Decarbonization in homes and businesses at what cost?

The California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) plans to make all homes and businesses use electricity only means electricity will need to take up the duties that natural gas has been performing, and provide continuously uninterruptable power as California is on a path toward 100% renewables and “zero-carbon” sources in electricity by 2045.

But wait, California cannot generate that much electricity from wind and solar renewables!

Last year alone. California imported up to 29 percent of its electricity because it could not generate enough in-state to meet its demands. The good news is that we’ve had no brown outs. The bad news is that imported electricity comes at higher costs and are being borne by residents and businesses alike. Without the huge land requirements for wind and solar renewable electricity, the need to import more will escalate every year.

The benefits of a carbon-free society are often discussed, but rarely are the high costs of achieving this technological breakthrough or the financial impact that breakthrough would have on various economies. Before we dump our current electrical generating plants shouldn’t we have replacements in place for that electricity? It’s like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute attached!

Under current technologies, France has demonstrated that the only way to achieve scalable, reliable, flexible, abundant, and affordable carbon-free electricity capable of powering modern societies is using nuclear power.

As you know, California is phasing out nuclear reactors that have been generating continuously uninterruptable carbon-free electricity. In 2013 California already shutdown the continuous nuclear facility of SCE’s San Onofre Generating Station which generated 2,200 megawatts of power and will be closing PG&E’s Diablo Canyon’s 2,160 megawatts of power in 2024 getting ready for the renewable intermittent electricity from wind and solar.

It gets bleaker in the coming years, as Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti’s recently announced that Los Angeles will shut down three gas powered electricity generating power plants at Scattergood, Haynes, and Harbor: 1) The 823 MW Scattergood plant in Playa Del Rey to be shuttered in 2024, 2) the 575 MW Haynes plant in Long Beach to be shuttered in 2029, and 3) The 472 MW Harbor plant in Wilmington to be shuttered in 2029, instead of reconstructing them. He went on to say that “this is the beginning of the end of natural gas in Los Angeles.

The likelihood of constructing large wind and solar farms in California is very bleak as evidenced by recent actions in San Bernardino. Recently the San Bernardino County’s Board of Supervisors slammed the brakes on big solar projects and highlighted a challenge California could face as it seeks to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

San Bernardino locals soundly voiced their objections to those land devouring, eco system disrupting, unsightly monstrosities that lead to higher electricity prices and lower property values for nearby residents, saying not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY’s in action)! So, with no places to locate the renewables farms, what’s next?

The Mayor and the CPUC hearings about decarbonization in homes and businesses, are deliberately ignoring the fact that Natural Gas generating plants provide about 47 percent of the state’s electricity, and the state has no plans to replace that with renewables!

With the shuttering of nuclear and natural gas power plants that have been generating continuously uninterruptable electricity, our elected officials seem to be oblivious to the fact that the State has no electricity generating capacity to replace what’s being shuttered. Further, that “green” electricity from wind and solar is only intermittent electricity as neither generates when the wind is not blowing, and the sun is not shinning.

California’s expensive electricity is already fifty percent higher than the national average for residents, and double the national averages for commercial, and are projected to go even higher. The inability to replace the closure of continuously uninterruptable electricity from nuclear and natural gas with renewables of wind and solar is causing the state to import more and more of its electricity. 

Wind and solar obsessed GermanyAustralia, and Denmark fight it out for the honor of paying the world’s highest power prices.  Just like Germany, Australia, and Denmark, before trudging into the green morass, our California leaders cannot “see’ the direct correlation between energy costs for electricity and fuels, and homelessness and poverty. 

To go carbon free by 2045 will require inclusion of buildings built before 2020 that were constructed over the last 50+ years. Those buildings were equipped with hook ups for gas and electricity. That means to succeed at their goal gas ovens in pizza restaurants must be converted.  Korean barbecue restaurants must be converted. Most restaurants that rely on the even, controllable temperature of gas flames need to be converted.

To decarbonize homes and businesses will require that almost every chef in the state must be retrained to cook on electric grills and with electric ranges and ovens.  Do you know how hard a task that is?  

To decarbonize homes and businesses every home and business will need to change equipment from natural gas to the more expensive equipment in electric and also pay the exorbitant higher costs for that electricity to run cooking, heating and cooling, and washing and drying clothes.

