democrats,
Right down Democrat Lane
They come around when the media rings out
That it's a Democrat lead again!
Nanny state will come to all
If you just follow the light
So Don't give thanks to the Lord above
'Cause Democrats come tonight!"

Apologies to the late Gene Autry.

Greg Gutfeld nails it

 Gutfeld: The killer was a Democrat - YouTube

17 minutes and 29 seconds of brutal, yet painfully funny, truth:

0:35 REPEAT machete and bear spray attacks by leftist "womyn" activist, not reported by media.

1:40 REPEAT gunman, thanks Liberals. Gun violence only matters when the proper people do it.

2:29 Investigative journalist, writing about corruption, stabbed to death by politician. Guess. That. Party! The lamestream media omitted it in all reporting. "They erased the party affiliation like it was a biological woman."

6:03 Jussie Smolett revisited.

6:45 "No Cash" Bail. Thanks Democrats!

 

No, "Cuties" is not pedophilia. However...

OK, I watched the thing on NetFlix. I have been pondering quitting NetFlix for a while now, because while they do have interesting documentaries and some interesting comedies and dramas, they also have Leftist propagandistic crap. But my fellow right-wing patriots are off in their criticisms of it, although there still is definitely something to criticize.

So, is it pedophilia? No, quite the contrary in the way it is filmed; however, the message is still disturbing, because it reflects how the trashiest elements of ghetto culture are popular and even celebrated, and not enough emphasis upon how destructive that can be.

(a few spoiler alerts ahead, but I will try to avoid giving it all away)

The film is French, with English subtitles. It is about a Senegalese-French immigrant girl who gets involved with and wants to fit in with classmates who want to enter a dance competition, classmates who also have adopted the worst aspects of ghetto culture. The setting is clearly the lower classes of France and she and one other girl of that group clearly live in a tenement or housing project.

Along the way, the protagonist experiences her first period, teasing by peers, and other grade school bordering on middle school sad experiences and traumas. And yes, that teasing involves innuendo and disturbing aspects of children trying to grow up way too fast. The director herself, Maïmouna Doucouré, is Senegalese-French, and I suspect the film was meant to be autobiographical. Anyway, my fellow Americans, *never* think America has cornered the market for ghetto problems, (multi)cultural dysfunction, and immigration issues, the French clearly have these problems too.

Is the film pornographic? No, definitely not the way it was shot. Yes, their dance contest outfits and "twerking" or "freak" moves are disturbing, but it was not in any way cinematography filmed in such a way as to make that appealing. To the director's credit, you can see LOTS frowning parental faces when the girls do their terrible dance routine at the competition, and the protagonist does have a "OMG, what the hell am I doing here?" moment, after which she quits and runs off the stage. To quote a US Supreme Court justice, Potter Stewart, in an old Court case, Jocobvellis v. Ohio, which was also about alleged pornography, "I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

However, that such trashy culture is prevalent and pervasive in society today is disgusting to be sure, and THAT is what really creeps me out about the film. I suppose the director will use the "Hey, I'm just the messenger, not the message" defense, but I don't see an ending where rejection of trashy culture is emphasized. At the end of the film, the protagonist Amy, abandons both the traditional Senegalese wedding dress (her father's bigamy a sub-plot in the movie) and her sexy dancer's outfit, and, in normal pre-teen girl jeans and a t-shirt, her hair down, she goes out to play jump rope with a group of girls. Which is better, but a rejection of trashiness is *not emphasized enough* in my mind.

So, while the film is not as bad as it has been made out to be, the message is clearly *not good*.

Lessons for the GOP From ‘Mr. Republican’

A great American Spectator piece about Robert Taft, by author Lee Edwards.

He is perhaps forgotten today, but before Donald Trump, before Ronald Reagan, before Barry Goldwater, there was Robert Taft. All of whom took on an out-of-touch "Eastern Establishment", what today we call Republican Globalists.

Indeed, the intra-party fights in the GOP truly are "deja vu all over again": Trump vs. the Bush dynasty, Reagan vs. Ford (and the beginning of the Bush dynasty), Goldwater vs. Rockefeller, Taft Vs. Dewey.

