HEARD ON THE TOM/TOMS

HEARD ON THE TOM/TOMS

Photo courtesy of DonkeyHotey, flickr

Stephen Frank, California Political News and Views, 12/7/21    

.

VERY BIG STORY!!!!

The best way to describe the California Republican Party is it is the Party that CHECKS THE BOXES.  That does not mean they do anything, they talk about, raise money for it, but their lack of action is so loud we do not hear a word they say.  When you have little children you want to feed them right.  You serve them vegetables with almost every dinner.  You know they won’t eat it—but you serve it just in case they might.  The same with the CRP.

They talk a great game about voter registration—even have $50,000, for the whole State in the budget for it.  Except for September, 2019, the CRP has done nothing about voter registration—have you heard anything about a real registration drive from the CRP?

Then you have election integrity.  For a while they were raising money for honest elections.  In fact they did receive over 1,000 incident reports from the Recall election—and they categorized them—in a file.  But, they have done nothing to stop the 440,000 live ballots sent to dead people and those living in other States.  In Michigan they have the same problem, in fact they found 341 people registered to vote AFTER they died!  That was among the 25,000 dead people they have on their voting rolls.  What happened to the mone donated  to get honest elections (I do not have to remind you that the CRP has at least seven people getting $150,000 a year or more—with the Chair, Patterson receiving a quarter of a million dollars a year).

Then they checked the box on “helping the Recall”.  Remember they told you the money was going for staff and offices.  Well, they never opened a single office—but did hire a total of seven staffers statewide—two for the Gallagher Assembly District.  Oh, the Democrats per the CRP, hire 600 staffers to protect (I do not have to remind you that the CRP has at least seven people getting $150,000 a year or more—with the Chair, Patterson receiving a quarter of a million dollars a year).

Pretend conventions:  For those that attend conventions, in person, you pay hotel and travel bills, foo bills, registration fees.  Yet, when it comes to voting, you get outvoted by ghosts—people who do no show up, many never show up, pay nothing, give their proxy to a group—and then wonder why the CRP is in such bad shape.  The proxies outove the people who care enough to show up.

TALKING POINTS

  1. It is not only San Fran that has uncontrolled looting by mobs, gangs and radicals.  It has hit Walnut Creek, San Jose and Beverly Hills.  California is a war zone—and the cops are unable, or in the case of San Fran, unwilling, to stop the carnage—which is why small businesses are leaving the State.

Storefront windows smashed at Louis Vuitton, Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills — The incidents occurred on the heels of a series of smash-and-grab robberies in the Bay Area, which included targeted thefts Friday and Saturday of several high-end stores, including Louis Vuitton, Burberry, Bloomingdale’s and Nordstrom. Hayley Smith in the Los Angeles Times$ — 11/22/21

San Jose: Group steal items worth more than $40,000 from Lululemon at Santana Row — Police said a group of people stole merchandise from a Lululemon store at Santana Row on Sunday night, the latest in a series of brash robberies in the Bay Area. Summer Lin in the San Jose Mercury$ — 11/22/21

Packs of thieves hit Walnut Creek store, Hayward mall. Are they connected to Union Square heists? — Bay Area retailers were on alert after groups of thieves rushed a Nordstrom store in Walnut Creek on Saturday night and then hit a Hayward mall Sunday, stealing merchandise in the wake of Friday’s ransacking of high-end retailers in San Francisco’s Union Square. San Francisco police were investigating possible links among the brazen heists. Jessica Flores, Julie Johnson, Catherine Ho in the San Francisco Chronicle$ — 11/22/21

  •  This is a big change!

GOP Rep. Devin Nunes resigns from Congress to become CEO of Trump’s media company

CNBC, by Kevin Breuninger Original Article

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., will resign from Congress to become chief executive officer of former President Donald Trump’s fledgling social media company next month, the group said Monday. Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, will start as CEO of Trump Media & Technology Group, or TMTG, in January. The press release from TMTG came hours after documents revealed that the SPAC that plans to merge with Trump’s company had been contacted weeks earlier by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Daily Mail (UK), by Chris Pleasance Original Article

A person has caught Omicron Covid inside a quarantine hotel in Hong Kong from a guest across the hall despite both never leaving their rooms, it has been revealed. Both patients were double-vaccinated and both had tested negative on a PCR before arriving in Hong Kong last month, with one flying in from Canada and the second flying in from South Africa. Scientists believe the traveler from South Africa was infected before flying and then passed the infection to the traveler from Canada when opening the door of their room to collect food. The findings raise further fears about just how infectious the Omicron strain of Covid is,

  •  Let us not forget today is December 7:

Misremembering Pearl Harbor

American Greatness, by Victor Davis Hanson Original Article

Most Americans once were mostly in agreement about what happened on December 7, 1941, 80 years ago this year. But not so much now, given either the neglect of America’s past in the schools or woke revisionism at odds with the truth. The Pacific war that followed Pearl Harbor was not a result of America egging on the Japanese, not about starting a race war, and not about much other than a confident and cruel Japanese empire falsely assuming that its stronger American rival either would not or could not stop its transoceanic ambitions. (snip)the Japanese Imperial Navy conducted a tactically successful, but strategically imbecilic, surprise attack on the U.S.

 (Periodically the California Political News and Views will publish tidbits of political news, to keep you in the loop of what the pooh bahs know.  The phrase “tom/tom’s” comes from my mentor, Lorelei Kinder who never passed a rumor, just called to tell me what she heard on the “Tom/Tom’s”.  This column is named in her honor.)