Meanwhile, the non-electrical energy that has empowered the military, transportation, infrastructures, and global travel has done more for globalization and human progress than anything in mankind’s history and continues to be, met with deep-earth minerals/fuels. 

CPUC’s actions will not contribute significantly to the 2045 targets but will most likely stymy growth of new construction and further drive up the cost of electricity for everyone. Their short-sighted action plans to decarbonize homes and businesses will put an undue strain on economically challenged individuals who already count every dollar they earn to make ends meet. This will not end well for anyone.

Ronald Stein is founder and ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure of PTS Advance, headquartered in Irvine, California

City of Richmond Faces Pension Stress

Pick a city in California. Pick a county in California. Odds are, they could be the topic of this analysis instead of Richmond. But Richmond is the focus of a recent analysis published in Reason entitled “Richmond, California’s Finances Remain Shaky,” and that work provides solid data from which to take a deeper look at what’s truly driving their financial challenges: compensation and pensions.

To summarize the Reason analysis, their most recent financial statements include the following excerpt from the auditor’s comments: “If deficit spending continues in the funds that continue to borrow from the General Fund and other funds, it reduces the likelihood that the City will be able to continue as a going concern.”

In plain English, what the auditor is saying is that the City of Richmond is spending more than they’re taking in, and they’re at risk of running out of cash. Reason’s senior policy analyst and the author of the report, Marc Joffe, writes: “Richmond’s unrestricted general fund balance of $18 million is small relative to general fund expenditures of $157 million. The ratio of 9% compares unfavorably to the 17% level recommended by the Government Finance Officers’ Association.”

Where is the money going? Compensation and pensions. Using raw data readily available from the California Office of the State Controller, in 2018 Richmond paid $121 million in base pay, overtime, other wages, health benefits and pension fund contributions. This represents 77 percent of their general fund expenditures.

When that percentage of a city’s budget is going towards pay and benefits, there are only a few ways to recover from deficits. One is to cut positions, which is what Richmond’s outgoing city manager, Carlos Martinez, suggested in a proposal that cost him his job.

According to John Geluardi, writing for the East Bay Express, “The firing was driven by the city’s five unions, which were angry with Martinez over negotiations and alleged labor law violations. In the past two or three weeks, union leaders put heavy pressure on councilmembers to oust the city manager. But Martinez was facing a $7 million budget deficit, which he inherited.”

To cover that deficit, as reported in the East Bay Times, Martinez had “identified a $7.6 million shortfall in fiscal year 2019-20, and identified 12 positions to be cut in order to make up for it. Martinez said they were upper management positions, not rank and file.”

The Times article also quoted Detective Ben Therriault, head of the Richmond Police Officers Association, saying that “The labor relations in the city have come to a collapse. For the past 10 months, labor has been worse than it has been in the past 10 years.” But how will the City of Richmond pay the bills?

Raising taxes is always the favored option of California’s local governments. In November 2018, 259 local agencies put tax increases onto the ballot in California and over 70 percent of them were approved by voters. Maybe new taxes will rescue Richmond’s finances. But do Richmond residents deserve to pay higher local taxes – sales tax, parcel tax, business licence tax, transient occupancy tax, utility user tax, gross receipts tax, etc.?

Richmond is not a wealthy city. The average per capita income in 2016 was $26,238; the average household income was $61,814. The average pay and benefits for a full time employee in the City of Richmond in 2018 was $181,444. These figures were arrived at using raw payroll data submitted by the City of Richmond to the California Office of the State Controller. Readers are welcome to download the spreadsheet showing the calculations. Perhaps there are errors, and if so, contact CPC and we will publish a retraction. Because these figures are literally unbelievable.

Unlike most cities and counties in California, moreover, there doesn’t appear to be a significant difference in compensation between public safety employees and the city bureaucrats. The average total pay and benefits for the 223 city bureaucrats identified as full time employees in 2018 was $182,772. For the police, $168,576, and for the firefighters, an astonishing $212,219.

Something that has always been inexplicable is why police get less in compensation than firefighters. This disparity is evident in most California cities and counties, and is in conflict with market realities as well as common sense. It is always difficult to recruit police officers, whereas when firefighting positions open there are always hundreds, if not thousands of applicants. And common sense, backed up by national statistics, shows that while police work and firefighting are both dangerous professions, they carry roughly equal risk.

