http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

I think I have been fairly consistent in my feeling about Jan. 6th. As I implied in my 8/5/23 blog, there is much more to Jan. 6th than is presently known or being revealed. Now, it appears that there is some substance to further add that suspicion.

On 4/17/24 there was a Congressional hearing having to do with January 6th and the testimony of four whistleblowers. Interestingly I did not read about what transpired at that Oversight Subcommittee Hearing  in the Main Stream Media. (To be fair the NYT may have noted something about this hearing on the bottom page 26, but I do not read the NYT on a daily basis.)

Four members of the National Guard testified that they were ready to be deployed on January 6 but THE PENTAGON held them back!

National Guard whistleblowers: Command Sgt. Major Michael E. Brooks, Colonel Earl G. Matthews, Aaron Dean Retired, and Captain Timothy Nick stepped forward and testified before Congress to correct the record on January 6.

From The Gateway Pundit:

“As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser were both warned about the security situation prior to January 6th, and both turned down National Guard troops at the US Capitol that day.

“Chris Wray’s FBI also refused to notify the Trump administration and his cabinet secretaries that they believed there could be violence like the mass protests at the Capitol that took place that day.

“Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund said he asked House and Senate security officials for permission to request that the D.C. National Guard be placed on standby in case he needed quick backup. But they both turned him down.

“But now there is more disturbing news on the military leadership on January 6th. According to Colonel Earl Matthews, who testified before Congress in April, US military leaders revoked President Trump’s Commander-in-Chief powers that day and refused to move in the National Guard – because it might look bad.

“He claims that Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, and then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, were plotting to disobey any orders handed down by Trump because they ‘unreasonably’ assumed the then-president was going to break the law and try to use the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) to stop certification of the 2020 presidential election results.

“But Matthews says that senior military leadership essentially stripped the president of his authority as commander-in-chief by preemptively planning to go against orders because they didn’t like the optics of uniformed soldiers at the Capitol.

‘I think a very plausible argument can be made that through no fault of his own, President Trump’s command authority over both the D.C. National Guard and the U.S. Army itself had been surreptitiously curtailed by the senior leadership of the Army on January 6, 2021,’ Matthews told DailyMail.com.”

As I have mentioned before I think that the Jan. 6th insurrection was a set up engineered by the left. The testimony from this 4/17/24 hearing, now three years later, appears to further confirm my prior suspicion.

5/8/24

Who of you are familiar with a “writ of certiorari?”

For those not familiar with this essential part of the rulings of the Supreme Court, I will try to explain. In practical terms there is no way that the Supreme Court can deal with all of the cases that it is petitioned to hear. Ergo there must be some kind of screening process … this process is the writ of certiorari. 

The word certiorari comes from Law Latin and means “to be more fully informed.”  A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it.  The U.S. Supreme Court uses certiorari to select most of the cases it hears. 

In order for the SCOTUS to hear a case, it must first be okayed by at least four of the nine justices. If a the hearing of a case does not achieve approval of at least four, then the decision on the case goes back to what the highest prior court, often the Appellate Court, has ruled. ( For those of you who desire to read a fictional mystery in which the writ of certiorari is central, I refer you to Amazon … “The Keneally Chronicles” by Daniel R. Collins)

Why bring up the writ of certiorari now? 

It is because SCOTUS just considered an important case out of Texas 

From the Epoch Times:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a legal challenge to a Texas law that requires voters under the age of 65 to provide justification to vote by mail, meaning that the Democrat-aligned attempt to sharply expand “no-excuse” mail-in ballots in the Lone Star state has failed, with implications for other states.

According to an April 22 order list, the high court denied petition for a writ of certiorari in a case that stems from a federal lawsuit filed in 2020 on behalf of the Texas Democratic Party and several voters who requested that Texas lift its age-based limitations on no-excuse mail-in voting.

Texas law only allows individuals to vote by mail without a qualifying excuse, like sickness, if they are 65 years or older. In their original complaint, which made its way through a number of lower courts before ending up before the Supreme Court, the petitioners alleged that the Texas voting law violates the 26th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits denying the right to vote due to age.”

However, the refusal to hear this case has even more importance than just in Texas as it establishes precedent.

The high court’s decision not to hear the appeal has broader implications, however, since six other states–Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee–have similar laws on the books that let older voters to request absentee ballot without having to provide any justification.

In my opinion … score one for the good guys!

5/6/24

On many of you are aware on Sunday I write about someone we can all admire. Melika Ghanaati, now 19, is such a person. 

From Epoch  Bright:

Melika Ghanaati hasn’t been able to walk unaided since 2013 due to four debilitating medical conditions.

