Sign on prof’s door calls Republicans ‘heartless a**holes’

What do the tax financed professors and Administrators think of Republicans and the concept that campuses are places for freedom is gone.  We already know that Constitutional speakers are not allowed on campus, that almost no professor is to the right of Vladimir Putin.

“Only one review mentioned Manopoulos having a political bias on her RateMyProfessors page, warning prospective students that “If you want to learn all about the professor’s personal opinions about politics and her life story, enjoy.” The others were universally positive, with one comment praising her “francophone rap/hip hop class” an “easy peasy” way to fulfill an upper-level general education requirement.

Manopoulos is hardly the only professor to publicly defame Republicans broadly, though.

In August, for instance, a Clemson University professor proclaimed on Facebook that “All trump supporters, nay, all Republicans, are racist scum.” Before the end of the year, a Virginia Tech professor joined the chorus, tweeting that “the modern GOP is nothing but white supremacy.”

Want to find haters?  Ask a professor.

CA GOP

Sign on prof’s door calls Republicans ‘heartless a**holes’

 

Adam Sabes, Campus Reform,  5/18/18

 

  • A California State University-East Bay professor has decorated the door to her office with signs declaring that “Republicans are heartless a**holes” and “F**k the A**hole in Chief.”
  • Members of the school’s YAF chapter spotted the signs and posted an image to Twitter, after which the prof asserted that she is “just exercising my First Amendment rights.”

A professor at California State University-East Bay displays signs on her office window declaring that “Republicans are heartless a**holes” and “F**k the A**hole in Chief.”

The signs were spotted at the office of Assistant Professor Monique Manopoulos by members of the CSU East Bay Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter, which posted an image of the signs to Twitter Thursday afternoon.

“I’m fine with her being able to express an opinion, and if she’s willing to have a dialogue that’s great.”

The YAF chapter president, Bruce Rodriguez, told Campus Reform that the signs were discovered in Manopoulos’s office, which is located within the Student Faculty Support Building.

Campus Reform reached out to the French professor, who responded that she is “just exercising my First Amendment right.” She did not care to elaborate.

“I’m fine with her being able to express an opinion,” Rodriguez remarked, “and if she’s willing to have a dialogue that’s great.”

Only one review mentioned Manopoulos having a political bias on her RateMyProfessors page, warning prospective students that “If you want to learn all about the professor’s personal opinions about politics and her life story, enjoy.” The others were universally positive, with one comment praising her “francophone rap/hip hop class” an “easy peasy” way to fulfill an upper-level general education requirement.

Manopoulos is hardly the only professor to publicly defame Republicans broadly, though.

In August, for instance, a Clemson University professor proclaimed on Facebook that “All trump supporters, nay, all Republicans, are racist scum.” Before the end of the year, a Virginia Tech professor joined the chorus, tweeting that “the modern GOP is nothing but white supremacy.”

Shortly after dozens of people were shot at a Texas church, meanwhile, another professor felt compelled to issue an apology after tweeting that “the GOP and NRA must, in fact, want mass shootings” because “it serves their interests.”

Campus Reform reached out to CSU-East Bay for comment, but has not received a response.

 

Colman: LIMITED GOVERNMENT IS DESPERATELY NEEDED

It is the role of government to decide for you the type of energy you can use for your home?  In California, the State is now mandating solar panels for new homes starting in 2020.  The cost fo gasoline in California is 78 cents higher than the national average—that is the cost of regulations and taxes on the people of California.  Should our schools be used for education or indoctrination—the UC system has turned into training camps for rioters and haters.

For those who may have forgotten what Reagan said, here are some quotations:

“It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we’re too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline.”

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. [Emphasis added.] From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.”

The choice is yours—freedom or government control.  Do you think you are able to run your own life or do you believe you are incapable of making informed decisions?  Limit government, give freedom another chance.

congress

LIMITED GOVERNMENT IS DESPERATELY NEEDED

By Richard Colman, California Political News and Views,  5/23/18

Does anyone remember Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address as president, which he gave on January 20, 1981?

For those who may have forgotten what Reagan said, here are some quotations:

“It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we’re too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We’re not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline.”

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. [Emphasis added.] From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.”

Reagan, who won a landslide victory over President Jimmy Carter in 1980, may have had an understanding of what overbearing, overweening government could do to stifle individual freedom and the benefits that derive from liberty.

Reagan’s thinking was not new. In the formative years of the American republic, ideas about limited government were expressed by such Founding Fathers as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin.