Eber: The Glenn Youngkin. Experience needs to come West

In Virginia, Glenn Youngkin got approximately 50% of the Hispanic vote.  He won th suburban soccer Mom vote.  He was openly in support of the Second Amendment and was pro-life.  He won because he was honest and talked about the most important issue of the State—education.  His opponent told the voters that they were too stupid to have a say in the education of their children.  Youngkin believed parents are more than egg and sperm donors.

“Youngkin ran his campaign entirely on issues ignoring former President Donald Trump and Republican leaders in Congress.  Instead he preferred to discuss public education, high taxes, and law enforcement in Virginia.  At the same time he proudly declared himself as a conservative which the voters (including Latinos) embraced while propelling him to victory.

It would appear similar conditions exist in California where the dissatisfaction of voters resonates throughout the State.  Even though Gavin Newsom survived a recall effort earlier this year, he is far from popular with many of constituents

California candidates can learn a lot from Virginia—like winning.  Oh, the Virginia GOP ran a very intensive voter registration drive.  The California Republican Party talks about a voter registration drive.  Maybe if we turned talk into action, we could be like Virginia.

The Glenn Youngkin. Experience needs to come West by Richard Eber

Richard Eber, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views  12/7/21

As Republicans in California look forward to the mid-term elections next year, it’s time that they stop blaming GOP Chairwomen Jessica Patterson and her failed leadership for their pathetic performance in recent years.

The present situation with Republicans holding zero State offices and about a third of the legislative seats isn’t about to change overnight.  Their most prominent elected official is Minority Leader Kevin Mc McCarthy.  He seems to have his hands full battling Nancy Pelosi and likely becoming Speaker of the House on November 7, 2021.

Below Mc McCarthy there isn’t one individual whom the electorate deems to be a real leader.  Don’t tell me John Cox, Kevin Faulconer, Caitlyn Jenner, or even Larry Elder are anything but lightweights.   With the exception of Faulconer, none of these individuals has been elected too much of anything in their lives.

What to do?   In order to be successful, GOP candidates will need to stand on their own.  They should not expect much assistance from the State CRP if winning elections is actually a priority.

Somewhere in the Golden State, a new version of Glenn Youngkin needs to be found.  His campaign that led him to victory over Terry McAuliffe in the recent Virginia’s Governors race must somehow be duplicated in California.

Youngkin ran his campaign entirely on issues ignoring former President Donald Trump and Republican leaders in Congress.  Instead he preferred to discuss public education, high taxes, and law enforcement in Virginia.  At the same time he proudly declared himself as a conservative which the voters (including Latinos) embraced while propelling him to victory.

It would appear similar conditions exist in California where the dissatisfaction of voters resonates throughout the State.  Even though Gavin Newsom survived a recall effort earlier this year, he is far from popular with many of constituents

In fact the similarities between the Governor and the losing candidate Terry McAuffile in Virginia are strikingly similar.  Both are liberal Democrats that have embraced the Progressive agenda put forth by the Biden administration, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Kamala Harris, and the rest of the D.C. crowd.

In contrast to the “Commonwealth State”, things are even more extreme in California where the wealthy middle class and even recent immigrants are leaving the State in record numbers for greener-less costly pastures. Their complaints with government include:

  • Ridiculously high corporate, property, personal, and gasoline taxes which are the highest in the entire country.
  • A broken public education system that performance wise is in the bottom 10% among the 50 States. At the same time Critical Race Theory plays a more important part of the curriculum than math, science and English
  • Legislation such as AB-5 that tried to force Uber-Lyft drivers to join a union rather than be independent operators.  Even though Prop 22 repealed it, liberal courts recently overturned the will of the people.
  • Lawlessness and high crime rates in big cities that have recently been highlighted by mega shop lifting and murder as a result of defunding the police and lenient district attorneys
  • The price of housing continues to rise to where few can afford to purchase a home of their own.  At the same time the legislature passes socialistic policies discouraging the construction of single family homes while promoting unpopular mass transit systems including the Bullet Train.
  • Energy policies that have brought are $ 5.00 a gallon plus gasoline and bureaucratic environmental regulations that make it almost impossible to increase water storage or gain approval to build much of anything.

The list goes on with the State subsidizing illegal residents not to mention public employee pension funds which are approximately a trillion dollars in the red.

If this is true why can’t a conservative or even a moderate Democrat get any traction winning an election which requires residence in Sacramento?

In reality I don’t know.  There is no indication that an individual such as Glen Youngkin will come out of the woodwork and oppose Gavin Newsom and other Democratic office holders next year.

It would appear there are many reasons why Republicans or Independents should make a strong showing against Newsom and his leftist buddies.   Unfortunately, this is not the case.   At the present time there is not even a Schwarzenegger wanna be around to give Californian’s “a choice not an echo” next November.

What is really needed is for another figure like Arnold to emerge to challenge the status quo. Unlike Youngkin, who had a Republican base to assist him, this proposed conservative superhero in California will need to virtually stand alone in battling the Democratic machine.

Such a scenario appears to be a major case of wishful thinking on my part.  The bottom line is that conservatives and hopefully Republicans as well in California will not continue to make the same dumb ass mistakes that have rendered them to be literally extinct circa 2021.

This current state of affairs has moved me to embracing the possibility of opposing the Leftist juggernaut outside the bounds of the statewide GOP.  It would appear that criticizing so called leadership of the Party is a losing strategy as they apparently don’t care about winning elections; yet still manage to continue  staying in power while paying exorbitant  salaries to themselves.

