http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

A few years back I used to volunteer at a nursing home, calling Bingo. Each week I used to make a big deal if I pulled I-26, “my favorite number!” One week I said, “The next number is my favorite number. What is it?” The immediate response from Margaret, one of the regulars was, “Who cares!?”

Well that was also my immediate response to the announcement that Robert Francis O’Rourke, better known as Beto, was running for President in 2020 . . . “Who cares?” However, before I make a snap judgement, let’s examine his qualifications. He is a one term U.S. congressman from El Paso, who lost his recent Senate bid to Ted Cruz.  As Michael Ahrens, Republican National Committee spokesman, pointed out, “Mr. O’Rourke failed to get anything done in Congress, and with extreme policies like government-run health care and tearing down border barriers. It’s telling that the Democrats’ biggest star is someone whose biggest accomplishment is losing,” 
But is he “the biggest star?”

The most recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll places O’Rourke sixth among a slate of current or potential candidates. The poll, reported first by The Hill, shows Biden leading the pack, with 37 percent of Democrat voters. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) came in second place at 22 percent, while Harris (D,CA) notched a third place finished with 10 percent, according to the survey.
What is he campaigning on? In February, O’Rourke unveiled a 10-point plan which would grant citizenship for “Dreamers” and their parents, along with “millions more” who reside in the U.S. illegally. Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston, told The Chronicle that O’Rourke’s proposal places him to the left of several Democrat presidential candidates. “That is fairly to the left of where most of the people in the Democratic field are,” Rottinghaus noted. Some Texas Republicans say O’Rourke’s proposal is a slap in the face to U.S. citizens and those who immigrated legally.

Who is backing him? During “New Day” on CNN on 3/14/19, Vanity Fair special correspondent Joe Hagan discussed his profile on former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) in-which Beto said that he was “born” to run for president. Hagan said he spent some days with O’Rourke and he described the failed Senate candidate as “a regular guy,” “down to earth” and “charismatic.”
So let me get this right! This Democratic rising star is a one term, perhaps charismatic congressman, who did not accomplish anything in Congress, and lost his last election. He is backed by Vanity Fair, and the only issue on which he will be campaigning seems to be unfettered immigration with views to the left of all the other potential Democratic candidates.

After examining his qualifications, I echo Margaret . . . “Who cares?”

Is having a spine a prerequisite for being in Congress? You probably are thinking, “What a dumb question? Just about every living thing has a spine.” But before you definitively answer the question, let’s review some of the recent votes in the Congress, and then you make your own decision. First we have the Rep. Ilhan Omar (D,Minn) fiasco. As everyone is aware she is getting a lot of attention because of the statements that she has repeatedly made about Israel and Jewish people in general. She said that politicians support Israel because of the money, and when asked who was paying off her colleagues, she said that it was AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), who by the way, doesn’t make campaign contributions. So next came a proposed resolution condemning anti-semitism.

From the New York Times: “It started as a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Then, anti-Muslim bias was added in. After that came white supremacy. And by the end, it cited “African-Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants and others” victimized by bigotry.” The resolution condemning “hateful expressions of intolerance,” passed the House by an overwhelming 407-to-23 vote, with only Republicans voting against it. (Again from the NYT, “Republicans mocked its all-inclusive approach. “We left out the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we left out Wiccans, we left out Jehovah’s Witnesses, we left out disabled people!” Representative Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, exclaimed shortly before the measure came to a vote, adding, “What makes you feel good doesn’t always heal you.”)
Some veteran Jewish Democrats, who had pushed for a measure that would solely condemn anti-Semitism, were equally dismayed . . . but yet voted for the watered-down resolution. So again I ask, “Is having a spine a prerequisite . . . for being a Democrat in the House of Representatives?”
The situation in the Senate is even worse. For the most part Senate Democrats predictably vote in lockstep with what czar Schumer says. To be fair and balanced, I must mention three Senators who recently essentially said, “I do have a spine,” when they voted against infanticide, while 44 of their Democrat colleagues went along with the czar. These three, Bob Casey (D,PA), Doug Jones (D,AL), and Joe Manchin (D,WV) voted their conscience, and not the party line! As for the other 44, you have to have a spine to follow your conscience and think on your own when Schumer essentially says, “Go ahead and kill babies. It’s okay!” Draw your own conclusions! 