(Even President Bill Clinton agreed. In his 1996 State of the Union Address, Clinton said, “The era of big government is over.” Since the end of World War II, only one president has balanced the federal budget four times. That president was Clinton. And his four balanced budgets were done in four consecutive years, 1996 to 2000.)

Franklin’s views on government debt are especially important. He warned the new republic to remain debt-free. By 1837, America was debt-free. By 1981, the national debt had escalated to $1 trillion. Today, that debt is over $21 trillion.

The essential problem in a democratic society is that people can vote themselves unlimited financial benefits and not be able to pay for them.

Since 1913, the federal government of the United States began a financial and legal expansion that continues to this day.

In 1913, Americans, through a Constitutional amendment (the 16th Amendment), got the federal income tax.

In the same year, 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, setting up an unelected authority, the Federal Reserve, to print money and control interest rates. The Federal Reserve Act created a national currency (the dollar). The act was supposed to bring about financial stability by creating a system that could respond to upheavals in the banking system.

In 1935, Congress passed and President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. As originally conceived, the act required each wage-earner to contribute one percent of his annual wage income to a special government fund. The worker’s boss was to contribute another one percent. Social Security collections originally stopped at a wage ceiling of $3,000. Thus, the maximal Social Security tax on wages was $60 per year — $30 from the worker and another $30 from the worker’s boss.

Today (in 2018), the wage ceiling is $128,400. The worker must contribute 6.2 percent of his wages, and the boss must contribute an equal percentage. On an annual wage income of $100,000, both the worker and boss contribute a total of $12,400 annually.

During the years that Lyndon Johnson was president (1963-1969) government expanded ever further. The nation got Medicare, health benefits for individuals over age 65. Two new cabinet departments were created: The U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) into law. The intent of the law was to provide health benefits for every American.

Government has become so big and so intrusive that it faces collapse unless strong action is taken.

To prevent collapse, government’s growth can be slowed or stopped by putting strict limits on taxation and spending.

A law or Constitutional Amendment could help by requiring a balanced budget. (If an emergency, like a war were to occur, the budget could go unbalanced by a vote of 60 percent or more of each house of Congress.)

Balancing the budget would be easier if government programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare were taken off budget. These programs are known as entitlements because anyone who is eligible gets the benefits. Let these programs pay for themselves, an action that would presumably be easier if the programs were partially or fully privatized.

The 2018-2019 federal budget is $4.1 trillion. Of that $4.1 trillion, 62 percent ($2.5 trillion) goes for entitlements. By taking entitlements off budget, that total of $4.1 trillion drops to $1.6 trillion.

 

Jeff Sessions ends Obama-era ‘de facto’ court amnesty for illegal immigrants

Barack Obama not only imported tens of thousands of illegal aliens from Central America, including the notorious MS-13 gangsters.  He also used his power as President to order Border Guards and the ICE folks NOT to enforce U.S. law.  Thankfully, AG Jeff Sessions takes his oath of office seriously.

“Rather than pursue those cases, government attorneys would propose — and judges would grant — administrative closure by shipping more than 200,000 cases to the suspension list in what analysts said became a de facto amnesty.

Mr. Sessions, flexing his attorney general powers, ruled Thursday that the policy rested on shaky legal ground. He issued a precedent telling judges to decide the cases in front of them rather than rely on administrative closure.

“No attorney general has delegated such broad authority, and legal or policy arguments do not justify it. I therefore hold that immigration judges and the Board [of Immigration Appeals] lack this authority except where a previous regulation or settlement agreement has expressly conferred it,” Mr. Sessions said in his decision.

The ruling could, in the short term, speed up deportation decisions on the children and families that have surged into the U.S. over the past five years.”

Now is the time to act.  We need to enforce our laws, punish those, like the Mayor of Oakland, that protect criminals and put law enforcement in danger.  End the amnesty—unless Congress provides for one—until then, obey the law.

Immigration

Jeff Sessions ends Obama-era ‘de facto’ court amnesty for illegal immigrants

 

By Stephen Dinan,- The Washington Times, 5/17/18

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a directive to immigration judges Thursday telling them they can no longer shunt deportation cases off onto permanent wait lists and leave illegal immigrants free to roam the U.S.

Known as administrative closure, the wait list had become a favorite tactic of the Obama administration, serving to protect low-priority illegal immigrants from deportation.

Rather than pursue those cases, government attorneys would propose — and judges would grant — administrative closure by shipping more than 200,000 cases to the suspension list in what analysts said became a de facto amnesty.