She was born with a severe form of scoliosis—a curved spine—as well as congenital myopathy, a disorder that has caused weakness in her muscles, severe club feet, and recurring kidney stones.

Growing up, she either used a walker or a wheelchair and needed various surgeries to correct her curved spine.

After the final surgery in 2016, doctors told her she was “banned” from walking.

It took Ms. Ghanaati three years to find the confidence to visit a physiotherapist. She realized her graduation would be the perfect time to take her first steps.

By July 2022, she was doing physiotherapy, and her last year of high school was very chaotic.

Describing her time doing the physio as “like a baby learning to walk,” Ms. Ghanaati’s progress was gradual—she had to take one step at a time.

She was given exercises such as holding on to the wall and putting one foot in front of the other.

“Graduation was the goal,“ she said. ”I had to keep going.”

Wanting to keep it a surprise, she didn’t tell her friends or parents that she was practicing walking for graduation. However, she informed the graduation committee about her plans in case something went wrong.

“I kept saying to myself in my head, ‘Don’t fall, don’t fall, don’t fall.’”

She looked down at her feet because she knew she would get distracted if she looked at the audience.

Ms. Ghanaati was given the Vision of the Future Award for achieving good grades and the School Board Award for academic and extracurricular involvement.

She walked across to get her awards and only discovered afterward that her parents, Marjan Simi, 49, and Masaud Ghanaati, 56, were a crying mess.

“It was a big success, I saw my dad wiping tears with his jacket sleeve.”

She also didn’t realize she’d received a standing ovation from the audience.

If anyone deserved a ‘Standing O’ it was Melika Ghanaati!

5/5/24

By this time most of you are aware that I am a Trump guy.

One of the reasons that he is hated by many on the left is that much more often than not, it turns out that he is right in what he says. The most recent example is this ridiculous trail in New York City. Trump has stated many times that there is no case here, and that this charade is only going on to prevent him from hitting the campaign trail. After hearing snippets of what is happening in the courtroom, I can only say that DJT is right again. At this point, any legitimate prosecutor would be embarrassed at what is going on in the courtroom, and at this point “legitimate” is not a word that I would apply to D.A. Alvin Bragg or this case.

The last two witnesses for the prosecution are … I am trying to think of a kind way to describe each of them, but I cannot! … both of these witnesses are sleaze balls. 

First Michael Cohen:

In 2018, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and tax evasion and served time in prison. In March, a federal judge refused to terminate his supervised release conditions, after Cohen “accidentally” filed an AI-generated motion citing three made-up cases. 

Next came California attorney Keith Davidson, whose practice seemingly was mostly made up of false allegations against famous individuals who went along with non-disclosure agreements because it was less expensive.

From C&C:

“The sordid picture that emerged between the two scheming lawyers’ testimony seems more than anything to help President Trump, who is starting to look more and more like the victim of a con rather than a presidential criminal meriting historic prosecution.”

At this point it appears that Trump is right again. This case is a farce!

In addition, if the judge, Juan Merchan  was legitimately non-partial, soon he could soon just dismiss the case, and save New York a ton of money. However, this would never happen since, if he did that, then Trump would be back on the campaign trail.

5/4/24

Many many years ago I was trying to recruit a physician, Peter F. to join our medical group. It turned out that he decided to join some of his ex-Navy physician friends in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Although I did not verbalize it to him, I thought to myself, “choosing Arkansas over California, what a mistake!”

I had not thought about Dr. Peter F. until last night when I happened to see the Governor of Arkansas, Sarah Huckabee Sanders on U-tube. I must say that she was quite an impressive speaker, and she certainly made Arkansas seem like a good place in which to live … an inflation rate of only 1.6%, the highest teacher salaries anywhere in the nation, plans to phase out the state income tax, etc.

She was appalled at some of the things that were coming out of Washington, especially at Joe Biden’s “revision of Title IX.”

She noted that Arkansas already had state laws on the books to protect actual women and girls from those who “think” they are women, and forcibly stated that Arkansas will not only not comply with JB’s nonsensical 459,000 word revision of Title IX (FYI: the original Title IX, which was designed to protect women, was 37 words!), but also that Arkansas will sue the Federal Government if it tries to take away any funds from Arkansas.

Perhaps Dr. Peter F. made the right decision many years ago when he chose Fort Smith as a place to live. While he has Sarah Huckabee Sanders as his Governor, we in California are stuck with Gavin  Newsom! 

5/3/24

The other day at the gym my stationary bike was situated in front of the TV that had Fox News, and as luck would have it The Five was on. While I was unable to hear what was being said I could read some of the closed captioning, and so what I am going to say is far from being verbatim. 