The solution to this disparity, however, is not for police officers to make more. It is for firefighters to make less. If the 97 firefighters identified in 2018 as working full time for Richmond were paid $168,576 per year – equal to what Richmond’s police were paid, it would save the city $4.2 million per year, which would go a long way towards solving their budget deficit. Perhaps then Martinez would have only had to cut a half-dozen high ranking bureaucrat positions to balance the budget.

We may dream on. But some solution that remains within the realm of fantasy today will become hard reality tomorrow. Because Richmond’s financial problems are just beginning. Using projections provided by CalPERS for the City of Richmond, that city’s pension contribution is going to rise from $31 million in the fiscal year just ended to over $49 million by 2024. And that’s the low number. If the market “corrects,” Richmond will have to throw even more money into CalPERS’s insatiable maw.

While it may be harsh to suggest firefighters take pay cuts, it’s also necessary to explain that restoring parity to police and firefighter pay cannot possibly be afforded via increasing police pay. The money is not there. If equitable parity is to exist between these two noble professions, unfortunately, firefighter pay will have to come down.

It is impossible to overstate the appreciation most people feel for public safety professionals, certainly including firefighters. The same cannot be said for the leadership of the firefighters union. Over the past 20 years or longer, why didn’t the firefighters union leadership help stand up to the extreme environmentalist lobby, so legislation could have been passed allowing public agencies and private landowners to thin the forests? Why didn’t they fight for better wildland management, allowing for more controlled burns?

Instead, earlier this year, Harold Schaitberger, head of the International Association of Firefighters, marched in the streets with the United Teachers of Los Angeles – a radical leftist mob bent on destroying life as we know it. Perhaps it’s time for a long overdue grassroots insurgency by the center-right membership of public safety unions, so they can overthrow their “comrades” in charge.

Meanwhile, unions and management need to sit down in Richmond, and elsewhere, and talk about how to lower the cost of living for everyone, instead of always pushing for more, more, more.

5 Warnings For Parents This Back-To-School Season

It is back-to-school time for students across America, which means that it also a time for parents to be aware of the signs that schools may not be providing the quality of education they want for their children.

Here are the top five warning signs for which parents should be on the look out.

Low student performance. Parents, of course, should be aware of whether their children’s school is improving their knowledge and achievement.

Too many schools fail to get students up to proficient levels in the core subjects.

On the latest National Assessment for Educational Progress exam, two-thirds of U.S. eighth-grade public-school students failed to reach proficiency in math and reading.

Middle-class parents should not be complacent, since more than half of non-low-income students failed to achieve proficiency in either math or reading.

Safety and discipline. Ask parents and most will say that their children’s safety is a top priority, which is justified given data showing significant safety issues on public school campuses.

A federal report found that during 2015-16, “79 percent of public schools recorded that one or more incidents of violence, theft, or other crimes had taken place, amounting to 1.4 million crimes.”

Yet, the Obama administration pushed school districts to repeal tough discipline policies that might have a disparate impact on minority students, even if those policies had no discriminatory intent.

In fact, research shows that prior student behavior, not race, is the key factor explaining why students are suspended.

Although the Trump administration repealed this Obama anti-discipline guidance, many school districts continue to implement lax discipline policies, so parents need to find out whether schools are promoting safety for all or political correctness.

Curriculum and indoctrination. In too many schools, education is morphing into ideological indoctrination.

In California, for example, a proposed ethnic studies curriculum lists capitalism as one key source of “power and oppression.”

The curriculum urges educators and students to connect “to past and contemporary resistance movements that struggle for social justice on the global and local levels” and imagine “new possibilities for post-imperial life.”

Students, therefore, are to be turned into ideological revolutionaries.

This call for more leftist indoctrination is not limited to California.

American Federation of Teachers union boss Randi Weingarten has urged “more civics participation” by students, which includes “the fight for social justice.”

District unresponsiveness. When parents see things they don’t like, they want schools to be responsive to their concerns.

Sadly, many school districts could not care less what parents want.

In New York City, ultra-liberal Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza has pushed changes to the admissions system for the city’s elite public schools that the city department of education admits will cut Asian-American enrollment by half.

Asian-American parents are understandably outraged, not only about the policy, but about the secretive process under which the policy is rolling out.