Mr. Sessions, flexing his attorney general powers, ruled Thursday that the policy rested on shaky legal ground. He issued a precedent telling judges to decide the cases in front of them rather than rely on administrative closure.

“No attorney general has delegated such broad authority, and legal or policy arguments do not justify it. I therefore hold that immigration judges and the Board [of Immigration Appeals] lack this authority except where a previous regulation or settlement agreement has expressly conferred it,” Mr. Sessions said in his decision.

The ruling could, in the short term, speed up deportation decisions on the children and families that have surged into the U.S. over the past five years.

Indeed, it was one of those unaccompanied alien children cases that spurred Mr. Sessions to act.

A 17-year-old named Reynaldo Castro-Tum was nabbed crossing the border illegally in 2014. He was sent to live with his brother-in-law while he awaited deportation.

Mr. Castro-Tum was supposed to come back for his hearing but ignored all five summonses sent from the court to his brother-in-law’s address. Rather than order him deported in absentia, the immigration judge granted an administrative closure, essentially giving the now-adult illegal immigrant a tentative pass.

It was one of more than 215,000 cases shunted onto the administrative closure list from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2017, sending the total off-calendar backlog to more than 350,000 cases. When combined with some 690,000 other pending cases, the immigration court has more than 1 million cases awaiting rulings.

Mr. Sessions’ decision does not immediately reopen the 350,000 cases on the closure list. He said he feared overwhelming the already stressed immigration courts.

Even before his ruling, the government was making headway in cutting the backlog, suggesting an interest in getting those cases off the wait list and onto deportation dockets.

“Attorney General Sessions is doing what should have been done long ago, which is trying to ensure that illegal aliens are actually found deportable, then removed from the United States, rather than leaving them here in limbo, still illegal but living under color of law,” said Rosemary Jenks, government relations manager for NumbersUSA, which pushes for stricter immigration limits.

Administrative closure was part of the Obama administration’s response to Congress’ failure to legalize illegal immigrants. Left without a permanent solution, Mr. Obama ordered his aides to find other ways to protect illegal immigrants from deportation through “prosecutorial discretion.”

One answer was the 2012 DACA policy, which not only protected “Dreamers” from deportation but also granted them work permits, Social Security numbers and some taxpayer benefits, giving them a more firm footing.

For migrants who didn’t qualify for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals but still had low levels of criminal behavior, the Obama administration ordered Homeland Security not to lodge deportation cases against them and ordered immigration judges to close out their cases without deporting them when circumstances warranted.

Immigrant rights groups were still digesting Mr. Sessions’ ruling Thursday evening, but their early reading was grim. They said the attorney general was stripping immigration judges of long-held discretion.

“The decision is bad law, bad policy, and harmful to immigrants and their communities,” said Trina Realmuto, an attorney with the American Immigration Council who accused Mr. Sessions of showing “anti-immigrant animus.”

The immigration council said Mr. Sessions was not an impartial arbiter and should not have used his attorney general powers to refer Mr. Castro-Tatum’s case to himself for a final ruling.

Even as Mr. Sessions moved to speed up deportations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it was already arresting and deporting more people in the interior of the country.

Through the first half of fiscal year 2018, ICE arrests were up more than 26 percent, nearly reaching the 80,000 mark. ICE deportations, meanwhile, were up 17 percent.

That is still well under the rates achieved during the height of the Obama administration, when Mr. Obama earned the label “deporter in chief” from angry immigrant rights groups.

But it does suggest changes at Homeland Security to make more migrants eligible for deportation.

Corey Price, assistant director for enforcement and removal at ICE, said they were told during the Obama era not to bother with illegal immigrants who didn’t have major criminal records. That has changed.

“Under this administration, we have been asked and told under the executive orders to open that aperture back up,” he said.

 

California Democrats REBUKE Honest American Citizens—Billions for “FREE” Health Care for Illegal Aliens

The Confederate State of California already illegally spend over one billion a year on free health care for illegal aliens.  Now the Democrats want to expand that amount.  At some point the Trump Administration ill note the embezzlement by Jerry Brown and stop paying its portion of the funding.  Then California will be forced to finance ALL the health care for illegal aliens.

“The proposal — which would build on Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2015 decision to extend health coverage to all children, regardless of immigration status — is one of the most daring examples yet of blue-state Democrats thumbing their nose at President Donald Trump as they pursue diametrically opposed policies, whether on immigration, climate change, legalized marijuana or health care.

“California has never waited for the federal government, or for a political climate, to be able to take leadership on a whole host of issues,” state Sen. Ricardo Lara, author of the state Senate bill to extend Medicaid coverage to all adults, told POLITICO.”