Although I do not consistently watch The Five, I do not recall ever seeing Kevin O’Leary on that show before. As some of you might be aware Kevin O’Leary is a very successful Canadian businessman often seen on Shark Tank

It seemed that he was saying that these college protests are going to follow these protestors for a long time, perhaps for the rest of their lives. As he pointed out, whenever he hires someone, he does an extensive background check on them. He also pointed out that these days one can learn much more about individuals than it was possible in the past. With cameras just about everywhere pictures of these protestors are readily available. Compared to pictures taken in the past, the quality of these present day pictures is eons better. Consequently, he noted that these protestors will readily be identified.

For himself and his companies, these protestors will never be hired, and they may never know exactly why. Similar things will happen with other employers. Likewise many graduate schools will want nothing to do with them, and they may never realize why.

And actually, this will apply not only to the student protestors, but also to those protestors who hired and paid to protest Unfortunately, both groups may well have their future ruined … and they will never really know why!

5/2/24

Let’s play a little, What if” followed by the more difficult …”How?”

To start this soirée, “what if Donald Trump gets elected in November.”

If this happens I would guess that he will begin at some point to start to fulfill some of his campaign promises. He has repeatedly vowed the “largest domestic deportation operation in American history” starting on day one after he returns to the White House.

How do the American people feel about this? 

From the Epoch Times:

“More than half of Americans—including 42 percent of Democrats—said they would support mass deportations of illegal immigrants, according to a new Axios Vibes poll released on Thursday, 4/25/24.

The online survey also found that 46 percent of Republicans and 30 percent of Democrats said they would end birthright citizenship guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Harris Poll conducted for Axios surveyed 6,251 adults between March and April 2024.

Participants included Republicans, Democrats, and independents across multiple generations, from Baby Boomers to Generation Z. The poll has a margin of error of 1.5 percentage points.”

However, if Trump gets elected, the more practical and the more difficult question is, “how is he going to achieve this mass deportation? 

I can see public opinion being pretty straight-forward when it comes to men from Venezuela, similar to the one that is accused of recently murdering that young Georgia nursing student. As best I can tell it seems that only Joe Biden, perhaps while making another sign of the cross, and his Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas would be opposed to that. However, what about a young Hispanic family, including two young children from Honduras or El Salvador? How would the public respond to the news that they are being deported? I will guarantee that the response from most Americans, including both Republicans and Democrats would  be a heartfelt, “they are not hurting anyone; do not deport them even though they are illegal; they should have a chance at achieving the American Dream.”

As most readers know I am politically a staunch conservative,  but nonetheless that is probably what I would also say, as I have witnessed real poverty in Central America up close and personal. I would probably agree with “just leave them alone,” with one caveat … because they are not citizens, they should not be allowed vote. This is similar to my opinion on “ the dreamers,” who as children, were brought into this country illegally by their parents. Both the dreamer-children and the parents should never be allowed to vote. Again I can envision a lot of Americans agreeing with this, as every vote by someone who is not a U.S. citizen potentially disenfranchises the vote of an American citizen. However, in a more practical vein, how could this ever be enforced? 

Certainly, they could be threatened with immediate deportation if they ever voted, but again in a practical sense how would this ever be discovered and enforced?

I have my ideas on how to practically approach this issue … however, I predict that no one will like it.

Ergo, I am interested in hearing any other solutions on how to handle this issue.

5/1/24

From National Review:

Electric vehicles (and, critically, their batteries) have improved and will continue to improve, as manufacturers try to address consumer concerns. That’s how things are supposed to work. The problem continues to be that governments and regulators are not allowing the EV market to evolve organically. The result has been an increasing (and increasingly expensive) mismatch between EV supply and demand, a problem that climate policy-makers ultimately plan on “solving” with coercion, because that’s what central planners do.

As I have alluded to in past blogs, to me the EV future is still in doubt. In the U.S. it appears that the present financial status of EV producers is a mixed bag.

From CNN Business:

GM said it expects its North American EV business to turn a profit in the second half of the year. That and strong demand for traditional gasoline-powered vehicles allowed it to raise its earnings forecast for the year.

Reaching a profit on its EV business would be a major milestone, which have yet to make the kind of cash that hybrids and gasoline-powered cars make for traditional automakers, who are planning a shift to EVs in the years ahead. GM officials said Tuesday it believes its EV offerings will be even more profitable moving into 2025, despite the slowdown in growth of demand for EVs in its home market.

Meanwhile, Stellantis, which makes cars and trucks in North America under the Jeep, Ram, Dodge and Chrysler brands, said its European EV business was already profitable last year.