Lessons for the GOP From ‘Mr. Republican’

Bob Taft 2.0 is sorely needed, to stand up for liberty under law.

Before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater, there was Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio. From 1938 until his unexpected death in 1953, Taft led the Republican resistance to liberal Democrats and their Big Government philosophy. During the 2020 Republican National Convention, the GOP should consider the lessons of Robert Taft’s legacy.

Taft called himself a conservative, by which he meant someone “who knows and appreciates the importance of stability.” Echoing the 18th–century British parliamentarian Edmund Burke, he explained that “while I am willing and ready to consider changes, I want to be darned sure — darned sure — that they are really better than what we have.”

He was a federalist who insisted that the role of the federal government be limited to that of “a keeper of the peace, a referee of controversies, and an adjustor of abuses; not as a regulator of the people, or their business and personal activities.” The guiding principle of a legislator should be whether a policy “increases or decreases the liberty of our people.”

He looked to the Constitution as his North Star and agreed with the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. He supported an “equality of opportunity” whereby all men and women can rise from poverty and obscurity (as his grandfather Alphonso did) according to their ability and ambition. He was a consistent supporter of civil rights, supporting anti-lynching laws and desegregation of the armed forces, opposing the KKK and state poll taxes. He approved the Supreme Court’s decision requiring states to furnish equal education to citizens of all classes.

Taft insisted that any proposal for federal action must be judged by its effect on the liberty of the individual, the community, industry, and labor. “Such liberty,” he said, “cannot be sacrificed to any theoretical improvement from government control or government spending.” But he was not a radical libertarian; he accepted a limited welfare role for government. He sponsored modest federal aid to education, health, and housing with the condition that the administration of the programs be placed in the hands of state and local authorities, not the federal government.

In the political summer of 1948, every poll reported that if President Harry Truman sought reelection, he would be defeated. The polls were very wrong. In the most unexpected outcome in modern presidential politics, Truman beat New York Gov. Thomas Dewey by more than two million popular votes and by 305 to 189 in the Electoral College.

Conservatives hoped that the party had learned a crucial lesson: Do not nominate someone who waffles on the issues. Taft argued that the Republican Party could not survive unless it turned away from “the Deweys and the Eastern internationalists in general.” He was certain that “millions of his kind of Republican had not been voting for years in presidential elections” because the candidates were always Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Here was the argument for courting the Forgotten American, the Silent Majority, the Moral Majority, the Tea Party, and Midwest populists that would be advanced by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Donald Trump in the decades ahead.

Going into the 1952 national convention, Taft was the almost certain nominee with over 500 delegates pledged to him, with 604 needed to nominate. But he faced an immensely popular opponent — Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had led the Allies to victory in World War II. The delegates appreciated all that Sen. Taft, “Mr. Republican,” had done for the party, but every poll showed Eisenhower easily defeating any Democrat by a wide margin. Republicans loved Bob Taft, but they loved victory more. Ike was nominated on the first ballot.

With Taft’s all-out help and a united Republican party, Ike defeated liberal Democrat Adlai Stevenson easily, gaining 55.4 percent of the popular vote and sweeping the Electoral College by 442-89. His long coattails helped produce Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. For the first time since 1930, Republicans controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. It seemed that a moderate president and a conservative senator would forge a unique alliance for the good of their party and the country. Tragically, in just six short months, Robert Taft, the requisite link between the White House and Capitol Hill, was dead of cancer.

But his principled approach to politics lives on. It’s preserved, for example, in John F. Kennedy’s best-selling work, Profiles in Courage, his popular study of eight consequential senators in American history, which is required reading in many high school history classes. Taft and his principles are the subject of an excellent study by the conservative historians Russell Kirk and James McClellan, who discuss his most significant accomplishments.

Taft revived the GOP during the postwar period and restored an opposition when parliamentary government had fallen into decay throughout much of the world. He stood for liberty under law — “the liberties of all classes of citizens, in all circumstances.” He contended for “a humane economy,” in which the benefits of American industry would be extended to every citizen. He helped restore the balance between management and labor with the Taft–Hartley Act.