Lara wants to be Insurance Commissioner—imagine a law breaker, proud of it—in charge of your health.  Will he add a surcharge to your health insurance to pay for this?  Why not!  Democrats prefer takers to the productive, this is another example.

ricardo lara

California rebukes Trump with health care push for immigrants

The proposal sets up another clash between blue-state Democrats and the president.

By VICTORIA COLLIVER, Politico,  5/21/18

“California has never waited for the federal government, or for a political climate, to be able to take leadership on a whole host of issues,” state Sen. Ricardo Lara, author of the state Senate bill to extend Medicaid coverage to all adults, told POLITICO.

California is poised to become the first state in the nation to offer full health coverage to undocumented adults even as the Trump administration intensifies its crackdown by separating families at the border.

The proposal — which would build on Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2015 decision to extend health coverage to all children, regardless of immigration status — is one of the most daring examples yet of blue-state Democrats thumbing their nose at President Donald Trump as they pursue diametrically opposed policies, whether on immigration, climate change, legalized marijuana or health care.

“California has never waited for the federal government, or for a political climate, to be able to take leadership on a whole host of issues,” state Sen. Ricardo Lara, author of the state Senate bill to extend Medicaid coverage to all adults, told POLITICO.

But at a time when Trump is already attempting to re-energize state Republican voters — he met with California conservatives at the White House last week to strategize against the state’s sanctuary policies — the initiative might be risky. For starters, it will be costly: The annual price tag to expand Medicaid benefits to poor adult immigrants without legal status is projected at $3 billion annually. Some also worry that extending health coverage could make California a magnet for undocumented immigrants from other states.

“It would give Republicans relevance in California they would never have before,” said David McCuan, a political analyst and political science professor at Sonoma State University. He suggested the proposal would energize Republican voters, who make up a quarter of the electorate, as well as conservative-leaning unaffiliated voters.

Any meaningful opposition could slow the plan’s progress through the state Legislature despite its strong backing from Democrats, providers and advocates for the poor.

Brown, who is leaving office later this year and has not yet committed to the plan, is required by law to sign or veto bills passed this session by Sept. 30, just five weeks before the midterm elections. And the injection of immigration politics into the universal health care debate will likely provide talking points for both parties.

“It seems to me astounding that California could consider an expansion like this at this particular moment,” said Paul Ginsburg, director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy. He described the plan as “fiscally very dangerous” given California’s fragile long-term financial outlook and the potential negative effects of the Republican tax overhaul on the state’s budget.

But Lara, the son of undocumented Mexican immigrants who grew up without health coverage, contended the state is already paying for health care for the undocumented in the most expensive way possible, through hospital emergency rooms. He pushed unsuccessfully for a single payer health plan for California last year, and argues California needs to be a laboratory for social change by taking the lead on progressive causes.

“We are trying to address the fact that, whether you like it or not,” he said, “our undocumented community needs the care, and we are paying for it anyway.”

Democrats say they want to build on the coverage gains made under Obamacare by targeting the state’s nearly 3 million remaining uninsured — about 60 percent of whom are undocumented immigrants and 1.2 million of whom would qualify for the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, based on their incomes. Companion bills in the state Assembly and Senate have easily passed their respective health committees with party-line votes.

Still, the latest revisions to Brown’s proposed budget last week did not include significant increases in health spending — a move that frustrated some backers of the expansion, who note the state’s budget surplus has swelled to nearly $9 billion — about $3 billion more than expected.

“It’s doable for a fraction of the budget surplus we have,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy coalition. “We recognize if we were to do so, we would be the first state to expand Medicaid to an [undocumented] adult population.”

Wright acknowledged the price tag may look alarming but said it should be viewed within the context of Medi-Cal’s $100 billion budget. He also emphasized that covering only poor young people and the elderly — which the budget forecasts estimated at $140 million and $330 million, respectively — could be more achievable in the short term. A Senate health budget sub-committee on Thursday recommended covering undocumented adults over age 65 as part of the Senate funding package to be considered during negotiations.

California already provides emergency and pregnancy-related Medi-Cal benefits for undocumented immigrants to the tune of about $1.7 billion annually. The $3 billion for full Medi-Cal benefits assumes that all eligible adults would enroll in the program over 12 months, which is unlikely.

Micah Weinberg, president of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, said the cost debate must take into account the measure’s broader benefits, including increased worker productivity and improved community health.

