http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

This past weekend I noticed an obit in the Wall Street Journal. This was unusual for me as I never read obits in the WSJ. However, this one attracted my attention as the name on the obit was very unusual, and there was a sketch of the deceased, a dapper-looking young black gentleman with a stylish long beard and a collared shirt buttoned all the way to the top. His name was Ermias Joseph Asghedom. His father was an immigrant from Eritrea, and his mother was black American. He was born in L.A. and was raised in the Crenshaw neighborhood in South Los Angeles. As a teenager he joined the local Rollin’ 60s Neighborhood Crips gang, and for the most part he stayed in his “scruffy Hyde Park neighborhood” in South Los Angeles. On 3/31/19, he was fatally shot outside a clothing store in South Los Angeles. He was 33 years old. 

At this point he sounds like just one of the many unfortunates who never escaped the ghetto, and really never had much of a chance. But why was his obit in the Wall Street Journal when on most days an obit like this would not even have made the L.A. Times? 
Would it help if I told you that his other name was Nipsey Hussle? If this helps you, then you are much more into rap music than I ! At this point I was still NAC (not a clue!), but then I read his complete obit.

According to the obit, he was a very successful Grammy-nominated rapper who supplemented his music career by trying to revitalize his neighborhood. Instead of leaving South L.A., he bought real estate and opened up stores and created jobs. He said that his music was partly about how to succeed as a young black entrepreneur. He had invested in an organization, Vector90, which provided workspaces and training in science and technology. He had hoped to provide a bridge between Silicon Valley and the inner city.
His death at an early age is full of ironies: His life was ended outside his Marathon Clothing store in Hyde Park . . . a store that he opened in an attempt to revitalize that neighborhood. In one of his songs, he said, “I’m from where homicide boosts the economy.” A trilogy of his recordings was titled “Bullets Ain’t Got No Name.” On April 1, the day after he was shot, he was scheduled to meet with the L.A. Police Commissioner to talk about ways he could help stop gang violence and help kids. And finally, he recently tweeted, ”Having strong enemies is a blessing.”

Wow, what a guy! His death is a big loss to the Hyde Park area and to the multiple inner city kids that live there. It would be a fitting tribute to Ermias Joseph Asghedom, if other black rappers would follow his example. Will any of them step-up ?

With all the falderal about the money for the border wall, I do not believe that I have heard any comments about what’s best for the migrants who are making the onerous journey north from Honduras. Have Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the uber Democratic liberals in Congress ever been to Honduras? I doubt it, and I also would bet that only a few could find Honduras on a map. I would be astonished if any of them can spell or pronounce the name of Honduras’ capital city, and would be amazed if any had flown into San Pedro Sula or into the capital, Tegucigalpa – the two largest cities in Honduras. Furthermore, I am close to 100% certain that none of the know-it-all politicians have ventured into the back country hinterlands of Honduras, where the poorest of the poor actually live. How can they be so certain that the gospel that they are preaching is indeed what’s best for the Honduran congregation? The answer is quite simple   . . . they don’t know what’s best for them, and furthermore they do not care! It’s all about politics and cozying up to their base, most of which also know zero about Honduras!

Likewise, how many of those politicians, who like to hear themselves talk on T.V., have read Enrique’s Journey? It is a true story about a teenager who makes the dangerous trip from Tegucigalpa to the U.S., so that he can be reunited with his mother who is working for a well to do family in the Los Angeles area and sending most of her earnings back to her family in Honduras. For those of you who are not planning on reading Enrique’s Journey, let’s just say that things do not work out well for the teenager, who has no job skills and cannot speak English. Does anyone think that these unaccompanied minors (teenagers) and the scores of young adult men who make the trek from Central America will have a happier ending than Enrique? 

Among these migrants are there those who would qualify as true refugees? Absolutely, and those applying for true refugee status should do so in their own country, either in the northeast, San Pedro, or in the southwest, Tegucigalpa. For them to make the long journey to the U.S.- Mexico border and to then apply for refugee status only after arriving is cruel and makes no sense.