Last week Tesla, the world’s largest EV maker, reported that its adjusted earnings plunged 48% in the first quarter as revenue fell 9%, after it reported the first year-over-year drop in sales since the pandemic.

Meanwhile, Ford just reported a massive loss on every electric vehicle it sold. Ford’s electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion, or $132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year, helping to drag down earnings for the company overall.

Ford, like most automakers, has announced plans to shift from traditional gas-powered vehicles to EVs in coming years. But it is the only traditional automaker to break out results of its retail EV sales. And the results it reported Wednesday show another sign of the profit pressures on the EV business at Ford and other automakers.

The EV unit, which Ford calls Model e, sold 10,000 vehicles in the quarter, down 20% from the number it sold a year earlier. And its revenue plunged 84% to about $100 million, which Ford attributed mostly to price cuts for EVs across the industry. That resulted in the $1.3 billion loss before interest and taxes (EBIT), and the massive per-vehicle loss in the Model e unit.

Is GM still drinking the Kool-aid that the central planners are selling. Is it about to turn the financial EV corner?

Or has Ford seen the supply/demand light of what is happening?

Which way will the EV wind blow?

4/30/

What you are hearing is the crumbling sound of Jack Smith’s case against Donald Trump. In the very early stages of an earthquake as the walls initially start shaking, those who have earthquake experience realize that the real upheaval and the accompanying damage could be coming quite soon. Similarly Jack Smith’s case just might be on the verge of sustaining significant damage, as it seems that the walls have just started shaking.

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the following question—“Whether and, if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

The Supreme Court Justices appeared skeptical about President Trump’s claims that he has the right to absolute immunity for his actions as president. However, the justices also appeared to be open to accepting that presidents have some level of immunity.

The court could decide to remand the case back to the Washington district court, with instructions for differentiating between official and private acts of a president so that additional fact-finding proceedings can be done.

Such a move would delay the former president’s trial in Washington and potentially proceedings related to three other cases as well. This gives President Trump a strategic win as he attempts to hold off cases until after the elections.

Furthermore the question has come up as to whether or not special counsel Jack Smith’s has the authority to bring charges against the president.

Last week one of Trump’s attorneys, John Sauer said, “That runs into the reality that we have here an extraordinary prosecutorial power being exercised by someone who was never nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate at any time. … We hadn’t raised it yet in this case when this case went up on appeal.”

Mr. Sauer said he agrees with the “analysis provided by Attorney General [Edwin] Meese and Attorney General [Michael B.] Mukasey,” referring to the amicus brief the two former attorneys general submitted to the Supreme Court on March 19. In it, the two attorneys general noted that irrespective of what one thinks about the immunity issue, Mr. Smith “does not have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution.”

Wow! The shaking is getting stronger. Could this entire case be on the verge of total destruction? 

State tuned!

4/29/24

Believe it or not, I had some difficulty this week finding someone to highlight in my Sunday piece. As most of you are aware my Sunday blogs are specifically about someone who is deserving of our praise and/or admiration. However, I came across a married couple, Ben and Meg Hollar, that fit the bill for a Sunday.

From Epoch Bright:

It was a cool February morning in 2017, and Ben Hollar sat alone in the kitchen of his southern California home, thinking. As a machinist by trade, rising early and working 80-hour weeks were commonplace. He’d been at it for the better part of a decade, ever since he’d married his wife, Meg, in 2006. But the work had taken its toll.He had been an absent figure in the lives of his four young sons.

“I didn’t have much of a relationship with them,” Ben said. “I missed so much of their early years that I really felt like a stepfather to them rather than their own dad.”

Worse still, his marriage was on the rocks. As his workload increased steadily over the years, he and Meg had drifted apart. To deal with his stress and a growing feeling of loneliness, Ben began to drink.

Change needed to happen, and fast.

So when Meg joined him for coffee on that February morning, Ben, in a last ditch effort to save his marriage, proposed something radical. He said: “This is kind of crazy, but how would you feel about selling everything we have, hopping in a trailer, seeing the country like we’ve always talked about, figuring out where we want to go, buying land, and we don’t come back?”

They decided to buy a trailer and travel across the country, and then start fresh somewhere new.

After 10 months on the road and visiting 45 states, the Hollars finally found a home. They settled in western North Carolina, A small mobile home on a small parcel of land was all they needed, giving their marriage a second chance.

The move to North Carolina has come with its own blessings. Since 2019, the Hollars have renovated the old mobile home, added numerous livestock and gardens, and expanded their family. They welcomed their first daughter in 2020 and are expecting another baby in May.

Because of their commitment to each other after a long journey, there was a happy ending for Meg and Ben Hollar. 

Kudos to both of them!

4/28/24