This is how desperate things are in California politics today; when we have to ask if Glen Youngkin has a brother, sister, or even a close friend we can unite behind

You’re Not Imagining It: There Are More Driverless Cars in SF Now

For the few cars left in San Fran, a large number are in a pilot program of driverless cars.  Traffic is really bad in this city, many streets are cut off from cars, lots of people walking and biking where cars should be.  This town is a good test for the driverless cars.

“Bay Curious listener Lenore Kenny says she’s noticed a lot more of these on San Francisco streets than she used to see. She’s wondering, why are there so many? And what are they doing?

Lenore’s right: There are more autonomous vehicles, or AVs, on our roads. More than 1,400 are registered in California, up from 900 last November, according to the DMV. But San Francisco alone has more than 400,000 registered vehicles; the number of AVs is small by comparison. Still, in some parts of the city, you can count on seeing AVs every few minutes.”

You’re Not Imagining It: There Are More Driverless Cars in SF Now

Christopher Beale, KQED,   12/2/21 

If you’ve driven around San Francisco recently, you may have noticed a fleet of white Jaguar SUVs with spinning gadgetry on top and lots of other tech sticking off the back and sides. If you pull up next to one of these, you might notice that even though a person is sitting in the driver’s seat, they aren’t really controlling the car.

These are self-driving cars — or autonomous vehicles, as they are known more formally — from a company called Waymo.

Bay Curious listener Lenore Kenny says she’s noticed a lot more of these on San Francisco streets than she used to see. She’s wondering, why are there so many? And what are they doing?

Lenore’s right: There are more autonomous vehicles, or AVs, on our roads. More than 1,400 are registered in California, up from 900 last November, according to the DMV. But San Francisco alone has more than 400,000 registered vehicles; the number of AVs is small by comparison. Still, in some parts of the city, you can count on seeing AVs every few minutes.

Waymo is not the only culprit. Nine AV companies are testing driverless tech in California right now, according to the California Public Utilities Commission. Companies like Cruise, Argo AI and Zoox are competing to crack the automated vehicle market.

Lenore wants to know why more cars are on the road than before. The short answer is that companies developing AVs need data — lots of data — to ensure the cars can handle any driving situation. And, as anybody who has driven in San Francisco can attest, there’s a lot to think about when driving here.

“San Francisco is an incredibly diverse driving environment,” says Sam Kansara, senior product manager for Waymo, which is owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet. “Part of our increase in presence in San Francisco is about making sure our software and technology can perform well in all of those different environments.”

The AV experiment uses the idea of machine learning. Engineers created an algorithm that continues to get better as the test vehicles collect data. The car “learns” from its experiences driving, building new scenarios into its algorithm and making it more reliable and safer over time. The more miles the cars drive, the more data they collect.

“The key of the algorithms is that in order to be efficient, they need to have a pretty big database of learning examples,” says Alexandre Bayen, director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies. “That’s why you see so many of them collecting that data right now, because we’re not there yet.”

It has been a long road to development for autonomous vehicles. They are certainly more visible on streets today, but AVs have been on California’s roads in one form or another for almost 30 years, beginning in 1997 in San Diego. The HOV lanes on I-15 were closed during the day, which allowed scientists and research engineers like Steven Shladover from UC Berkeley’s California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology program to run vehicles for “a big public demonstration.” Until then testing had taken place primarily on test tracks.

The technology has evolved from those early years and spawned things like adaptive cruise control — available on many modern automobiles — to cars that can drive themselves.

Are autonomous vehicles safe?

At this point, companies and scientists have been testing AVs on California streets since the 1990s, always with a human operator in the car in case of emergencies. But cars can be deadly, so regulators are being cautious about approving AVs in their current state.

“They’re going to have to have some minimum standards set so that riders who aren’t specialists in this field can be given some reassurance that this is actually a safe system,” says Shladover. He wouldn’t name specific brands but cautioned, “some of the companies that work in this space don’t know what they’re doing.”

Bay Curious

Get our monthly newsletter featuring listener questions not answered on the Bay Curious podcast.

Top of Form

Enter Email Address

Bottom of Form

The California DMV says a variety of safety protocols are in place and bad actors can lose their permits to operate. But Shladover cautions, “The state cannot ensure the safety of the automated driving systems entirely by themselves.” He says it will take cooperation between the federal government and the state government to make AVs truly safe. “They will need federal safety regulations to complement the state regulations in areas that the state does not have the authority or the expertise to regulate,” he says.

As the software algorithms improve, safety should improve along with it. Still, the rollout likely will remain a gradual process, with certain types of vehicles allowed to operate in certain areas under certain conditions and at certain times of day. If AVs are going to truly become a viable transportation option, they’ll need to be able to drive everywhere, on any type of road, in many weather conditions.

“That means not only driving here in the Bay Area, but driving up to Tahoe,” says Shladover, “driving up to Yosemite, the rural roads in central California, going through the Bay Bridge toll plaza around sunset when the sun is shining straight in your eyes.” All of these scenarios need to be accounted for, for a driverless vehicle to drive solo.

When could we see driverless AVs on the road all around us, safely ferrying zoned-out passengers to their destinations? Estimates vary, with regulatory agencies like the CPUC and DMV, as well as the AV companies themselves, apprehensive to discuss concrete timelines. Meanwhile, observing experts, like Shladover, say we have a long way to go.

When pressed for a date, he says 2075, but adds his gut answer: “Probably never.”