Unfortunately, poverty is a worldwide problem. Is it a problem in Honduras? Absolutely! What is the solution for those individuals who are trapped in the grips of the poverty in their own country. In my opinion, there is no easy way out for the poor living in Honduras, or anyplace else for that matter. The only feasible answer would involve some sort of sponsorship program in the U.S – sponsorship of a poor family by individuals or church groups. In this sort of program the sponsor would assume responsibility for the housing and the economic survival of the recipient family for years and perhaps indefinitely. Those recipients would not have a path to citizenship, could not vote, and would not be eligible for any of the social programs in the U.S. (food stamps, Medicare, social security, etc.), as all of the responsibility would fall to the sponsors. I would be extremely interested to actually see if any liberal individuals or groups would step-up to the plate and actually help. Chuck, Nancy, you are both extremely affluent. Would each of you sponsor a family? Would you step-up ? If both of you would get into this game and put your money where your mouth is, think of all of good that would follow. You could hit a home run, and potentially make it to the World Series.

But back to reality. In my opinion, the best chance for the future is to invest in the education of the Honduran children. If these children can receive a good education, they have a chance to escape to a better life . . . mostly still within the borders of their own country. Call me an optimist or call me a realist, but I firmly believe that this is the best answer for a problem that otherwise has no end in sight.

FYI: I do know how to locate Honduras on a map, and furthermore can pronounce the name of its capital city! I have been to Honduras three times and am planning on going again this summer. BTW: If Chuck or Nancy wish to go with me in July, my response is “welcome aboard!”

This is something that you will not hear about on MSNBC or CNN, and guaranteed that it will not make the front page of either NYT or WaPo. However, consider yourselves fortunate as I am going to explain Labor Force Participation(LFP).
LFP is defined as the percent of the population aged 16 and over working or looking for work. It is important as a gauge of how fast the economy is growing, and whether or not inflation will be generated. The Labor Force Participation (LFP) bottomed out in 2015, and since then it has stabilized at around 63%, defying expectations. According to the Wall Street Journal on 3/25/19, in the past six months the number of people outside the labor force has fallen by one million, the largest decline on record, and probably because the number of job openings and the rising wages have drawn in more workers in their prime working years, 25 – 54 years old. According to economist Ernie Tedeschi of Evercore ISI, the increase in this age group’s labor participation is from workers who had reported disabilities or were discouraged and are now seeking employment. What makes this all the more noteworthy is that this present LFP is running contrary to the predictions of the Labor Department, the Federal Reserve, and the Congressional Budget Office, all of whom had projected a decline mainly due to the aging of the population, as only 20% of Americans 65 or older work or look for work, and this should lower the overall LFP.
Now I realize that some of you are finding this economic drivel boring, but let’s take a step back, and review:

LFP bottomed out in 2015. 

LFP is defying expectations of demographic-driven decline.

LFP is running much better than had been predicted by the experts.

Why is this? Why will MSNBC and CNN not mention Labor Force Participation?

Duh!! It is because the present outstanding LFP is due to the policies of President Trump. While the Democrats have been caterwauling about Russia, etc., etc., Mr. Trump and his team have been doing things to help the economy. Prior to the 2016 election the prior president was talking about the “new normal” of slow economic growth, but oh, how things have changed since Donald Trump was elected. Coincidence? I think not! As an aside I wonder if ex-President Obama ever sits in his new D.C. home, looks at the present economic data including LFP, and considers if he and his policies were wrong! . . . BTW I would not spend too much time giving this serious thought! In the same vein do not hold your breath waiting for any of the vast herd of presidential candidates from the Democratic Party to mention economics, much less LFP, as they appear to have no idea of what the term implies in the real world!

Almost a year ago there was an op-Ed in the New York Times titled “An Urgent Debate for California Republicans: How to Get Back in the Game.” It pointed out that this will be an enormous uphill battle because of the demographics of what we have now in California, namely that 45% of the voters are registered Democrats while only about 25% are Republican. There is a Democratic governor and both U.S. senators are Democrats. The state legislators are overwhelmingly Democrats.”Oy-vey!” Or perhaps, I should say,”ah caramba!” 