In a Senate eulogy delivered after Taft’s passing, Kennedy nominated Taft for Man of the Year, remarking that like Churchill, his character and personality were so powerful that his influence would “continue to endure after death.” In Profiles in Courage, Kennedy praised Taft for his succinct definition of liberty: “When I say liberty, I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life.”

That was the creed by which Sen. Taft lived, Kennedy said. More than that, Robert Taft sought to provide an atmosphere in America “in which others could do likewise.” Given the toxic atmosphere that now pervades our politics and our culture, the need for another Bob Taft grows more urgent with every passing day.

Unfortunately, Robert Taft still got smeared by a toxic atmosphere in politics even then. For example, a rather mild statement cautioning against "victor's justice" in the Nuremburg Trials led to accusations of anti-Semitism, even though his strong support for the foundation of Israel was well known. Others took him to task for his previous isolationism and hesitancy about the USA taking on more a global role, although after Korea he changed there too.

5 months or so to Election Day 2020 - A prophecy

What will happen between now and then?

The Democrat Party Deep State, along with the "NeverTrump" GOPee quislings, are going to:

1) Inflame civil unrest
2) Stoke racial tension and violence
3) Commit mail-in and non-citizen ballot fraud
4) Increase technological censorship of patriots 5) Extend the pandemic panic, when it is utterly unwaranted given the damage it will do to must of us 6) Hurt economy with #5 above 7) Stage fake "White Supremacist" terror events 9) Weaponize their media further than they already have.

Before you vote for "higher education" funding....

....think again. You or your children will be made dumber by going to the University of California system unless you or they pursue a strictly STEM curriculum. Exhibit number - I lost count:

Because OF COURSE there would be a "Virtual Healing Circle". Like that would do any damn good to stop ZOOM hacking, if any actually even happened.

And this is on the MERCED campus, which is the smallest and among the most rural of the UC campuses, with the lowest percentage tenured faculty, in an area heretofore not left-wing in any sense of the word. In fact, back in Cold War days, the region had Castle Air Force Base.

And yet, every other year in every other ballot initiative election there is some Proposition asking for more funding for the UC and CSU systems. If even a cent goes to nonsense "administrators" like these, vote NO.

More nonsense from The University of California

And again, this is from UC Merced ,the smallest, least radical, and least tenured of campuses. You or your children will be taught how to misspell, and how not to think critically at all:

From: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion <diversity@ucmerced.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 1:00 PM
To:
Subject: Help Us Celebrate 150 Years of Womxn in the UC

A Message from the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion

Dear Campus Community,  The UC Regents passed a memorial resolution on Oct. 3, 1870, “that young ladies be admitted into the university on equal terms in all respects with young men.” A UC Berkeley committee has been working to coordinate a yearlong celebration of 150th anniversary of that resolution, and we have been invited to join in.  One of the central aspects of this celebration is a UC-wide history project designed to examine the history of womxn and diversity on the all the UC campuses and to disseminate this history widely as part of a permanent archive. The project will feature the contributions and lives of notable students, alumni, faculty, staff and friends of the UC campuses. I would like to invite you to submit names (photos and short bios are welcome, too) of notable womxn associated with UC Merced, which will be considered for inclusion on the 150W website. For example:  ·         womxn who have made a profound different at UC Merced; ·         institutional “firsts” (e.g. first womxn Ph.D., first tenured womxn, first womxn dean, etc.); or  ·         names of womxn (alumni or past/current employees) who have significant national or international accomplishments. We know it is not possible to submit the names of all womxn associated with our campus, and thus I encourage you to select a representative subset which illustrates the wide range of womxn who have been a part of UC Merced. Please send the above information to diversity@ucmerced.edu by 5 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 25, for review by members of the 150W steering committee at Berkeley. Thank you for helping us ensure our celebration is inclusive. Dania Matos Associate Chancellor and Chief Diversity Officer Pronouns: She/Her/Hers I remember when the Leftist militant lesbians insisted upon calling themselves "womyn", but "womxn" is even stupider than that. And this kind of nonsense goes on in a followup email. I am sure no instructor there, let alone any student, would dare to call this nonsense out: From: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion <diversity@ucmerced.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:00 AM Subject: Comment Period for Policy: Gender Recognition and Lived Name  A Message From the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion  Dear Campus Community, The University of California Office of the President invites comments on a proposed Presidential Policy: Gender Recognition and Lived Name. It is proposed that the policy be fully implemented by UC campuses and locations by July 1, 2021, and it includes the following key issues: The university must provide three equally recognized gender options on university-issued documents and information systems — female, male and nonbinary. The university must provide an efficient process for students and employees to retroactively amend their gender designations and lived names on university-issued documents and in information systems. The legal name of university students, employees, alumni and affiliates, if different than the individual’s lived name, must be kept confidential and must not be published on documents or displayed in information systems that do not require a person’s legal name. The proposed policies are posted on UC Merced’s Policies website.  Employees who want to provide comments on the proposed revisions can submit them to the UC Merced Policy Office by May 14, 2020, by emailing policy@ucmerced.edu.  Best regards, Dania Matos Associate Chancellor and Chief Diversity Officer Pronouns: She/Her/Hers University of California, Merced | 5200 N. Lake Road, Merced, CA 95343