“Since most undocumented immigrants are productive members of society, it would, of course, be much better to give them all a path to citizenship and immediately naturalize them to make it easier for them to buy regular health insurance,” Weinberg said. “But just because we have bad immigration policy does not mean we shouldn’t have good health policy. And truly universal coverage is good health policy.”

Other health economists struck a more cautious note.

Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford physician and health economist, said the plan should have a dedicated funding source, which could mean higher taxes. “Looking at the current surplus and saying we’re likely to have that forever so we should spend more doesn’t seem like a wise idea to me,” Bhattacharya said.

Bhattacharya also expressed concerns that the extension could exacerbate the state’s illegal immigration problems. “If you make a program like this available, undocumented workers in other states might be attracted to California because of this,” he said.

But Lara insisted the bill is not only a long-term cost-saver, it’s the right thing to do.

“All you have to do is say ‘immigration’ in Washington, D.C., and everyone runs to their respective corners,” he said. “That doesn’t happen in California.”

 

Indoor use limits, water budgets and aerial data gathering: California’s plan to wean us off water waste

Sacramento is always looking for new ways to control your life.  Now the totalitarians of Sacramento want to use drones to spy on your use of water in your home.  No, this is NOT a joke—this is an action that the Soviet Union would be proud of doing, if it had the technology.

“The pair of bills, AB 1668 and SB 606, introduce a number of measures:

  • Sets a statewide indoor water use standard of 55 gallons, per person, per day. This will get lower over time.
  • Comes up with outdoor water use targets that are based on the type of landscaping (lawn vs native plants, for example) and climate. So grassy lawns in cool, coastal areas wouldn’t need as much water as in hot, dry, inland areas.
  • Informs water districts how much of each type of landscaping they have in their communities, based on the findings of the aerial data collection

Isn’t this how a totalitarian State operates?  Welcome to the Confederate State of California.

Shower head water drought

Indoor use limits, water budgets and aerial data gathering: California’s plan to wean us off water waste

Emily Guerin, KPCC,  5/18/18

In the next 18 months, a small plane will fly over every city in California, recording data on what kind of plants are growing in our lawns, parks and street medians. That data will help determine where we’re wasting water, and help cities use it more efficiently.

It’s a radical departure from the way water conservation has been done in California in the past, when, during water emergencies, state officials would simply instruct cities to cut usage by a certain percentage.

The measure is part of two state bills designed to get Californians to use water more wisely even when there’s not a drought.

But not everyone is happy. Some water agencies say the measures go too far. Some environmentalists say they’re not radical enough for our water woes. But either way, the bills have passed the legislature, and with the governor’s signature, will become law.

So…what exactly is in the bills? 

The pair of bills, AB 1668 and SB 606, introduce a number of measures:

  • Sets a statewide indoor water use standard of 55 gallons, per person, per day. This will get lower over time.
  • Comes up with outdoor water use targets that are based on the type of landscaping (lawn vs native plants, for example) and climate. So grassy lawns in cool, coastal areas wouldn’t need as much water as in hot, dry, inland areas.
  • Informs water districts how much of each type of landscaping they have in their communities, based on the findings of the aerial data collection
  • Sets a “leak standard” for how much water pipelines and other water lines in each water district can lose
  • Requires water agencies to plan for longer droughts

The state won’t start enforcing the new, district-wide standards until 2023. Before that, the State Water Resource Control Board will be responsible for gathering the landscape data, and coming up with the new outdoor and leak standards. The first milestone is January, when the board has to report back to the legislature with its recommendation for a leak standard.

Why are these changes happening now?

These bills are basically the legislature’s response to Governor Brown, who asked lawmakers in May 2016 to come up with a way to get Californians to permanently use less water.

Californians did a great job saving water during the drought, which lasted from 2012-2016. We achieved the Governor’s goal of slashing water use by 25 percent below what it was in 2013.

But Brown and the State Water Resources Control Board recognized that those cutbacks were in response to an emergency – the worst drought in 500 years – and that the savings might not be sustainable. Therefore, something different would be required to save water in the long-term.

Who supports the new rules?

Many environmental groups, and water agencies from large cities like Los Angeles and Long Beach have backed the measures.

Tracy Quinn, a water policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, says the bills are less heavy-handed than the Governor’s mandatory 25 percent conservation measures during the water emergency.

“There was a lot of discomfort with how the State Water Board handled the last drought,” she said, when the board told each city and water agency how much to cut back. Some cities had to cut as much as 36 percent below their 2013 baseline.

The new bills, however, will customize water efficiency targets for each district, taking into account climate, landscaping and other local factors. And they won’t focus as explicitly on cutting back, but rather on using water wisely.