Is there any hope? Not if the Republicans continue to use parameters that are based on common sense. John Cox, the Republican who lost last year’s governor’s race, was campaigning on fiscal sanity and respect for the rule of law – both common-sensical, and therefore both losers! My novel idea . . . start a grassroots campaign to persuade our state Democratic lawmakers to institute a soda tax. At this point I am hearing collective oy-vehs , but hear me out. 

First: I have yet to meet a Democrat that does not think that additional taxes are a good idea. 

Second: This tax would hurt those people who drink a lot of soda (low to medium income) not those who prefer Perrier (higher incomes), and Democrats seem to have a penchant for doing things that hurt those who can least afford it. (e.g. recent gas tax!)

Third: An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week was talking about the soda-tax and it’s consequences in Philadelphia. As was pointed out this tax disproportionately punished the poor in Philadelphia. Many have attempted to avoid the tax by buying groceries outside of the city limits which has subsequently eliminated about 300 jobs. The combination of these lost jobs and paying more for Coke, etc.has resulted in approximately 59% of Philadelphians now opposing the tax, and those Democrats who initially backed it are nervous about the upcoming elections. 

Perhaps the California voters will see the light and vote the Democrats out when they are paying more not only to drive to the 7-11, but also more to purchase their Big Gulp! If this works, the next grass roots tax that we need to persuade Democrat legislators to propose is a tax on tortillas. Una buena idea, no?

“The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Restrictions on speech by public colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. Such restrictions deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find bigoted or offensive.” This sounds like some right wing group who is p.o.-ed because one of theirs was prevented from speaking at a commencement, like Condoleezza Rice (Rutgers), Ayana Hirsi Ali (Brandeis University), and Christine Lagarde (Smith College). However the above quote is from the A.C.L.U. website. It continues, “Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. Where racist, misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech — not less — is the answer most consistent with our constitutional values.”

Wow, I am in agreement with the A.C.L.U.! President Trump is also in agreement with the A.C.L.U. on this issue, as on 3/21/19, he signed an executive order requiring U.S. colleges to protect free speech on their campuses or risk losing federal research funding. “Even as universities have received billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers, many have become increasingly hostile to free speech and to the First Amendment,” Trump said at a White House signing ceremony. “These universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity and shut down the voices of great young Americans.” Under the order, colleges would need to agree to protect free speech in order to tap into more than $35 billion a year in research and educational grants.
Coincidentally, a week or so ago a friend of mine, Randy, returned to his college alma mater in the state of Ohio. Since he is on the board at the school, and contributes more than his fair share to the school, he was able to meet one-on-one with the college president, let’s call him Sandy. Now Randy was a jet-lagged, but this is his vague recollection of their conversation.

Randy asked Sandy if he believed in free speech on his campus. “Of course” replied the college president.” “Then why don’t you invite President Trump to speak at our next commencement?” It quickly became apparent that Sandy was deep in thought as he was caught in a potential dilemma. Should he risk his school’s reputation on a Trump commencement speech? Obviously it would be an honor to have the President speak at his relatively small school’s graduation. At the same time, how sure was he that his graduating students and their families would behave appropriately. Could he risk the same embarrassment that Notre Dame suffered after a number of its immature graduating seniors walked out of a commencement address being given by Vice-President Mike Pence at the South Bend university in 2017? Would his students behave similar to the elitist students from Notre Dame?

Randy said that he could almost read Sandy’s thoughts: “Would my hard working, middle-class city kids behave appropriately and respect both the office and the commencement speaker even if they did not agree with everything he said and stood for? Could I count on them to be courteous? When all was said and done, would I be proud of them?”
After a period of silence, Sandy enthusiastically responded, “That’s a wonderful idea, Randy. I’ll bet that our school’s students and their parents would be honored to have the President give the commencement address. If we don’t ask, he can’t say, “Yes, I’d be proud to come.”