But Trump increased the national debt! Waaaah!

Originally on Ace of Spades blog, but it so bears repeating. Especially since this Strange New Concern about the national debt was utterly unmentioned when the Obama Administration was unrolling each and every massive new government social(ist) spending program:

Fake-conservative politicians and pundits have been unmasked in the Trump era, and now another scam perpetrated by the GOPe and Conservative Inc seems to have run its course – the “Budget Hawk” fraud is over. For much of the past 40 years, fiscally conservative “budget hawks” have ensured that no conservative priorities are ever tackled because everything is subordinate to “the budget crisis.” A crisis they never did anything about. The key to the scam was “political capital” – it had to be reserved for the big battle to reign in “entitlements.” GOP politicians would refuse to tackle issues such as securing the border, or exiting from climate agreements, or pressing our deadbeat NATO allies to pay their dues, because it would waster precious political capital. Even worse, the “fiscally conservative budget hawks” refused to even cut “minor” wasteful spending such as aid to foreign despots who hate the USA, or funding for public radio leeches who also hate the USA. The budget hawks told us cutting these dollars were just “drops in the ocean.”

Ace wrote a great post about a dozen years ago explaining that the only way Americans would allow entitlements to be cut is if we eliminated every drop-in-the-ocean sacred spending cow first, so that people would realize that entitlements were the only thing left to cut. But our cowardly politicians also figured this out. Refusing to cut funding to PBS isn’t a bug – it’s a feature. They KNOW they will never have to cut entitlements, because it CANNOT happen if the small stuff isn’t cut first. And they won’t let you forget – cutting drop-in-the-ocean spending programs would waste that valuable political capital that must be reserved for the big budget battle. Even worse, the only time the budget hawks will oppose “drop in the ocean” spending is if it is for a conservative priority. They can find money to give to the PLO, but they oppose funding border security for fiscal reasons. Similarly with tax cuts – the budget hawks anguish about every lost dollar of tax revenue if taxes are cut, but they sure don’t mind tax dollars being steered to fund Planned Parenthood – dollars that could be cut to offset the tax cuts.

 Donald Trump may not be championing fiscal responsibility, but he is actively advancing the rest of the conservative agenda. There is a very long list of conservative agenda items that Trump has followed through on, most importantly border security, but so much more - exiting the climate accord, moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, Keystone, tax cuts, regulatory reform, refugee screening, the travel ban, etc. None of this would happen with a President McRyanBushRomney, because they’d conserve their valuable political capital for the big budget battle that was never going to happen.

Conservatives are sick of the budget hawk fraud so we elected someone who will at least advance the rest of our agenda if budget restraint isn’t going to happen. And not to belittle the deficit issue, but for 40 years I’ve been promised that apocalypse is imminent if I don’t keep electing GOP budget hawks. They did nothing and the apocalypse hasn’t happened. It’s a little like the imminent climate catastrophes that haven’t happened. Yes – governments can spend themselves broke (see Greece & Illinois) but conservatives have come to understand that “the deficit” is also an excuse for not fulfilling any other promises made to conservative voters.