So again I ask, “Is having a spine a prerequisite . . . for being a Democrat in the Senate?
3/14/19

Yesterday I read an article that was enumerating the 2019 inductees into the Women’s Hall of Fame. Before you read any further, think about who you think should be inducted this year . . . dead or alive, old or young, it doesn’t seem to make any difference. Pick someone who you think should be inducted in 2019, or for sure has probably already been inducted.
For those of you not familiar with the Women’s Hall of Fame, it is located in Seneca Falls, N.Y. and has been inducting members for almost 50 years. It is centrally located in New York State, and a visit could easily coupled with visits to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., the FDR Presidential Library just north of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and Niagara Falls, all of which are within a day’s drive. 
At present the Women’s Hall of Fame has 276 inductees, and 10 more women are scheduled to be inducted this coming September. The past inductees include entertainers (Lucille Ball, Billie Holiday, Julia Childs), athletes (Babe Zaharias, Wilma Rudolf, Althea Gibson), and adventurers (Amelia Earhart, Sally Rand, Ann Bancroft). There are also those women who have been important in the Civil Rights Movement (Coretta Scott King, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks). 
Wow, it sounds like an interesting place to go. Perhaps next summer.  Book ‘em, Danno!
Perhaps, before arranging for flights, a rental car, and hotels, we should see who is scheduled to be inducted in September of this year. Some of the inductees-to-be include Angela Davis of Black Panther fame, Jane Fonda, an anti-war activist of the 1970s, and Col. Nicole Malachowski, an ex-Air Force Thunderbird pilot and adviser to former First Lady, Michelle Obama . . . you get the idea! I actually reviewed all of the names of the prior 276 inductees, and although I agreed with a large number of past inductees, there were some things I could not understand. In fact, there seemed to be a pattern. Rosalyn Carter was on the list, but Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan were not. Hillary Clinton was on the list, but Condoleezza Rice was not. Geraldine Ferraro who ran as the V.P. candidate with Walter Mondale was a thumbs up, whereas Sarah Palin who ran as the V.P. candidate with John McCain was a thumbs down. Again, you get the idea!
Hold off with the airline tickets, the rental car, and the hotels in N.Y. state!

BTW: My pick for this year’s inductee is Condoleezza Rice. The fact that she has not already been inducted and is not on this year’s list says all that you need to know about the Women’s Hall of Fame! 
Today I sent a letter-to-the-editor of my local newspaper as follows:
After reading the 2019 list of inductees to the Women’s Hall of Fame (SDUT, 3/10/19), I observed one glaring omission. I then reviewed the list of the 276 prior inductees . . . the same glaring omission! Why is Condoleezza Rice neither a past nor a present inductee? Could it be because she is a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican?

I read something in the paper the other day, and I thought that this would be another new way for the California Democratic Legislature to yet add another tax. This tax is presently alive and well in Germany, and it collects a lot of money every year. Last year this tax collected €11million in Berlin alone! At the present exchange rate, this equates to about $12.5 million per year for just one city that had a population of 3.7 million in 2018. Keep in mind that the Los Angeles population is approximately 4 million, which is similar to that of Berlin, and in addition, San Francisco has a population of about 900,000. Just think how much in additional tax could be collected in all of California with an estimated 2019 population of 40 million. If there are any Democrats reading this, I know that they are envisioning how much additional revenue could be raised. 

In Germany dogs need to be licensed and are subject to a ‘Hundesteuer’, meaning ‘dog tax’. Most European countries scrapped the dog tax in the 20th century but not Germany. In Germany, dog owners have to pay a “dog tax” and receive a tag confirming that they paid the license. This ranges from 24 to 100 euros per year depending on the breed of dog and on the location in Germany. In addition, dog owners pay a lot more dog tax per animal if they have multiple dogs. There are circumstances in which you are exempt from paying the dog tax, for example, if your dog is a service dog. Good news for adoptive pet owners too: if your dog is a rescue dog, you are exempt from paying dog tax for the first year. While cats do need to be licensed, they are not subject to any kind of tax.

Pet owners, be ready, because I think that once the Democratic legislators in California get wind of this tax, they will not be able to restrain themselves. I can almost hear them now. “If we can tax dogs, why not tax cats? In fact, why not tax birds, gerbils, and even ferrets?” Think of the additional millions of dollars in tax revenue that the California Democratic Legislature could put into the state’s coffers . . .  so that they could then spend it frivolously.

Some words of wisdom to my Democrat friends: “Slow down your breathing and do not get too excited!” 

Some words of wisdom to the rest of us Californians: “Shhh, don’t spread the word to them.” 