Recently, Carranza held a closed-door “community chat” on the policy change that was not listed on his schedule, closed to the press, and not open to most Asian parents, many of whom came out to protest the off-limits meeting.

Yifeng Chen, a member of a local community education council, said, “There are a lot of Asians in my area,” and yet “no Asian members of our CEC were in this meeting.”

Teacher unions using parents and children as pawns. Finally, teacher unions often use children as pawns in their quest for more money and power and for their fight to limit the school choices for parents.

The union-driven Red for Ed teachers movement has pushed strikes and protests, claiming these actions will benefit students.

However, the National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers union, voted down an internal motion to “re-dedicate itself to the pursuit of increased student learning in every public school in America” and to “make student learning the priority of the Association.”

Further, in strikes from West Virginia to California, unions focused on limiting the right of parents to choose different schooling options, especially charter schools, that best meet the needs of their children.

Thus, parents be forewarned — your children may not only receive a bad education, they can become pawns and victims of leftist ideologues and special interests.

Lance Izumi is senior director of the Center for Education at the Pacific Research Institute and author of the new book, “Choosing Diversity: How Charter Schools Promote Diverse Learning Models and Meet the Diverse Needs of Parents and Children.”

The end of Cabernet in Napa Valley?

Cabernet Sauvignon grapes make America’s favorite wine, and they are the lifeblood of Napa Valley, our country’s most famous wine region. Cabernet accounts for 65% of the grapevines grown in Napa, where last year the crop reached a record $1 billion in gross value.

But Cabernet, like all of California agriculture, is under threat. As Napa’s wine industry continues to confront rising temperatures, increasingly frequent wildfires, intermittent drought and erratic weather, a small but growing contingent of vintners is becoming more vocal about the need to address climate change head-on.

Frustrated by the lack of industry-wide action, some are taking matters into their own hands by planting experimental vineyards — and, in some cases, acknowledging that the future of Napa Valley may not lie solely with Cabernet.

“I hear some wineries saying, ‘We’re going to have to start thinking about different grape varieties in 30 years,’” says Dan Petroski, winemaker at Larkmead Vineyards in Calistoga. His incredulous response: “You’re going to start thinking about it in 30 years?” …

Click here to read the full article from the San Francisco Chronicle

New Split Roll Initiative, Same Old Problems

Supporters of the split roll ballot initiative already qualified for the 2020 ballot to tax commercial property on a different basis than residential property made “adjustments” to the measure’s language. They claim they are strengthening the measure to help it pass. What they are doing is recognizing flaws in the initial version and not changing the thrust of a measure designed to raise taxes, consumer costs and undercut Proposition 13. 

The flaws in the measure are costly for the proponents. 

An initiative to qualify for the ballot, in this case a constitutional amendment, needs signatures that equal a percentage of votes cast for governor in the last election. The previous initiative required 585,407 and cost over $3 million to qualify. Since the number of petition signatures required has increased to 997,113 after the last governor’s race, the proponents will have to spend double or more while the initial investment is down the drain. 

Or is it? 

The proponents have yet to pull the first measure already qualified for the ballot despite its flaws. They have the power to do that. Even if the measure has obvious problems acknowledged by proponents, will they leave it in place while trying to gather the necessary signatures to qualify the new measure to use as some form of leverage or in case they fail to gather enough signatures in time? If the old initiative stays active with its admitted flaws it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to pass. 

Of the new measure, Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable and co-chair of Californians to Stop Higher Property Taxes said, “This is just another, equally flawed measure aimed at dismantling Proposition 13.” Lapsley added, “Proponents should at least withdraw their existing measure, which they now acknowledge is fatally flawed. However, there are no tweaks or amendments that can be made to this split roll measure that will prevent it from being a major, multi-billion-dollar tax on all Californians in the form of higher prices on everything we buy – from groceries and gasoline to diapers and day care.” 

Among the changes the Schools & Communities First initiative is dealing with are fixing school funding formulas and clarifying tax relief for small businesses, according to the campaign’s press release.

Schools in basic aid districts complained they were not getting a fair share of the new taxes the split roll intended to raise. The press release notes that business changes include delaying reassessments on buildings that have 50% or more small businesses occupying a building. The idea is to protect businesses that rent from property owners and have the property tax increase passed to them as many leases require.