The Televised Speech Donald Trump Should Make

DJT needs to hold a televised address to the American People, and lay out the following, as an explanation of what Your President is doing, and to address the loose talk of "betraying the Country" being advanced by Congress:

1. That the Russia investigation was an intentional hoax by Hilliary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Democrat Party, that wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and pitted American against American in a cynical attempt to overturn a lawful election.

2. That the American Republic requires that all parties to the process accept the outcome of duly held elections. Which did not occur post 2016, evidenced by the Russia-collusion hoax. As such, those who pushed the fake collusion narrative are in fact threatening the foundations of our Republic.

3. Therefore, it is of the highest importance for the US Government, with full force of the Executive and the Attorney General, get to the bottom of the origins of the Russia hoax, including obtaining information from an investigation that was already undertaken on this by Ukraine prior to any US request.


4. That to this purpose the President has asked, and will continue to ask, for assistance of Ukraine, for all information it has as to any hacking of US servers, and origins of the "Russia collusion" hoax.


5. This is all the more so as the DNC never even let the allegedly hacked server be investigated by the FBI, role of Crowdstrike, and that Donna Brazile has admittedly destroyed the server. So having destroyed the direct evidence, we must now rely on other sources. But this was their doing.


6. It is dishonest to characterize requests for appropriate information from any/all governments, so the US can get to the bottom of actual crimes, including as to who hacked what, or if it was covered up, as "impeachable" or "betraying the US"


7. If there were US officials such as former VP Biden engaging in selling his office and pressuring Ukraine on behalf of his son, it is also in the interests of the US to know this, and to be sure this is punished so that US diplomacy can be trusted abroad.


8. Anyone claiming that investigating what appear to be actual crimes is "impeachable" is simply trying to deflect and obstruct justice, and can go pound sand.

Election Guide, November 2018 edition

As I stated back in June 2018, I wonder if I should bother, given the four recently changed aspects of voting I mentioned last time around for the June primary, to wit:

1.  The “Top Two Open Primary”, or legally the Nonpartisan Blanket Primary, which means that the top two contenders face off against each other in the General Election of November, regardless of Party.

2.  Mass voting by mail, with the potential for outright fraud, with “late discovery” manufactured and mailed in ballots and everything else,

3.  A moribund California Republican Party, which could not get to be the #2 primary winner in all too many races, and

4.  For State ballot Propositions, the full and complete “TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW” is no longer there in the Official Voter Information Guide.

But civic duty is still civic duty!  So on I go…..

YOUR CONGRESS(WO)MAN, STATE ASSEMBLY, STATE SENATOR, OR EVEN BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (EXCISE TAX) MEMBER: 

This image says it all:

Now you are probably thinking, “But Curmudgeon, here you are just telling us to Vote 100% Republican or Die, and all of the Democrats are now Commiecrats, and yadda yadda yadda…”

Well, in California that really is the case and the choices really are that stark. In California, the “Blue Dog”, “Boll Weevil”, or “Joe Six-pack” moderate Democrats, that might exist in other Midwestern, Southern or Eastern states, are *extinct*.

Even if you think “Make America Great Again” is a trite and corny slogan, what is their response to it? Either “America Was Never Great”, or worse “Make California Mexico Again”. I am not kidding.

Is the Republican Party’s new flamboyant standard bearer, Donald Trump, uncouth? Sure, but I really don’t care, because that bar was already lowered two decades ago.  And for once, a Republican confronted by a media slanted against him *fights back*. As Abe Lincoln said of the loutish Hiram Ulysses Grant, “I can’t spare that man—he fights!”

I prefer Uncouth Patriots to false Polite Traitors. I take that back-- they NOT even polite Traitors anymore—witness the actual “AntiF(irst)A(mendment)” Mob Violence many of them have been encouraging and stirring up, from foaming at the mouth Maxine Waters to smarmy Charles Schumer. A Republican Congress candidate in the East Bay area was actually physically attacked and beaten up.

GOVERNOR:  John Cox, or Perdition. The choice is that stark.