Some final words of wisdom for the dog down the street: “Auf Wiedersehen, Rover!”

In my car I have Sirius Radio, and BTW I love it! Anyway the other day I heard a song from the 70s, Lonesome Loser by Little River Band, and immediately thought about the Democrats. 

”Have you heard about the Lonesome Loser?
Beaten by the Queen of Hearts every time.
Have you heard about the Lonesome Loser?
He’s a loser but he still keeps on trying.”

In my mind the Queen of Hearts is the Independent voter, mainly in the Heartland. Why do the Lonesome Losers (the Democrats) keep on going with the same kind of horses when they can’t win? Why the Democrats apparent insistence going more and more leftward with their party’s ideas? (Granted one of the reasons they lost in 2016 was that they had a flawed candidate, but as I have pointed out before, the country is not ready to elect another liberal/leftist candidate. Barack Obama was elected because he was black and was a very persuasive speaker.) Yes, certainly there are areas of the country that lean very leftward, but California and New York will not be enough to elect a very liberal president in 2020. 

Yet, at this point, it appears that most of the headlines are being made by those young fillies on the far left like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Rep Ilhan Omar, and Rep. Tlaib, each of whom has won only one race. (“You go, girls! Continue speaking out!”) 

CNN  just had a focus group of Democratic voters, and they rejected Joe Biden because they “wanted a candidate that was more progressive,” i.e. further to the left. This is despite the fact that Mr. Biden apparently has an early lead in some polls.(You go, CNN. Continue pushing left!”) 

In my opinion Sen. Cory Booker, Sen.Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Saunders, and Sen Kamala Harris are too liberal to be elected President. Most times when they speak, I hear a lot of nice-nellyisms (an evasive style, full of circumlocutions).They are far from being thoroughbreds, and yet they are the ones that are receiving the most publicity in the newspapers.(You go NYTimes  & WaPo. Continue your liberal slant.)

Today in both in the national WSJ and also in the local liberal paper, the headlines announced the intent of the Democrats in the House to “step up Trump probes.” (You go Adam Schiff, Intelligence Committee (Rep, CA) and you go Rep. Jerrold Nader (D,NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.) At some point these continued “investigations” will start to have a negative effect with the independent voters, who are already tired of Mueller’s unending “investigation of ??.”

The “final nail in the Democratic coffin” will occur on March 3, 2020 because on that date there will be primaries in the liberal states of California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Vermont. This will be after approximately seven or eight Democratic debates, and MSNBC and NBC will have the progressives fired up and in a frenzy. After this day a very liberal progressive candidate is likely to have the lead in the race to oblivion. (You go, progressives. The further left, the better!)

At this point even though I do not have experience in handicapping, I am going to predict the following results from the Nov. 3, 2020 election race. (You go, Contrarian.)

Win: Donald Trump – actually by a comfortable margin.

Place: Kamala Harris

Show: The independents, especially those from the heartland, who showed up big time and carried Trump across the finish line!

Remember you heard it here first!

The other night I was driving along minding my own business when . . . Boom! My left front tire had hit something, something big. The next day in the light I was able to see that this was a huge rectangular pothole, large enough that a large dachshund could have curled up in it for a nap. Now granted that this pothole was larger than the average-sized pothole, but those of the smaller variety are everywhere, and none are good for your tires or alignment. 

Coincidentally, that same morning one of the articles on the front page of my local newspaper was titled, “$1M Deal in Latest Cycling Injury Lawsuit.” This particular lawsuit was because a biker was severely injured because of a bike accident due to a pothole. Now granted this payout was not nearly as large as the 2017 $5M lawsuit payout to a bicyclist that had been launched several feet because of a damaged city sidewalk. One would think that $1M and $5M could fix a lot of potholes and damaged sidewalks, but surprisingly I could not find an increased allotment for fixing potholes or damaged sidewalks in the latest city budget. There is a lot of “touchy-feely” stuff in the proposed budget, like more tree planting because of the beneficial effects of trees on CO2, and improvements in bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways to encourage decreased use of cars, and thus combat global warming! Why do these City Council men and women feel that their job is primarily to “make the world ‘a better place’ for future generations by combatting ‘global warming’?” Will they ever realize that increasing the number of bike paths is not going to prevent “global warming/climate change” when, according to the New York Times in 2017, the Chinese are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal. Most of these plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries. Over all around the globe, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. While these new plants will expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent, the know-it-alls on our City Council are expanding bike paths and not fixing potholes! Go figure!!