FDA Released First Batch of Vaccine Authorization Documents Showing Pfizer Vaccine Resulted in 1,223 Fatalities in First Three Months

Fauci lied to us.  The FDA and the CDC lied to us.  Worse, they conspired to make us ill and kill us.  Thanks to a FOIA request we now know that in the first three months of distribution Pzizer KILLED more than 1200 Americans.  Normally when a drug kills a few people, it is pulled from circulation, here we have a drug that killed 1300 in just three months and government is now demanding you take this killer or you are not allow a burger, going to the gym or to work. Students will not be allowed to get a failed education (this might be a good thing) and if you want to go to New York you have to be vaccinated to step into the city.

“The time period covered (‘reporting interval’) is from December 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, approximately three months of data from the FDA, showing adverse events (AE) from the vaccine rollout.   “It is estimated that approximately [REDACTED] doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021,” the document states.

Unfortunately, the FDA redacted the total number of vaccinations that took place during the three month window, citing national security.  However, the FDA did provide the number and type of serious ‘Adverse Event’ reports which took place during the three months.

The total number of vaccinations during the three months is unknown.

Pfizer received a total of 42,086 reports containing 158,893 “events.”

1,223 people died as a result of the vaccine.

2.90% of the serious adverse events reported resulted in death of the patient.  That is a ratio of one death per 34 serious adverse events.

Why is this death drug still on the market?  How many must die before we get rid of Fascist Fauci and get a real doctor in charge of the scamdemic?

FDA Released First Batch of Vaccine Authorization Documents Showing Pfizer Vaccine Resulted in 1,223 Fatalities in First Three Months

Sundance, Conservative Tree House,   12/3/21 

A group of medical researchers filed a FOIA request for the documents the FDA relied upon to approve the Pfizer vaccine.  There are approximately 330,000 pages of documents from the Emergency Use Authorization process and trial.  The FDA responded by saying they did not want to provide the documents or the data. A lawsuit was triggered.

The FDA said they would produce batches of 500 documents per month that will take 55 more years for full production {LINK}.  A judge ordered a timed release of the data, and two months after the lawsuit was filed, the first release took place two weeks ago. The FDA produced the first 91 pages of the more than 329,000 pages potentially responsive to the FOIA request. The findings, taken directly from the produced documents, are cited here and discussed below.

The time period covered (‘reporting interval’) is from December 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, approximately three months of data from the FDA, showing adverse events (AE) from the vaccine rollout.   “It is estimated that approximately [REDACTED] doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021,” the document states.

Unfortunately, the FDA redacted the total number of vaccinations that took place during the three month window, citing national security.  However, the FDA did provide the number and type of serious ‘Adverse Event’ reports which took place during the three months.

The total number of vaccinations during the three months is unknown.

Pfizer received a total of 42,086 reports containing 158,893 “events.”

1,223 people died as a result of the vaccine.

2.90% of the serious adverse events reported resulted in death of the patient.  That is a ratio of one death per 34 serious adverse events.

QUESTIONS:  How many vaccinations did Pfizer distribute globally *after* February 28, 2021?

Was the scale of Pfizer vaccine distribution significantly higher after the initial period discussed above?

If all of this government mandated vaccination activity is being done “for the public good“, why are those same government officials not publicly transparent with the vaccination data?  What information is needed in order to create “informed consent”?

Movie theaters go out of style

The end of movie theaters is here.

By the numbers: Some 49% of pre-pandemic moviegoers are no longer hitting theaters, according to a study from the film research company The Quorum, as reported by the New York Times.

What’s happening: At first, movie theaters were closed, and then when they opened, many people were still concerned about the risk of gathering indoors with strangers.

  • Production companies responded to this trend by making new films available online at the same time as in theaters. Warner Bros. committed to releasing all of its 2021 movies on HBO Max on the same day they debuted in theatres.
  • And now the studio says it will produce 10 films exclusively for HBO Max in 2022.

Are you willing to pay $14 a person to see Alex Baldwin, who hates American, openly hates the Constitution and wants Donald Trump locked up.  I refuse to watch the hypocrites, the elites and those that support bigotry and pay good money to do so.

Movie theaters go out of style

 

Erica Pandey, Axios,   12/5/21  

Vaccination rates are going up, people are going out to restaurants again — although the new COVID variant may get in the way — but they still aren’t rushing back to the movies.

By the numbers: Some 49% of pre-pandemic moviegoers are no longer hitting theaters, according to a study from the film research company The Quorum, as reported by the New York Times.

What’s happening: At first, movie theaters were closed, and then when they opened, many people were still concerned about the risk of gathering indoors with strangers.

  • Production companies responded to this trend by making new films available online at the same time as in theaters. Warner Bros. committed to releasing all of its 2021 movies on HBO Max on the same day they debuted in theatres.
  • And now the studio says it will produce 10 films exclusively for HBO Max in 2022.

So now former moviegoers can watch new movies at home, maskless and with free snacks.

What’s next: David Herrin, the head of The Quorum, told the Times that people listed some changes that would encourage them to head back to theaters — like newer seats and cheaper popcorn.

  • If theaters want to stay afloat, they’ll have to remind people there’s something magical about going to the movies that you can’t recreate in your own living room.

What A Homeschooling Surge Means For Our Future

Black families, more than others know that government schools are failing their children.  The good news is that these folks are fleeing the schools and moving to home schooling.

“The wave of ill-advised school shutdowns last year compelled tens of thousands of parents to rethink their children’s education. When the classroom was virtually forced into their homes via Zoom, parents realized just how abysmal the curricula and tutelage were. Statistics on families fleeing to homeschooling must be worrying the education establishment.

From 2012 to 2019, the homeschooling rate hovered around 3.3 percent of K–12 US students. That figure rose to 5.4 percent in spring 2020. By the following fall, that figure had more than doubled to 11.1 percent.