His sadly favored by the polls opponent, Gavin Newsom, first as mayor of San Francisco and then as Lieutenant Governor, epitomizes all that is wrong and incoherent with California politics. He presided over a city that in the name of ecology bans plastic straws, yet neglects the ecology of basic sanitation, to the point where many city blocks *smell of human poop* from the defecation of homeless people.

I am not joking—try driving to an event or shopping in Union Square, looking for parking in the nearby Tenderloin District, and walking back to Union Square with block after block of this wafting odor, watching your step along the way. Or ride the mass transit into Downtown San Francisco, come up from the Market Street BART or MUNI subway routes, and smell it and watch your step for block after block. Sometimes you will even see people in the act of pooping and peeing. Someone even created a computer phone application to report the poop, “SnapCrap”.

And the solution to impoverished homeless people who cannot afford a place to sleep in that city? Not rounding up and incarceration of any of the poopers, nope, not that.  As Lieutenant Governor, Gavin Newsom offers “Sanctuary” (Sic) to more impoverished and uneducated people, who are not citizens nor legal aliens, making the housing crunch all the more severe. All. For. Votes.

Originally, in the June Primary, I had preferred Travis Allen over John Cox, and I feared that John Cox was another wealthy dilettante from another state who has not seen how legislation works its way through “the Bill Mill” (or often does not). However, John Cox is hammering hard upon the real issues, and Travis Allen is earnestly and loyally stumping for Mr. Cox. I am pleased with this Republican Team Spirit, no matter how uphill the fight.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR:  Ed Hernandez, Older and lesser of the two Evils

Between DEM Party Stalinist apparatchik Eleni Kounalakis, and DEM Party Trotskyite Ed Hernandez, it is a matter of which one is less nauseous. Like Gavin Newsom, BOTH epitomize all that is wrong and incoherent with California politics.  

However, consider their ages. With Leftists, Youth (or the lack of it) matters. Eleni Kounalakis is 51, and with her war chest and the nod of the Party bosses, she could well entrench herself politically for years to come. 

Ed Hernandez is 61 and ten years older, has much less Party and money backing, and he might actually rub the wrong way all of the special interests that have made their Faustian bargains with the ruling Demunist Party. Like the people who supported the geriatric dissenter Bernie Sanders for President over the entrenched and younger Party apparatchik Hillary Clinton, I say that if you must vote for one of the two, vote for Hernandez instead. 

SECRETARY OF STATE: Mark Meuser.

An actual election law attorney will be very helpful here, and he is one.

CONTROLLER:  Konstantinos Roditis

TREASURER:  Greg Conlon

Greg Conlon has tried for this office before, and lost before, to John Chiang in 2014 and to Phil Angelides in 2002 before that. He has also tried for the US Senate, the State Senate, and the State Assembly. A “happy warrior”, who gets back up when he is knocked down.  Let’s give him one last hurrah.

ATTORNEY GENERAL:  Steven C. Bailey 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Steve Poizner

Another veteran of the California Political Psychic Wars, like Greg Conlon for Treasurer above.

U.S. SENATOR:   Dianne Feinstein, although I know it’s hard to stomach.

“And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said, “Stick to the Devil you know….””—Rudyard Kipling

Like the Lieutenant Governor contest above, it is hard to be happy with either DEM Party Stalinist apparatchik Dianne Feinstein, or DEM Party Trotskyite Kevin DeLeon.  

Moreover, it is VERY tempting to punish Dianne Feinstein for her disgusting stunt with respect to Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh’s hearing was made into even more of a Kangaroo Court and even more of an accusation by false hearsay than the hearing for Clarence Thomas was, and I did not think that was possible. False and utterly bogus accusations not just going back to younger adult times, but to adolescent minor times. I am waiting for the Demunists to try to destroy a judge based upon alleged grade school bratty behavior next.

However, again AGE is the decisive factor.

The “Very Old Guard” Dianne Feinstein is 85 years old. There is even a chance, however unlikely, that a Governor John Cox could appoint her successor when finally she steps down, or more likely, finally makes that trip across the River Styx.

Meanwhile, her opponent Kevin DeLeon is only 51.