When you are taking care of two little ones it is not that unusual for one to complain that the other did such & such. As the parent or grandparent you quickly learn not to respond to every “he did this” or “she did that,” and in fact do the smart thing and  discourage such behavior. “No tattling!”

A daughter of mine is a kindergarten teacher and has told me that if she wanted to spend her time actually teaching, she had to put a lid on “Manuel is not being nice,” or “Julia is not sitting on her spot,” or the dreaded “Michael is looking at me!” For these young kids this is often their first social experience, and this immature behavior must be nipped in the bud, otherwise the teacher cannot get any traction. “No tattling!”

Obviously certain aggressive behaviors cannot be tolerated and the line is quickly drawn. Even a five-year old understands the difference between calling George “shorty,” and punching or kicking George. As the children grow older, they mature and learn to tell the difference between the small change (“four-eyes”) and the big money (bullying). I agree that calling someone “four-eyes” is not a nice thing to do, and while being on the receiving end is not pleasant, such is life . . . apparently until you are a freshman at the University of Illinois, where according to the Washington Examiner, social media posts from the University of Illinois campus police are encouraging students to report “acts of intolerance” to the school’s Bias Assessment and Response Team (B.A.R.T.). The long list of potentially objectionable verbal offenses ends with the dreaded . . . “etc.”!

Again according to the Examiner, those reported for bias may be required to participate in mediation, “educational conversations,” or “resolution agreements” and may receive referrals to other offices at the school. In some cases, incidents which are deemed as possible violations of the Student Code can be forwarded to the Student Discipline System. If you offend a snowflake, get ready to be plowed under at U. of I.! What do others think of these snowflakes? According to Fox News:

Actor Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson lamented the “snowflake” culture in an interview with the U.K.’s Daily Star.
Johnson, who has toyed with the idea of politics, told the publication that snowflakes’ complaints do a disservice to the war heroes who fought for freedom of speech.
“So many good people fought for freedom and equality – but this generation are looking for a reason to be offended,” he said. “If you are not agreeing with them then they are offended – and that is not what so many great men and women fought fore.”

I guess those leftists, who think that these P.C. dictums are good for ? somebody, probably missed that day when the kindergarten teacher said, “No tattling! Alternatively, perhaps they were an only child who was home-schooled through high-school, or perhaps even went directly from pre-school to college.

Mark my words, this B.A.R.T. surveillance  will cause nothing but chaos at the U. of I. 

After the Senate vote on 2/25/19 President Trump said, “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress.” The Senate had just defeated “Born Alive, Abortion Survivor Protection Act” by a vote of 53-44, and Mr. Trump was repulsed. I would guess even most of you who are not fans of Donald Trump will agree with his response.

Think about how disgusting this is – a baby that is born alive . . . crying, breathing, with a heartbeat is then killed, and this is okay according to 44 Democrats in the Senate! 
Compare the following two statements and tell me which one makes you want to vomit: 

Mitch McConnell said, “this is a straightforward piece of legislation to protect newborn babies.”

The president of Planned Parenthood referred to this infanticide as “a direct attack on women’s health and rights!”

Although I do not agree with the pro-abortion position in general, I can understand it. However, the condoning of the murder of newborns is beyond the pale. 

Q: Who could possibly think that this is within the bounds of acceptable behavior? 

A: 44 Senate Democrats voted against this bill. In essence they voted to permit the execution of some newborn infants, contingent on the circumstances surrounding their birth.

As could have been predicted all Senate Republicans voted to protect the lives of innocent newborns, while to their credit three Democrats, in effect, had the balls to tell Chuck Schumer, “even in your wildest dreams, murder of an innocent newborn cannot be condoned.”
Some of you might be asking why the Senate Majority Leader brought this up for a vote in the first place, as even if it passed, it would never be brought up in the Pelosi-controlled House. The answer is intuitively obvious . . . there is an election coming up in less than two years from now. The question here is whether voting that it is okay to kill babies will have consequences in the upcoming election. In 2020 there will be not only a presidential election, but also In 2020 there will be 34 Senate seats up for a vote; 22 of these are presently held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. Even though there are many more Republican Senators up for re-election, many of them are in states that went for Trump in 2016. At this point there appears to be only three Republican Senators that are in serious jeopardy because their states went for Clinton in 2016 – Collins in Maine, Gardner in Colorado, and Ernst in Iowa.

On the other hand, there is one Democratic Senate seat that undoubtedly will  be flipped to Republican – Alabama, and three that could possibly be flipped – N.H., Minn., and Virginia.