Among black families, the increase was particularly noteworthy considering only 3.3 percent of black children were homeschooled in spring 2020 versus 16.1 percent in the fall.”

There are two school choke measures in circulation.  One by Michael Alexander allows for money to go to home schools—to help black students.  The other by Ric Grennell to hurt black students by not allowing any funds for their home schooling—isn’t it the Democrats that have a historic habit of harming black people—from their support of slavery to giving our schools to racist unions.

What A Homeschooling Surge Means For Our Future

by Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge,   12/3/21 

Parents across America were caught unprepared for the mass closure of government schools in 2020. Soon after, however, many decided they and their children had had enough of the status quo. Now at a crossroads, will they choose reform or repudiation?

The wave of ill-advised school shutdowns last year compelled tens of thousands of parents to rethink their children’s education. When the classroom was virtually forced into their homes via Zoom, parents realized just how abysmal the curricula and tutelage were. Statistics on families fleeing to homeschooling must be worrying the education establishment.

From 2012 to 2019, the homeschooling rate hovered around 3.3 percent of K–12 US students. That figure rose to 5.4 percent in spring 2020. By the following fall, that figure had more than doubled to 11.1 percent.

Among black families, the increase was particularly noteworthy considering only 3.3 percent of black children were homeschooled in spring 2020 versus 16.1 percent in the fall.

While legacy media focused on cases of parents keeping their kids home out of fear of covid, longtime critics of the public school system argued that the pandemic actually helped to expose parents to the abuses and shortcomings that have long plagued public education.

Some chose homeschooling, but many other parents took to school board meetings, facing the beast head-on and ripping apart the deceptive social engineering with the public comment microphone. All the glory, glitz, and glam has so far gone to the latter group.

They grew a decentralized movement with immediate political consequences not only in Virginia’s gubernatorial election but also in school board races across the country earlier this month.

Axios, the popular DC-based news outlet run by former Politico journalists, recently reported on the growth of the 1776 Project, a new political action committee focused on reforming public school systems at the local level. “My PAC is campaigning on behalf of everyday moms and dads who want to have better access to their children’s education,” the PAC’s founder Ryan Girdusky told Axios.

The 1776 Project won three-fourths of its fifty-eight races across seven states, proving the populist Right’s focus on the culture wars to be smart politicking. Now Republicans in Congress are pushing a “parents bill of rights” ahead of their 2022 primary elections. Included are so-called rights to know what’s taught at school, the right to be heard, and the right to transparent school budgets and spending.

“This list of rights will make clear to parents what their rights are and clear to schools what their duties to parents are,” their flier states. The reform position focuses on schools’ duty to parents and ipso facto their children. But what of the duties parents owe to their children?

What if, instead of pointing their collective finger at the school boards, parents looked in the mirror? What if they asked themselves how or why they feel entitled to have a place to drop their kids off for thirteen years of government brainwashing?

Any taxpayer has a perfect reason to object to school mask mandates or the teaching of racist and queer ideologies. Parents must start thinking more deeply about the situation, though.

Certainly for some, running for school board positions is their best shot at helping to provide their children and their neighbors’ children with better education. The problem is that in too many places, there’s an absolute crisis in education that can’t wait any longer for reform, no matter how severe.

Every family and community ultimately applies the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, the notion that the best way to organize society is for each action or decision to be taken at the smallest scale necessary, in assessing what must be done about things such as education.

By simply refusing to accept what federal or state authorities peddled throughout 2020, parents rightfully accepted more responsibility, clearly demonstrating that when things get personal, people will do what it takes to take back control.

Whatever step in that direction is taken, the child is better off. In his great essay “Education: Free and Compulsory,” Murray Rothbard argued that public school and compulsory schooling laws tend to victimize the child: “The effect of the State’s compulsory schooling laws is not only to repress the growth of specialized partly individualized private schools for the needs of various types of children. It also prevents the education of the child by the people who, in many respects, are best qualified—his parents.”

Unfortunately, far too few parents think of themselves as qualified, much less the best qualified educators of their children. They are easily led to believe simple reforms will “fix the system” they grew up dependent upon as children themselves.

“We always hear, Oh it’s broken. It’s not broken. It’s doing exactly what it was designed to do,” Katie Phipps Hague told Mises Institute supporters at the latest summit in Florida last month.

Hague shared her experience homeschooling her seven kids and encouraged other parents to give it a try, essentially asking, What have you got to lose?

I know this sounds like I’m a crazy person, but if you pulled your children out of school… for a whole year, then include them in everything that you do in all of your trips and all of your conversations, put them around the intelligent, capable people that you all have in your circles and let them become comfortable around those people, you’d probably do better for them than maybe anything else you could ever do.

It’s wonderful that the populist movement on the right is targeting the educational bureaucracy, one of the great roots of societal decay. There is a lot of potential for good in populism, but not if it sets its sights on mere reforms. A much brighter future lies in a libertarian populism where parents free themselves from these decrepit statist systems altogether and grow alternative institutions.

Parents must be responsible for their children’s education precisely so that children learn to be autonomous. Autonomous people don’t support tyrannical policies, so the sooner parents embrace their own power, the sooner their children will be able to unleash their own.

Armed Police Officers Made Restaurant Staff ‘Uncomfortable,’ Denied Service

In San Fran there is a restaurant that demands police leave their guns outside the diner if they want a burger.  I have a better idea, put this restaurant and every other facility that do not want cops in the place on a “NO RESPOND” list.  They should also put a sign on the door—NO COPS ALLOWED.  This will make it safer for criminals to rob the place—and isn’t that what the owners really want, more crime and theft in their establishment?