Better to have the Senator senile, no matter how revolting her final actions have become.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, YES OR NO REFERENDUM OR PLEBISCITE:

The principle here is:  Does the judge act as an Umpire or Referee in the Game of Politics, or as a sleazy semi-permanent Player who can never be called out? With that principle in mind:

Carol Corrigan:  YES, keep her.

Leondra R. Kruger:  NO, dump her.

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: Marshall Tuck

His leading opponent, Tony K. Thurmond, is endorsed by Senator Kamala Harris and all the teacher unions. I will leave it at that.

On a related note, Kamala Harris is a worse Senator than even Barbara Boxer was, or Dianne Feinstein has become. At least the two old witches won their election campaigns fair and square and did their homework when pushing their agendas, however loathsome. Kamala Harris gained her first political appointments, and then election campaign backing, by taking off her clothes and spreading her legs and acting as a “sugar baby” mistress for DEM party “sugar daddy” chieftains, most notably state Party Chairman Willie Brown. I am not joking and I am not just writing that because I like to trash leftist Dems. She literally *slept* her way to the top of the California political heap.

NOVEMBER BALLOT PROPOSITIONS:

Prop 1 - Unaffordable Housing Bonds: NO.  

Bonds, meaning DEBT, are only appropriate when an actual capital intensive but long lasting public project (like a freeway, a dam, a community center) is to be built. And there is a bit of that in this.

However, government housing projects, where people live but have no sense of community, have a wretched and unhappy track record. As the old and sweetly sad reggae song went,

 “I remember, when we used to sit, in a Government Yard {British and Jamaican speak for housing project}, in Trenchtown….No Woman, No {as in don’t} Cry….”

But most of this initiative isn’t even that. It is in large part borrowing for tenant assistance programs, so they can better rent existing housing stock. And the rest of you already trying to rent housing who don’t qualify for those? You get to pay off the bonds and you get your rental market bid up!

Prop 2 – Bonds for Homeless Shelters: NO.  

On one level this *is* seductively tempting. Mentally ill Homeless pooping on the streets? Why not build places with toilets for them to be placed where they can defecate and maybe get the help that they need? And this is an initiative with bonds funding actual construction capital projects.

However, the money to pay off those bonds will come from an existing tax which is currently used to fund mental health services for those very same unfortunate people.  This measure will take some money out of mental health services and use it instead to pay off housing bonds.  Result: fewer mental health services.

Prop 3 – Bonds for Parks, AGAIN???  NO, in fact hell NO.

First, even if you like parkland watershed bonds like this, WE JUST PASSED AN INITIATIVE JUST LIKE THIS ONE LAST JUNE. Are you telling me that all those projects were already finished in a few months?

Second, nothing is more annoying than a proposition that claims to have “water supply” provisions, that does not build a single dam to store it. Acquiring more watershed park area is not truly increasing supply.

Third, the State cannot maintain the vast parkland area it already has. It probably should be selling off the parks that hardly anyone enjoys, or which have no known endangered species, and making them productive ranches or something similar again.

Fourth, Bonds, meaning DEBT, are only appropriate when an actual capital intensive but long lasting project, like a Dam, HINT HINT, is to be built. Borrowing for current maintenance of existing parks is folly.

Fifth, too many initiatives like this were approved in the past, LIKE THE ONE LAST JUNE, and we are still paying those off. Vote NO. 

Meanwhile, Governor Brown has already signed legislation aiming towards year-round water restrictions of 55 gallons per person per day – about the per capita water usage of Uganda – effective in two years, even if you’re bailing floodwaters out of your living room one future winter day because the dams were not built to trap and catch them.

Prop 4 – For the Children’s Sake Don’t: NO.  

This bond initiative, unlike other sham bond initiatives, is actually building new public goods, so there is THAT in its favor. This will mean about $1.5 billion in additional debt (about $260 per household in interest and principal) for construction of children’s hospital facilities.

However, there is an Elephant in the Room. How much of those overcrowded children’s hospitals are due to illegal alien mothers making that “anchor baby dash” to birth on American soil so they can definitely stay?  

Prop 5 – Encouraging “empty nesters” to downsize: YES.  