You can guarantee that there will be a lot of commercials, some vivid, that will depict a present Democratic Senator as a “baby-killer.” Fasten your seat belts!

Sometimes something is so good that I cannot decide which facet to write about. Which tact should I take? Such is the case with the Jussie Smollett fiasco! Today I am going to write about the myriad of possible neologisms that may arise from the “Empire” actor’s bizarre behavior.

The most obvious is “Jussie.” From Townhall’s Kurt Schlichter:  “I propose a new verb. “Jussie” (verb): To promote a bigoted lie about conservative Americans that faithfully supports the liberal narrative while being so transparently false that only the stupidest of the people pushing it actually believe it.”

The neologisms are not limited to Mr. Smollett, although this is the one that is is the most likely to stick. The statements from both Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker are both ripe for the picking. For example:
Kamala Harris: “@JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery. This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.” 
Cory Booker: “The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching. I’m glad he’s safe. To those in Congress who don’t feel the urgency to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime– I urge you to pay attention.”
Either “a Kamala, a Harris, a Cory, or a Booker” could mean “an unbelievably naive reactionary statement from someone who actually knows nothing about what has actually occurred.” 

On second thought President Barack Obama should have cornered the market on naive reactionary dumb statements when he quickly commented on the arrest of his friend, Henry Gates Jr., a Harvard professor, in July 2009. As I am sure you recall,  Gates, who is black, was arrested after a neighbor called 911 to report that two men were trying to get into a house in what she worried might be a burglary. The responding officer, Sgt. James Crowley, asked Gates to step outside of the house. Gates refused. A confrontation followed, and Crowley arrested Gates on a charge of disorderly conduct and led him out of his house in handcuffs.

Within a week or so President Obama said about the incident, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that.” Subsequently, however, he then proceeded to comment on how badly the Cambridge police had acted . . . even though he “had not seen all the facts!” Big faux pas! His attempt at being a conciliator with his “beer summit” failed, and his credibility on anything race related never recovered. 

Even if the term, “a Kamala” or the term, “a Booker” never catch on, a lot of people will not forget the Smollett affair, and you can be sure that if either of them make it to the finals, President Trump will not let the American people forget what fools they made of themselves and how poor their judgement was.

There is a potential major ice jam in the Green River, and I am not referring to the 1980 hit song by Credence Clearwater Revival. I am referring to the recent report about the performance of the green electric cars in winter. This study was carried out by AAA following the test procedures drawn up by SAE, an auto engineering group. It looked at the performance of five different electric cars at a temperature commensurate with a typical winter temperature.

The study examined the performances of BMW13 (2018), Chevy Bolt (2018), Nissan Leaf (2018), VW e-Golf (2017), and Tesla (2017) at temperatures of 20F. When compared to performance at 75F, at 20F there was a significant decrease in the range of these cars. When the interior heater was not used, the decrease in range was 12%, however when the interior heaters were used there was a decrease in the driving range of these electric cars of more than 40%. Those of us who have lived in areas of the country that have real winter know that the interior heater is on way more often than not, even when the temperature is much warmer than 20F.

This study also looked at the effects of hot temperatures (95F) on the performance of the same aforementioned electric cars, both with the air-conditioner on and also with it off. With the A.C. off, the driving range decreased by only 4% compared to a decrease of 17% with the car’s air-conditioner on. Those of us who live in areas of the country that have summer know that the air-conditioner is always on when the ambient temperature is 95F, and if the corresponding humidity is high (real summer), the A.C. is on at well below 95F. For the sake of fairness, I need to say that Tesla disputed the results of this study. It said that there was only a 1% decrease at 95F (A.C. on or off?), but would not release the percent decrease for cold weather.

Jason Hughes, who owns four Teslas in North Carolina said that during the recent cold weather, the ambient temperature “would easily double the amount of power used for my 15 minute commute.” One of the recommendations to try to circumvent this cold weather electric car issue is to heat the inside of the car while it is still plugged in. Certainly if you do that, the driving range will not be decreased as much, but you are still using electricity when  the car when it is not moving.

Many years ago when I lived in Illinois, one of my coworkers was an avid jogger, but he would not go running if the temperature was less than 30F. Similar to my ex-coworker could it be that in the winter a lot of electric cars also won’t be spending a lot of time running outside, but rather will spend a lot of time behind the Green Door, and I don’t mean the hit song by both Jim Lowe (1956) and Shakin’ Stevens (1981).