“Three police officers were denied service at a San Francisco restaurant because staff “felt uncomfortable” that they were armed.

“Three armed and uniformed San Francisco police officers came in to dine at Hilda and Jesse” on Union Street on Friday, the restaurant said in a post on its Instagram page.

“Shortly after seating them, our staff felt uncomfortable with the presence of their multiple weapons. We then politely asked them to leave.”

Maybe someone should post the address of this place on the Internet—let criminals know that no harm will come to them if they hold up the place and steal.

Armed Police Officers Made Restaurant Staff ‘Uncomfortable,’ Denied Service

By Khaleda Rahman , Newsweek, 12/5/21  

Three police officers were denied service at a San Francisco restaurant because staff “felt uncomfortable” that they were armed.

“Three armed and uniformed San Francisco police officers came in to dine at Hilda and Jesse” on Union Street on Friday, the restaurant said in a post on its Instagram page.

“Shortly after seating them, our staff felt uncomfortable with the presence of their multiple weapons. We then politely asked them to leave.”

The move prompted a backlash on social media, leading Rachel Sillcocks, the restaurant’s co-owner and chef, to speak to ABC7 to clarify that the decision to turn the officers away was only because they were armed.

“It’s not about the fact that we are anti-police,” Sillcocks told the station.

“It is about the fact that we do not allow weapons in our restaurant. We were uncomfortable, and we asked them to leave. It has nothing to do that they were officers. It has everything to do that they were carrying guns.”

Sillcocks added that the officers were welcome to return to the restaurant, as long as they came without their weapons.

Bialosky: Why in the World Are Democrats Preferred on the Issue of Education?

Democrats run LAUSD and have for four decades.  It is a totally failed district.  The same goes for Oakland, which is bankrupt, San Fran which is just plain crazy, Santa Ana which is bigoted and a failed system.  Find a Democrat run district and you will find corruption, abuse and failure.

“While watching the election returns in Virginia, the analysts — you know those people with those slick boards which move pictures with the flick of a finger — were talking about what a shock it was that a Republican was favored on the issue of education. At this time in America, why would anyone favor the Democrats on this issue?

Did anyone happen to notice that once public employee unions were legalized back in the 1960’s, the cost of public education soared in this country while the quality of said education plummeted? Scientific theory, of which subject teachers are completely inept, would tell you that the two are not necessarily cause and effect. An honest person would state there are other factors involved. Is it a coincidence that these things happened simultaneously? I think not.

In California you can date the failure of government schools to the passage of the Rodda Act in the 1879’s—this turn over the schools from the parents and community to the unions.  Nationwide the more control of a district by the union the less education happens.

Why in the World Are Democrats Preferred on the Issue of Education?

Posted by Bruce Bialosky, Flashreport,   12/5/21 

While watching the election returns in Virginia, the analysts — you know those people with those slick boards which move pictures with the flick of a finger — were talking about what a shock it was that a Republican was favored on the issue of education. At this time in America, why would anyone favor the Democrats on this issue?

Did anyone happen to notice that once public employee unions were legalized back in the 1960’s, the cost of public education soared in this country while the quality of said education plummeted? Scientific theory, of which subject teachers are completely inept, would tell you that the two are not necessarily cause and effect. An honest person would state there are other factors involved. Is it a coincidence that these things happened simultaneously? I think not.

The country’s largest city which operates the country’s most populated school system has an (outgoing) mayor who has been an ardent enemy of charter schools. These are the same charter schools that have thousands vying for limited spots via lottery to get their children into schools not controlled by the mayor and his teacher union supporters. The same charter schools that enable minority students to perform at levels that far exceed the performance of their public schools’ counterparts. Yet for some reason the perception is that Democrats are better on the issue of education. What is wrong with this picture?

In California, the teachers’ unions make a tremendous effort to get the legislature to crush charter schools. They lie about the performance of the charter schools to enhance the performance of the public schools to no avail. While the leaders wail about white supremacy, the performance of the black and brown students under their guidance is atrocious.

The Democrats like to say you should never let a crisis go to waste. In Virginia’s case, it backfired on them. I and many other critics of teachers’ unions and the current public-school systems seemed to get nowhere with middle class and upper-middle class parents. Parents were too busy working and just getting through their days trying to provide a safe and healthy home for their children. We could write and speak and scream at the top of our lungs about the gross injustices being done to minority children. But if their school district was hiding the damage and their kids were getting a “good” education, they ignored the plight of others or were just too overwhelmed with their lives to take on the task of fighting the system.

Then we came upon a pandemic. Their kids were stuck at home and their teachers refused to show up to teach even after being vaccinated. Parents began to see not only the poor education being foisted upon their children, but the poor education foisted upon all children –particularly in urban districts. They saw advanced education programs being canceled as racist because too many white or Asian kids were in the programs and not enough black or brown kids. They did not see the sense of that. They came to realize if the black or brown kid received a vapid education it was harmful to all of us down the line. They saw the schools were focused on issues other than math and English and science and history. If history was being taught, the values with which they were raised that made this country great were being trashed. Immigrant parents saw their kids being told that those things they cherished about America and caused them to fight so hard to become an American were bad or dangerous. The parents saw that their world was not being turned upside down. It already was.

Democrat elected officials who were funded by public employee unions that owned the politicians were the catalyst. The parents realized the people they trusted were cheating on them behind their backs. The funds from bond issues they were told to vote for and did so religiously were being wasted. Bright new schools were not the cure. The sickness was inside the schools. That means the curriculum, the school boards, the administration and, yes, the teachers who went along with all of it.