However, it only means delayed pain for small businesses; that pain is still coming. Apparently, small businesses that rent in a building that has less than 50% small business occupants are out of luck. 

With the state already sitting on billions in reserve money, proponents are going to have to explain why attacking businesses is a priority that will lead to higher consumer costs, lost jobs and a damaged economy. 

With polls at best showing a bare majority of support for the split roll when the polls don’t follow up with opposing arguments, the split roll effort becomes more complicated by adding new, confusing language to the measure. 

Whatever the changes, the overall threat to the long term existence for Prop 13 will be a focus of the 2020 campaign.

Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and co-chair of Californians to Stop Higher Property Taxes stated, “It is no secret that split roll proponents have had their eye on unraveling Proposition 13 protections for decades. Homeowners will not tolerate any changes to Proposition 13 now or in the future.” 

(Disclosure: I have worked on efforts to oppose major changes to Proposition 13 over the years.)

Joel Fox is editor and co-publisher of Fox and Hounds Daily.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily.

New Lawsuit Challenges California’s Assault Weapons Ban

A gun-rights group sued Thursday to block California from enforcing its assault weapons ban, contending it violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The lawsuit was the latest among gun advocacy and lobbying groups to challenge California’s firearms laws, which are among the strictest in the country, and comes after a recent series of deadly mass shootings nationwide involving military-style rifles.

The lawsuit was filed in the same San Diego federal court district where a judge in April tossed out a nearly two-decade-old California ban on sales and purchases of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 bullets.

The new lawsuit says that decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez undercuts California’s ban on certain weapons defined as “assault weapons” because they can use large-capacity magazines. Benitez’s decision triggered a weeklong buying frenzy before he stopped sales while the state appeals his ruling. …

Click here to read the full article from CBS News

Impact of Scooters on Environment Not So Simple

The dockless electric scooters that started popping up in California cities three years ago are facing a two-front backlash. 

The first front involves complaints over heavy use hurting quality of life in tourist areas and posing safety risks to both users and pedestrians.

In Los Angeles, anger over scooters has left city leaders increasingly opento a regulatory crackdown and led to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scooters being vandalized. In San Diego, California’s second largest city, whether to ban or severely limit scooters is shaping up as a major issue in the 2020 mayoral race. One of the two early frontrunners, Democratic Assemblyman Todd Gloria, is a scooter supporter. The other, Democratic Councilwoman Barbara Bry, sees them as a failed experiment. 

The second front of criticism has generally caught the scooter industry by surprise: That’s the view that one of scooters’ main selling points – that they help the environment by limiting vehicle emissions – is exaggerated or false. 

Scooters only last a month or two, not a year

The criticism took off last year after industry leaders Bird and Lime disclosed that many scooters were only lasting a month or two, not nearly a year, as some investors were told. That means the amount of industrial pollution generated by the manufacturing of the inexpensive scooters is five times or more what was expected.

Now a Los Angeles Times’ report detailing academic research into the question of scooters’ effects on the environment has confirmed how much the durability issue undercuts hopes that scooters will bring emissions down.

“While traveling a mile by scooter is better than driving the same distance by car, it’s worse than biking, walking or taking a bus – the modes of transportation that scooters most often replace. That’s primarily because of the energy-intensive materials that go into making the vehicles,” the Times noted, but also “because of the driving required to collect, charge and redistribute them.”

The key research cited by the newspaper was published last month in the journal Environmental Research Letters by North Carolina State University researchers Joseph Hollingsworth, Brenna Copeland and Jeremiah Johnson. While it did conclude that under current conditions, scooters were not helping the environment, the study was only partly downbeat.

Study offers mixed take on scooters’ value

The researchers said scooters could end up a net plus if durability were improved to the point that they lasted two years. The study also noted that scooter companies which developed more efficient systems for gathering and recharging scooters each night – in particular by not picking up scooters that still held charges – could limit emissions.

And the researchers not only found that scooters were very helpful in improving urban mobility, but that they “may be an effective solution” to one of the thorniest transportation issues: the “last-mile problem.” Because bus, train and other transit stops and stations are spaced blocks or even miles apart, transit officials struggle to efficiently get people from destination to destination. 