Proposition 13 capped property taxes at one percent of your home’s purchase price, plus two percent per year.  One problem: old people held on to bigger homes they no longer needed in order to keep their lower property tax.  Prop. 60 partially improved this, allowing seniors (older than 55) to keep their lower assessment if they moved into a smaller home.  This measure says they can keep it wherever they are moving, even if they move into one of those “Mello-Roos” special property tax assessment areas which were established as an end run around Proposition 13 of 1978. 

Prop 6 – Stop Paying Through the Nozzle: YES.  

If I saw lots of new road projects being built with the higher gasoline taxes recently imposed (thinking of the proposition passed last June attempting to restrict gas taxes to just road construction and maintenance), I could vote NO here. But I don’t. I see a useless “high speed” (sic) choo-choo getting a new lease on life.

And the existing taxes are only scheduled to soar ever higher.  When fully phased in and combined with previous taxes, you’ll be paying $2 per gallon in taxes before you buy your first drop of gas.  Californians already have the secondhighest state taxes per gallon for gas (only PA exceeding, and PA does not have environmental fuel blend costs on top of that), but we’re always at the bottom in per capita spending for roads.  That isn’t the fault of taxpayers for not paying enough taxes.

Prop 7 – Let’s change “Daylight Savings Time”: YES.  

If you are tired of the utterly pointless “spring-ahead-fall-back” ritual, this prop’s for you.  Initially it was six months of spring forward and six months of fall back, but lately it has been nearly eight months of spring forward and just over four months of fall back, ostensibly to “save” more of that precious daylight. This initiative would allow the legislature to adopt daylight savings time in California year-round.  And let’s just do that. I would rather go to work in the dark than come home in it.

Prop 8 – Price controls for Dialysis: NO.  

This is price control for dialysis – it purports to limit dialysis prices to 115 percent of costs.  Dialysis prices – in fact, all health care prices – are far too high. But does this initiative increase dialysis supply, or decrease dialysis demand? No and no. It is the same Commiecrat Rent Control Mentality (read on for Prop 10 below).  This proposition assures that any new investments in dialysis care won’t be made in California – leaving patients with fewer options to get treatment.  That’s why this measure, which promises to help kidney patients, is opposed by the National Kidney Foundation.

Prop 9 – (Not forgetting it; the courts struck it off the ballot).

Prop 10 – Allowing Local Rent Control again: NO.  

The Demunist repertoire of terrible ideas rise again.  We have not heard much of bad ideas like rent control for over two decades. That is because back in 1995, when Republican Pete Wilson was still Governor and enough Republicans could still win legislative office, The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act was passed, which nullified local rent control initiatives and laws, on the grounds that cities and counties that passed such laws were only dumping housing problems onto adjacent cities and counties. Such laws can now only happen by state legislature level action, effectively locking them into a Political Crypt. 

What this initiative does is open the locked political crypt again, remove the wooden stakes, and allow Local Rent Control Vampires to once again rise. Keep the wooden stakes firmly in place and the crypt locked.

I live in an area with Slavic immigrants. Among them, there is an old Soviet-era saying, “What good is a free bus ticket in a city with no buses?”  The same is true of rent.  Rent controls are very effective at drying up the supply of rental housing in any community where they’re imposed. Those currently renting do very well, but they hold on to their old apartments and landlords stop building new ones.  Presto: nothing to rent – but at a very affordable price.

Prop 11 – Breaks for Ambulance workers: ???  

The argument for this is that California’s idiotic labor laws forbid ambulance crews from responding to an accident during lunch and other breaks.  However, how enforced is this actually and how many emergency personnel actually do not drop what they are doing if true tragedy strikes?

Prop 12 – Tiny Houses for Food: NO.  

Here’s the latest from the “animals are people too” crowd.  Back in 2008, Californians foolishly passed an initiative forbidding caging livestock and poultry in spaces smaller than their behavioral preferences, because, after all, who wants a grumpy steak?  Among other things, California egg production dropped, prices surged 33 percent and it still sucks to be a chicken.  This makes matters worse by imposing square footage requirements – think of it as a “Tiny House” mandate for your dinner, paid by you. Remember that the same people pushing this want you to eat like you live under Pol Pot.