The other political party had been telling them that they cared. They argued for charter schools and parental choice and vouchers so parents could make the choice of a better way. The other party stood up and waved their hand and said we are still here. We still want to help. We still believe a public education monopoly has failed us. They reminded parents there is a reason the public-school establishment argues against competition. When competition happens, the establishment loses, and the kids win. They reminded parents that they not only have a say in their child’s education, but they should also actively participate in the process.

Many black and brown parents have already realized the establishment and their political allies have left them in the dust. Now white parents have woken up to that reality. They have realized the Democrats are owned by the teachers’ unions serving them instead of their kids.

We have a breakthrough. Republicans should grasp that opportunity and press it to the wall. Not because it is a political opportunity. It is the right thing to do. It is not throwing money at a dysfunctional system. It is improving the outcomes for all our children. Republicans are the party of education. It just took a pandemic for many parents to wake up on the issue.

Gilchrist: Mayor McLean’s “Housing First” Homeless Program is a Failure

Like every other city that spends millions on the homeless issue, the more you spend, the more homeless you get.  But, you do pay for more attorneys, PR people, vendors, contractors, social workers and a host of other parasites—instead of helping the homeless.

This article shows that when you take Federal money to help the homeless, you will fail—but the elites and parasites will succeed.  Another reason not to take Federal tax dollars.

“. I am also a recent transplant from Northern California and have experienced and witnessed firsthand the failure of Housing First, low barrier shelters.

Like many others that have flocked to Idaho, I fled California in part due to the impact of failed Housing First, low barrier shelters on my community. My former city became home to the 5th largest homeless population in the US, in less than 5 years, after spending over $150 million to “end homelessness.”

Op-Ed: Boise Mayor McLean’s “Housing First” Homeless Program is a Failure

Touring the Santa newly remodeled Barbara Rescue Mission

By Brenda Gilchrist, Idaho Dispatch,  12/5/21  

The following Op-Ed was submitted by Brenda Gilchrist. Note: Op-Eds do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of those at the Idaho Dispatch.

Along with over a hundred others, I attended the Boise Planning and Zoning Commissioners’ meeting on November 15, 2021 to oppose Interfaith Sanctuary’s application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to convert the old Salvation Army building into a new Housing First, low barrier homeless shelter that gives people access to housing with minimal or limited preconditions, such as sobriety, treatment or service participation. After waiting for several hours, at approximately 9:50pm, Commissioner Gillespie put forth a motion to postpone public testimony and to schedule another meeting on December 6, 2021.

Because I was not given an opportunity to provide public testimony, I am providing it to the public via this op-ed in the hope that the public will: 1) Become informed and aware of failed Housing First low barrier shelters; 2) Become aware of the negative impact that the low barrier Interfaith Sanctuary shelter will have on the surrounding area; and 3) Get more people involved to change the trajectory of Boise’s future and expose the city leaders that approve failed Housing First, low barrier shelters.

What follows is the public testimony I had planned to present to the Boise City Planning and Zoning Commissioners on November 15, 2021:

Madam Chair and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Boise Neighbors for Better Housing. My name is Brenda Gilchrist. I am a subject matter expert on Housing First, low barrier shelters. I am also a recent transplant from Northern California and have experienced and witnessed firsthand the failure of Housing First, low barrier shelters.

Like many others that have flocked to Idaho, I fled California in part due to the impact of failed Housing First, low barrier shelters on my community. My former city became home to the 5th largest homeless population in the US, in less than 5 years, after spending over $150 million to “end homelessness.”

As a subject matter expert on the Housing First, low barrier model, I urge you to vote no on Interfaith Sanctuary’s application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)21-00026.

Most people aren’t aware that Boise’s Interfaith Sanctuary is a Housing First, low barrier shelter. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Housing First program does not allow enforcement of rules that require sobriety or any requirement of participation in mental health and addiction services. There is no work requirement or counseling requirement to deal with issues that led residents to homelessness in the first place, usually substance abuse and mental illness.

In October 2020, HUD and the U.S. Inter-Agency Council on Homelessness released a federally commissioned report that concluded that the Housing First, low barrier program was a failure. Federal data in this report, gathered before the COVID-19 pandemic, showed that California’s adoption of the low barrier shelter approach in 2016 resulted in a 47% increase in street-level homelessness and a 34% increase in homelessness overall.  In other words, Housing First programs result in increased homelessness, the exact opposite of the program’s intentions. These programs are a spectacular failure!

The October 2020 Inter-Agency Council’s report emphasized that, “Without proper interventions, individuals afflicted with mental illness and/or substance use disorders have a higher likelihood of experiencing homelessness. Furthermore, individuals with mental illnesses and/or substance abuse disorders often return to homelessness after becoming housed.” The rate at which this occurs is often poorly tracked or not tracked at all. This same report advocates for a data-centered approach stating that, “approaches that emphasize employment, empowerment and increasing self-sufficiency supported by housing,” should be used. A good example of a shelter that uses this approach is the Boise Rescue Mission.

Until we require that accountability be instilled at every level of our homelessness policies, from the elected officials who continue to turn a blind eye to the failure of Housing First policies down to the individuals struggling with addiction and/or mental illness, we cannot expect anything more than the failed status quo.

Mayor McLean has adopted the Housing First model for Boise, Idaho. I fear that Boise will soon look like my former city or worse, like Seattle featured in the documentary, “Seattle is Dying.”