Dockless scooters’ potential to reduce this problem has also been hailed by a Wall Street Journal columnist, a former Cato Institute researcher and urban planners in Australia.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

PG&E is accused of trying to dodge wildfire responsibilities

PG&E was accused on Monday of attempting to dodge potential liabilities in a lethal Wine Country inferno, at a time when fire victims must wrestle with two separate deadlines to file claims related to a series of deadly blazes.

The utility — a convicted felon for federal crimes it committed before and after a fatal gas explosion in San Bruno — is under fire because of the company’s attempts to convince a U.S. bankruptcy judge to predict how a jury would determine PG&E’s liability for a catastrophic Wine Country conflagration in 2017 known as the Tubbs Fire.

“What is going on here is PG&E is once again attempting to avoid responsibility for its fires and its actions,” said Robert Julian, an attorney with the Baker Hostetler law firm, which is representing fire victims with potential claims before the bankruptcy court. PG&E filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January to attempt to reorganize its shattered finances. …

Click here to read the full article from the Mercury News

California counties sue over public benefit immigration rule

San Francisco and Santa Clara counties filed the first lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new rules to deny green cards to migrants who use Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers or other forms of public assistance.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, came after the Department of Homeland Security’s announcement Monday of its expanded “public charge” rules to restrict legal immigration.

In a filing, the counties of Santa Clara and San Francisco argued that the rules will worsen the health and well-being of their residents, increase public health risks and financially harm the counties.

The rules, the counties argued, would result in a “chilling effect” in which migrants forgo or disenroll from federal public assistance programs to reduce the risk of being denied a green card. This practice would mean that the cost of services would shift from federal to state governments, the counties argued. …

Click here to read the full article from the Associated Press

Let Them Come to Hong Kong

President John F. Kennedy’s speech in Berlin on August 13, 1961, is most remembered for his “Ich bin ein Berliner” phrase, but he delivered equally memorable – and powerful – words leading up to that.  He was delineating the differences between the communist and democratic world: “There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass’ sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin!”

Powerful words – elegantly crafted as usual by Ted Sorenson and elegantly delivered as usual by Kennedy. The estimated 1 million people in the crowd were waving thousands of American flags, then as now the worldwide symbol of freedom – unless you are deep into the leftist fever swamps. Fast forward 58 years and move 5,400 miles to the east and you come to Hong Kong and the latest example of the power of our 243 year grand old flag.

Unless you’ve lived in a cave – or are a typical flag-phobic American liberal – you know that hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong residents have been demonstrating for weeks demanding more freedom from their socialist masters in Beijing. Their adopted symbol of freedom is – gasp – that horrid piece of cloth with red, white and blue stars and stripes on it. Who knew there were so many white nationalists, Nazis and racists in Hong Kong?

Many of the demonstrators have been arrested, many have been beaten, all risk arrest and long prison terms. The powerful allure of freedom – of America and its flag – makes it all worthwhile to our freedom-loving soul brothers on that prosperous archipelago.

The Democrat candidates for president, their mouthpieces in the press and the far-left hive of “hate all things American all the time” groupies have been completely silent on these protests. Colin Kaepernick has apparently been too busy labeling cops as “pigs” and the flag “a symbol of racism and oppression” to notice. Megan Rapinoe, the pink-haired, self-aggrandizing attention whore whose claim to fame is that she kicked a ball into a net the size of a double garage, has been too occupied insulting America’s national house and its flag to comment.

If the demonstrators were burning American flags you may be sure it would be nightly news, with Trump being blamed. Every one of the 73 Democrats running for president would be tut-tutting about how Trump has damaged America around the world. But several hundred thousand pro-American demonstrators is not a story to the Left or the media, pardon the redundancy, and certainly not worth the time of the occupants of the Democrat presidential clown car to comment on.

But if Kaepernick and Rapinoe want to learn what real oppression is – let them come to Hong Kong. If Pocahontas, Spartacus, Kamala “Heels Up” Harris, Slow Joe or any of the other Democrat candidates want to understand why their plans to remake America into a socialist paradise are idiocy – let them come to Hong Kong.

And if any of the above or any of the folks suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome – including members of my family – want to see first hand how Donald Trump has  made America great again, in the eyes of people who are in fact oppressed, and know the truth about our country and the horrid alternatives – let them come to Hong Kong.

Bill Saracino is a member of the Editorial Board of CA Political Review.