The idea, according to Quinn, is to let state officials easily identify communities “that are egregiously wasting water.” She says the bills “should result in greater savings” than a 2009 law that required water agencies to cut their use by 20 percent by 2020, but said it’s really not clear, yet, how much water they will save.

So who’s not in favor?

Some worry about the lack of specificity in the measures. Precisely because they don’t assign conservation targets, it’s unclear how much water these bills would actually save. And that makes some people wonder what the point is — like Gary Arant, the general manager of the Valley Center Municipal Water District in northern San Diego County.

“It’s a hell of a lot of work,” to comply with the new standards, he said, “and I don’t know if it results in any more savings or not.”

He also feels the measures are overly controlling.

“The way I view it is, a very small group of people, like the environmental community, is using these regulations to impose their lifestyle perspective on everybody in California,” he said. “They believe we use far too much water. But our water consumption has gone down dramatically in the last 10 years.”

Indeed, Arant’s customers are still using less water than before the drought began, although their usage has ticked up since Governor Brown called the drought off last April.

How much is 55 gallons for indoor use anyway?

That’s a target for every time you use water – wash the dishes, take a shower, flush the toilet. It shouldn’t be that hard to meet actually because in some cities we’re actually doing that already. And residents of Huntington Park and East Los Angeles, for example, each use less than that in total, indoors and outdoors.

Which is a reason why some environmentalists oppose the bills — because they don’t go far enough.

Sara Aminzadeh, Executive Director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance, said the 55 gallon indoor water use standard could be much more ambitious.

“Rather than setting a target that we can strive toward, it’s a very conservative number that almost everybody is already meeting,” Aminzadeh said.

And that’s 55 gallons of fresh, drinkable woater. Recycled water isn’t restricted, which also bothers Aminzadeh.

“We think all water should be valued and conserved, especially that as expensive to generate as recycled water,” she said.

If I use more water than that, will I be penalized?

Not by the State Water Resources Control Board. The new indoor, outdoor, and leak targets apply to water districts as a whole, not individual people. But in order to comply with the new standards, water districts may step up enforcement of water use by their customers, or change the way water rates are structured.

Gary Arant, for example, said he’ll have to completely overhaul the way he charges his customers for water. Right now, customers in his district pay a flat rate for water. No matter how much you use, you pay the same amount. Under the new bills, Arant says he will have to change his rate structure to give every customer guidelines to using water efficiently on their property, known as a “water budget”. If they go over the budget, they’ll pay a fine or higher rates.

First we had a drought, then we didn’t — what’s the latest forecast for our water supply? 

We’re doing OK this year. The snowpack in the mountains above the Colorado River, which provides up to a third of Southern California’s water, was 70 percent of normal. And in the Sierra Nevada, our other primary source of drinking water, snowpack was half of normal. Not great, but not a crisis, either.

However the outlook for the future is not good, as climate change threatens both sources of our drinking water. The Colorado River’s flow has shrunk by seven percent over the past 30 years due to rising air temperatures that suck moisture into the atmosphere from the snow and from the river itself, according to the US Geological Survey. And if we do nothing to control our greenhouse gas emissions, Sierra snowpack could be 64 percent smaller by 2100 than it was at the end of the 20th century, according to a recent UCLA and Oregon State study. 

Our groundwater, a key source of supply for many cities and agricultural areas, isn’t in good shape either. Local aquifers sank to historically low levels during the drought and still not have rebounded. A new study in Nature by NASA found that Southwestern California lost 4 gigatons of freshwater from 2007-2015, enough to fill 1.6 million Olympic swimming pools. And the study authors are pessimistic about whether those aquifers will ever recharge, unless we dramatically reduce the amount of water we’re using.

“I’m extremely concerned about water supplies in the next 5 to 20 years,” said Sara Aminzadeh from California Coastkeeper Alliance. “We’ve always been water challenged as a state. All studies indicate we’ll see more frequent droughts and more severe droughts” punctuated by extreme flooding.

 

California May Push Uber And Lyft To Go Electric, With Far-Reaching Consequences

If you owned a business, would you want government to mandate the type of equipment to be used, the cost of that equipment and forcing you to throw away equipment that is still working well?  The totalitarians in Sacramento believe they know how to run your business better than you.

“A bill wending its way through the State Senate would mandate that starting in 2023, 20% of miles traveled by ride-hailing services be in zero-emission vehicles (i.e., electrics), rising to 50% by 2026. By 2030, 100% of vehicles purchased, leased or contracted by the services would have to be ZEVs.  Dubbed E-CAr, or Electrify California Ride-hailing, the bill went to Senate Appropriations for review this week after clearing two other committees in April. If approved to move forward, it must then pass both houses of the legislature and be signed by the governor to become law.