Let’s talk about what should be a success story. An Arab American woman, who was born in 1951 in a small town, Elmira, New York to parents of Lebanese descent. Someone who rose from a lower middle class family (her father sold mobile-homes, and her mother was a department store model), went to law school, where she was the editor of law review, and subsequently went on to become the first female judge in Westchester County, New York, and then the first female District Attorney in Westchester County. Sounds to me like an American success story . . . a prototypical rags to riches story due to hard work and perseverance. Why is her story not more widely known?

The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind, the wind of the liberal media. For you see, from the left’s viewpoint, this woman has multiple strikes against her. She is Christian. She is conservative. She is Republican. And perhaps her biggest sin . . . she is an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump!

If you haven’t figured it out so far, I am talking about Judge Jeanine Pirro, who apparently has been suspended for two weeks from her weekend show on Fox. I say apparently because although Fox has not come out with a definitive statement, her show for the past two weekends has been replaced by a filler, basically about nothing. What was her offense? Those on the left accused her of disrespecting Rep. Ilhan Omar’s wearing of her hijab in a Judge Pirro’s opening statement, and Fox News then did the P.C. thing and is punishing her. Now I have watched her opening statement in its entirety twice from stem to stern. Did she mention Omar’s hijab? Most definitely! However, the context had to do with Sharia Law and its compatibility with the U.S. Constitution. The main focus of that week’s opening statement had to do with anti-semitism, and the cowardice of the Democrats in their refusal to call a spade, a spade, as Rep. Omar has clearly made repeated anti-Semitic comments. Yes, Pirro’s opening statement referred to Omar, but its main focus was on anti-semitism and the inept leadership of Nancy Pelosi, who appears to have lost control of her wish-washy Democratic colleagues.

Now let me be clear, Judge Jeanine will survive. She will not back down from her strongly opinionated positions. Yes, her show has lost some of its sponsors – most of whom I have never heard of! A friend of mine recently told me that, if you have a Smart T.V., that the shows you watch can be tabulated, so starting this coming weekend I am going to record Justice with Judge Jeanine, as my way of showing support for her calling out both Rep. Omar on her anti-semitism and also Speaker Pelosi on her reticence to support both Israel and the Jewish community in the U.S.  I would hope that all of you would do likewise and set your DVR to record Justice with Judge Jeanine, every weekend at least in the near future. Whether you actually watch the show is irrelevant, although I have found her opening monologue to be quite entertaining., 

From Townhall:

“Attorney General William Barr sent a letter to four lawmakers on Capitol Hill Sunday afternoon, 3/24/19, summarizing the findings of Robert Mueller’s two year long Special Counsel investigation. After 500 witnesses and 2800 subpoenas, it reveals that President Trump, in addition to his 2016 campaign and those associated with it, did not collude with Russians to influence the presidential election.” 
So it’s over! The Democrats lost and the U.S.A. won! Wait! Not so fast

Clearly upset at the Justice Department’s unequivocal declaration that no further indictments are coming out of the Mueller probe, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi (S&P) said that Attorney General Bill Barr “must make the full report public and provide its underlying documentation and findings.” 

This, of course, will be impossible and certainly S&P must know that Attorney General Barr can’t possibly fulfill their request. Surely everybody must know that Barr cannot release classified information, as the phrase, “cannot be released as it is classified,” is something we have heard repeatedly over the last few years. Certainly, S&P must know this, as they have both been in Washington for most of their adult lives – much too long!

Additionally, apparently grand jury testimony and materials are sealed forever. I did not know this, but certainly Schumer and Pelosi must know this, as they have been lawyers for decades. This will not change just because the Mueller Report didn’t turn out the way the Democrats wanted. 

Finally, it is a longstanding Justice Department policy never to release derogatory information about people who are not being charged with breaking the law, and here since there are no indictments, no one, other than some Russians, is being charged with breaking the law. This is a foundational principle of professional behavior for federal prosecutors, and it’s a critical protection against abuse of power. Certainly Schumer and Pelosi must know that some people actually have some principles even if they don’t.