In closing, my message to you as members of the Planning and Zoning Commission is that you have the responsibility, based on data and facts, to reject the Conditional Use Permit for the Housing First, low barrier Interfaith Sanctuary shelter. As has been amply demonstrated in California and other states, a low barrier shelter will not help the majority of supposed homeless clients. Homeless with addiction and mental health issues will likely get worse and cause devastating harm to the businesses and residents surrounding the proposed site. Worse still, currently available data show that this is a wasteful use of valuable resources and is fiscally irresponsible. Please do not let Boise follow in the disastrous footsteps of the many failed cities in California, Washington, Oregon, Texas and others. We absolutely can do better than this.

In addition to my testimony above, I would like to add this additional information for the readers:

Take a little time to look at crime statistics within a one-mile radius of “Housing First, low barrier shelters (a minimum of a 200% increase in crime will occur, based on current crime stats). Why would the city of Boise and its Chief of Police knowingly put businesses and residents in harm’s way by moving current crime from one area to another?

In fact, the failure of the Housing First models has become so bad that a Congressman recently introduced the Housing Plus Act, a program that helps people transition from homelessness to self-sufficiency. Let’s go one step further. Please write to your Congresspeople and encourage them to pass the Housing Plus Act. Also, write to the Boise Planning and Zoning Commissioners, Boise City Council and Boise Mayor and let them know that Housing First failed in other states and should be replaced with Housing Plus programs that will actually succeed in reducing chronic homelessness.

Idaho can lead the nation on truly addressing the root cause of chronic homelessness. Let’s address the systemic addiction and mental health crisis. Let’s invest in prevention and sustainable models that truly make a difference in lives. Giving a key to an addict and/or mentally ill person is not the answer and will not end homelessness.

References/Resources

‘Pro-freedom’ Pence speech denied funding by Stanford student government

Stanford University has made it clear—like Havana University—this school will not pay to hear a message on freedom, especially from a former Vice President under Trump.  While Jane Fonda, Angela Davis and every freak on the Left who hates America, hates freedom and prefers the Old Soviet Union to the American Constitution, those who promote independent, free thinking, must be stopped.

“The Monday vote was 7 in favor, 7 in abstention, and 1 in opposition, a combination that fell short of the eight votes needed for the request to pass, said student Stephen Sills, former president of the GOP group and its current spokesman.

Sills, in a statement, likened his peers’ decision to campus cancel culture.

“Stanford’s student government is now illegitimately attempting to stop the event by denying funding for the lecture,” he said, adding left-leaning student leaders are “dedicated to preventing their fellow students from hearing conservative ideas.”

Sills, in an email to The College Fix, said there is no public record explaining why the students voted against the request, as the meeting was held in closed session.

“No other standard grant except our own was subject to this treatment,” he said.

Like the Politburo, the decision was made in secret—the way totalitarian nations operate.  Are you still donating to Stanford?  Why?

‘Pro-freedom’ Pence speech denied funding by Stanford student government

Jennifer Kabbany, The College Fix,   12/3/21  

The Stanford University student government has voted against approving a $6,000 grant request from the College Republicans to help host former Vice President Mike Pence for a campus speech.

The Monday vote was 7 in favor, 7 in abstention, and 1 in opposition, a combination that fell short of the eight votes needed for the request to pass, said student Stephen Sills, former president of the GOP group and its current spokesman.

Sills, in a statement, likened his peers’ decision to campus cancel culture.

“Stanford’s student government is now illegitimately attempting to stop the event by denying funding for the lecture,” he said, adding left-leaning student leaders are “dedicated to preventing their fellow students from hearing conservative ideas.”

Sills, in an email to The College Fix, said there is no public record explaining why the students voted against the request, as the meeting was held in closed session.

“No other standard grant except our own was subject to this treatment,” he said.

The College Republicans are preparing to file a complaint against the student government to its Constitutional Council to have the decision overturned, he said.

It’s the same process the group took in 2019 when it secured campus funding for its Dinesh D’Souza talk after the student government initially rejected the funding request.

“The student senate is constitutionally obligated to provide us with the funding,” Sills said in his email to The Fix. “Resistance is futile.”

Meanwhile, Pence’s guest lecture, co-sponsored by Young America’s Foundation, is slated to take place in mid-February, and Sills said it will go on as planned.

Young America’s Foundation spokeswoman Kara Zupkus, in responding to the funding denial, said it was a case of “ideological preferences” over “promoting free speech on campus.”

“Vice President Pence’s pro-freedom message would inspire thousands at Stanford who are usually exposed to one single ideological viewpoint––a terrifying thought for the tyrants-in-training at Stanford,” she stated on YAF’s website.

Pence has visited a couple universities over the last month through YAF’s campus lecture series, drawing large and supportive crowds at campuses such as the University of Iowa and Texas A&M. He also spoke Oct. 28 at Patrick Henry College.

At his Nov. 11 talk at Texas A&M, he advanced liberty and freedom themes, the Battalion student newspaper reports.

“With your help, we will keep the torch of life and liberty alive because I believe yours is the freedom generation in America,” Pence had said.

“…First and foremost, let me encourage you to wrap your minds around the founding documents of this country. Don’t read books about the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They are themselves the greatest charters for freedom.”

As for the Stanford situation, an anonymous student senator quoted in the Stanford Daily campus newspaper said concerns expressed included questions over “safety of an event with more than a thousand people, potentially including people from outside of the campus community.”

“Moreover, the scale of the event makes this request for funding different from other grant requests, according to the senator,” the Daily reports. “‘No other student group that has requested funding from us has petitioned for an event of this magnitude,’ they wrote.”

Stanford representative Pat Lopes Harris told the Daily that campus leaders continue “to work with the Stanford College Republicans on its event plans.”