“It makes the most sense to focus on those cars that are going to be on the road the most,” the bill’s author, state Sen. Nancy Skinner, told Forbes. “It doesn’t necessarily make sense to have all of our electric vehicles be somebody’s second or third vehicle that’s mostly just parked in their garage.”

Yup—Democrats want to run Uber and Lyft, without taking the financial risk.  In fact, these policies are based on ideology, not free choice.  Think about your business—could government demand you use ONLY the energy source it wants?  Well, the State has demanded starting in 2020 all new homes MUST use solar energy—killing off oil, wind turbines and other alternative sources of energy.  Government decides—NOT you!

uber

California May Push Uber And Lyft To Go Electric, With Far-Reaching Consequences

 

 

Alan Ohnsman , Forbes  Online, 5/16/18

Legislation making its way through the California Senate, if passed and signed into law, would require a majority of vehicles in rideshare networks such as Uber’s and Lyft’s to be electric by the end of the next decade.

For more than a decade California has pushed automakers to green their lineups by selling zero-emission vehicles to aid its fight against pollution and greenhouse gases. But as more people opt for on-demand ride services rather than driving themselves, it was only a matter of time before state officials targeted Uber and Lyft fleets to reduce emissions.

bill wending its way through the State Senate would mandate that starting in 2023, 20% of miles traveled by ride-hailing services be in zero-emission vehicles (i.e., electrics), rising to 50% by 2026. By 2030, 100% of vehicles purchased, leased or contracted by the services would have to be ZEVs.  Dubbed E-CAr, or Electrify California Ride-hailing, the bill went to Senate Appropriations for review this week after clearing two other committees in April. If approved to move forward, it must then pass both houses of the legislature and be signed by the governor to become law.

“It makes the most sense to focus on those cars that are going to be on the road the most,” the bill’s author, state Sen. Nancy Skinner, told Forbes. “It doesn’t necessarily make sense to have all of our electric vehicles be somebody’s second or third vehicle that’s mostly just parked in their garage.”

Given the scale of Uber and Lyft’s networks in California, the most populous U.S. state, Skinner’s bill could have a major impact on the national electric vehicle market. In 2017 a total of 199,826 electric vehicles were sold nationwide, with California accounting for nearly half. Uber and Lyft currently have more than 200,0000 drivers on their platforms in the Golden State, suggesting a huge potential market.

For the E-CAr plan to work effectively, however, it will need incentives to encourage Uber, Lyft, automakers and drivers to switch from gasoline to batteries. That’s because EVs typically cost at least $10,000 more than equivalent gasoline-powered vehicles, a cost that has to be borne by the drivers, not the companies.

“The cars are not actually owned by Uber or Lyft, so the challenge is how do you operationalize those rules? That’s part of the problem,” said Dan Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis and a member of the California Air Resources Board, which created and oversees the state’s ZEV program. For the legislation to work as intended, incentives are needed to encourage large-scale adoption of EVs by people driving for rideshare companies, including discounted lease and purchase programs from automakers, he said.

“The car companies are saying one of the conditions they’d like to see is, with regard to greenhouse gas standards, that they get extra credit if the vehicles are used as autonomous or shared vehicles,” Sperling told Forbes. “At least in California, we’re all for that. … That’s the kind of the thing that is likely to get into that negotiation.”

At the moment, Uber’s position on the legislation is “neutral,” according to a company spokesman. Rival Lyft is somewhat more anxious.

“Our concern with this bill is the impact it would have on Lyft drivers, the vast majority of whom drive part-time as a way to supplement income and support their families,” said spokesman Adrian Durbin. “We are engaging with the sponsor of this legislation to find ways to prioritize infrastructure development and incentivize EVs.”

At the same time, Lyft favors “displacing gasoline-powered vehicles and moving towards electric vehicles powered by renewable energy,” he said. “We doubled down on that goal by committing to offset carbon emissions for all Lyft rides indefinitely, thereby building into our business a strong financial incentive to move away from gasoline-powered vehicles.”

California Governor Jerry Brown has set a goal of getting 5 million EVs on state roads by 2030, and the state has earmarked funds to subsidize vehicle purchases as well as for charging infrastructure.