So what is S&P’s game plan? It doesn’t take a professional coach to figure it out . . . a Pop-Warner coach could easily figure it out! Obviously, they are setting up an impossible standard that they must know full well can’t be met. When Barr inevitably has to redact certain information from the report he sends to Congress, they will then falsely accuse him of a cover-up.
The major difference between what has been going on for two years with the Mueller investigation, and what will be going on for the next two years, is that the focus will now be on the Democrats. I predict two years of incessant whining prior to the 2020 election. I also predict that by then the American people will know that the Democrats are not attempting to “make America great . . . “

3/26/19

It appears that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is over, and thus far the main headline is that there are no indictments . . . which means that he has not found any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Here’s what our nation’s top leaders had to say about the report.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued the following statement:          “I welcome the announcement that the Special Counsel has finally completed his investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. Many Republicans have long believed that Russia poses a significant threat to American interests. I hope the Special Counsel’s report will help inform and improve our efforts to protect our democracy. I am grateful we have an experienced and capable Attorney General in place to review the Special Counsel’s report. Attorney General Barr now needs the time to do that. The Attorney General has said he intends to provide as much information as possible. As I have said previously, I sincerely hope he will do so as soon as he can, and with as much openness and transparency as possible.”The following is a part of a joint statement by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi: “. . . Attorney General Barr must not give President Trump, his lawyers or his staff any ‘sneak preview’ of Special Counsel Mueller’s findings or evidence, and the White House must not be allowed to interfere in decisions about what parts of those findings or evidence are made public. . . ”House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MA) issued the following statement:“ . . . I urge the Attorney General to perform his duty to country and Constitution, ensure that this report is made available to Congress and the public, and resist any attempt by the White House to interfere . . . “
Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) issued the following statement:“Like most Americans, I am glad to see that this investigation, which has taken nearly two years and cost tens of millions of dollars, has finally come to a close. The reports that there will be no new indictments confirm what we’ve known all along: there was never any collusion with Russia. The only collusion was between Democrats and many in the media who peddled this lie because they continue to refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election. I am glad Attorney General Barr will now be able to review the report, and I look forward to Congress being fully briefed on its findings, including the cost to taxpayers.”
So far what I find interesting is the tone of the Democratic spokes-persons. They are still making sure that everyone knows that they will still be on the watch for skullduggery from President Trump and the White House. Why not just say that they are anxiously awaiting the full report, but no, again they have to make veiled accusations about something which has not occurred. These 675 days of Special Counsel tomfoolery are theirs, but to me the question remains whether or not they can be reconciled to the findings.

What I am especially looking forward to is the response of Rep. Adam Schiff (D,CA). As everyone is probably aware, he has used this investigation to make unfounded accusations against our President, while making sure that his mug was on MSNBC and CNN. Will he say, “mea culpa?” 

Will any of the Democrats say “mea culpa” to the American people for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on such an obviously partisan boondoggle?

The college admissions scandal has got everybody talking these days. My personal reaction to the details is . . . LOL! To me it is incredible that multiple parents over a nine-year period have paid $25 million to get their children into certain “elite” colleges  (Pay to play!) As an aside note that most of these extravagant, “money is no object” parents are from California, but this is a topic for another day.

I asked my son, “What is the difference between these shenanigans and the so-called legacy admissions? With legacy, prospective students are given priority if either parent, or perhaps a grandparent, or aunt/uncle graduated from the school . . . of course a donation to the school is implied, and the more the donation, the better the legacy! Having legacy significantly increases the prospective student’s chance that he/she will gain admission to the school to about 34%, compared to a 6% chance for the run of the mill student applicant, assuming the same GPA, test scores, etc. My son answered, “The major difference is that with legacy, the ‘donation’ goes directly to the school – there is no middleman payoff, and thus no criminality.”

This leads to an interesting ethical question ? What if these uber rich parents had  offered the $25 million over nine years directly to the schools in exchange for having their little darlings admitted? This would be an upfront pay-to-play without any deceit, and thus no criminality. From the university’s perspective, what difference does one extra student make ? It could then use this money so that underprivileged and/or minority students would be able to afford these elite, expensive schools. Would not everybody benefit ? (Pay, so that someone else could play ?)

If you were a university president would you accept this money, so that multiple less fortunate students would be able to attend your elite university for free ? Ethical ? What do you think ?

The other side of this issue is: How important is it that one go to an “elite” college ? Does one have an equal chance for success if he/she goes to a non-elite college ?
For many years my answer to this question has been, ”No, not necessary to go to an elite college, and yes one’s chance os success depends much more on the individual, then on the school attended.  I asked a bunch of my friends which college they attended. Keep in mind that all of these individuals are now successful or have already achieved success in their lives.. Only one of these individuals had attended Harvard . . . the same number as attended Illinois Valley College, Loyola Marymount, Air Force Academy, University of Florida, DePaul, University of Pittsburg, University of Wisconsin, Cal State Long Beach, University of Colorado, College of St. Thomas, Cleveland State, Tulane, Northwestern, and San Diego State. Even though all but a few of them presently live in California, I did not discover that any of these successful individuals had attended Stanford or U.S.C., (As an aside, in the past, I knew only one guy that went to U.S.C. for certain, and he wasn’t a success.) Interestingly two of the most successful guys in my survey did not graduate college (but that is a topic for another day).

Many years ago I had to hire people to work in my department. What I thought was critical was not where they went to school, but rather if they seemed like they had a good work ethic and would get along with myself and my coworkers. Years after I had hired them, my initial impression was confirmed as I found no correlation between the college they had attended and their successful acclimation to our work environment. Although I did not specifically ask them, it is possible that some of their parents were from California, but I am quite certain that they had not paid for their children to play.

Sometimes “good” ideas come purely by serendipity with no malice aforethought – for you non-lawyers, no premeditation. Case in point: Today I was listening to music via Alexa. “Alexa, play 60s music on Pandora.” (BTW, I love my Alexa [Echo by Amazon.]) At the same time coincidentally I was reading the newspaper, and the article I was reading was about California planning to sue FEMA. Apparently FEMA has rejected $306 million in reimbursements for California’s repair of damaged spillways on the Oroville Dam. The bread and butter of this particular situation is not of critical importance here, as the important concept is that California is again involved legally with the federal government.

In 2017 California filed multiple lawsuits – 24 of them in 17 different subject areas against the Trump administration. These suits include the Travel Ban, D.A.C.A., the Border Wall, Sanctuary Cities, Immigration Enforcement, Transgender Military Ban, Birth Control, Obamacare, Student Loan Protection, etc.! By February, 2019 California was planning its 46th lawsuit against the Trump administration.
Two questions:

Q. Who is paying for all of these lawsuits?

A. California’s war against the Trump Administration is costing state taxpayers millions of dollars for lawyers and other costs connected to nearly four dozen lawsuits.  The price tag for the California vs. Trump war was $9.2 million for the 2017-2018 fiscal year ending June 30, 2018, up from $2.8 million the previous year — which included six months of the president’s first year in office. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat and former 12-term member of the House, justified the spending, while Republican leaders and taxpayer advocates say the lawsuits amount to a political stunt and a waste of taxpayer money. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has sued California three times, including over its sanctuary state law and the state’s new net neutrality law. Defending against these suits is also not cheap.

Q. Why so many anti-Trump lawsuits?

A. Certainly anger and spite are involved, and it is always easy to spend money that is       someone else’s, i.e. the taxpayers! But there is another obvious reason. These cases will all eventually be heard in the IX Circuit Court of Appeals that will  assuredly side with California.
Now here’s where Alexa came in. At the same time as I was reading about the latest California disagreement with the federal government, Alexa was playing “Runaround Sue” by Dion from 1961. That’s when the lightbulb went on! What if ? ? ?
What if the cases that were headed to one of the Appeals Courts, were first randomized, and could go then to any of the thirteen Appeals Courts. Sure these California anti-Trump cases could end up in one of the more liberal Courts of Appeal, but at least there would not be malice aforethought. Similarly suits filed in Texas could end up in the IX Circuit Court of Appeals! What fair for the goose, etc.!

For those of you that are against my “out of the box” thinking, do you not think that my “Runaround Suit” idea would decrease the number of vitriolic law suits if the ruling by the Court of Appeals was not pre-ordained?