Range is also an issue, as drivers need vehicles that can reliably go 150 miles or more between charges and be repowered rapidly. For now, about the only viable options are General Motors’ Chevrolet Bolt hatchback, with an EPA range of 238 miles per charge and a base price of  $37,495—before federal and state incentives that knock off $10,000—and Nissan’s new 151-mile range Leaf, priced from $29,990 before incentives. Should Tesla eventually unsnarl its Model 3 production and actually build a base version of the sedan priced at $35,000 before incentives, its 220-mile range could make it a candidate for TNC service.

Regardless, dozens of new EV models are heading to market from every major automaker over the next two to three years, and battery prices and performance keep getting better. A large, dedicated source of demand for lower-priced EVs might also appeal to some manufacturers.

Along with arranging discounted lease and finance deals for rideshare drivers, GM’s Maven car-share unit is already experimenting with a business that could be a model for more electric Uber and Lyft trips. Its Maven Gig program leases Bolts by the week for people who want to drive for rideshare and on-demand delivery services but lack a car. Vehicles are stored at charging stations, and drivers don’t have to pay for fuel, but the rental charge of $229 per week is probably too high, Sperling said.

“You’ve got to bring the price down a little, but if we created those incentives for automakers, where they got extra credit, I think they might be more willing to do that,” he said.

California requires carmakers to sell specific numbers of zero-emission vehicles annually, each of which gets a specific number of credits. If they sell too few or don’t have ZEVs in their model lines, carmakers can buy credits from companies like Tesla that generate a surplus of them so a credit multiplier for rideshare EVs could be appealing.

Getting more EVs into rideshare fleets in dense urban areas would magnify their emissions impact since Uber and Lyft drivers ferry dozens of passengers daily, versus single trips taken by individual owners.

Given its scale, a commitment by Uber to get large numbers of electric vehicles of its network would trigger the kind of broad-based industry and government reaction taking shape with its plans for an air-taxi service in the 2020s, said Pasquale Romano, president and CEO of ChargePoint, which says it operates the world’s largest EV charging network.

“If they lean into this and do it in California, it will cause a whole bunch of ecosystem players, ChargePoint, the utilities, automakers, regulators, CARB, the California Public Utilities Commission, all to come off the sidelines and say, ‘okay, what do we need to change, what do we need to do to make this work?” he said. “Every good offense is a good defense. Go in and say, ‘Okay, I’m going to be completely into this. We’re going to clean up the fleet incrementally, we’re not going to be able to do this overnight, but we’ll commit to doing it in steps.’”

Alan Ohnsman covers technology-driven changes reshaping transportation

UCSC students say historical mission bell ‘represents genocide’

I expect any day now the Democrat/Progressive totalitarians demand the missions in California, set up by the Spanish, will be torn down and affordable housing for illegal aliens and terrorists.  It starts small—like getting rid of a bell on campus that commemorates a bell on campus representing the 21 California missions.

The petition contends that the marker is a “painful and oppressive symbol for…indigenous peoples of California,” demanding that it be replaced with a “public educational marker” recognizing the local Uypi tribe.

Students at the University of California, Santa Cruz are calling for the removal of a traditional California “mission bell” from campus because it “represents genocide.”

California mission bells mark the path of the historic El Camino Real, the 700 mile trail that connected the 21 California missions. The bells are a common way of recognizing state history, and have marked the route of the El Camino Real since 1906, with hundreds of them currently dotting the landscape.

As for me, I think this is racist.  It show a KKK strategy against people of color and their heritage.  Support ending the bells on campus and if scratched, you will find a KKK bigot.  What do you think?

Junipero Serra and the Legacies of the California Missions. Virginia Steele Scott Galleries, Erburu Wing. Aug. 17, 2013-Jan. 6, 2014. Copy of the portrait of Father Junipero Serra from Santa Cruz convent, Queretaro, by Father Jose Mosqueda, n.d. Oil on canvas, 32 x 26 1/2 in. Santa Barbara Mission Archive-Library. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens.

 

UCSC students say historical mission bell ‘represents genocide’

 

Celine Ryan, Campus Reform,  5/17/18

 

 

  • Students are petitioning the University of California, Santa Cruz to remove a historical “mission bell” on campus marking the path of the El Camino Real trail connecting the 21 California missions.
  • The petition contends that the marker is a “painful and oppressive symbol for…indigenous peoples of California,” demanding that it be replaced with a “public educational marker” recognizing the local Uypi tribe.

Students at the University of California, Santa Cruz are calling for the removal of a traditional California “mission bell” from campus because it “represents genocide.”

California mission bells mark the path of the historic El Camino Real, the 700 mile trail that connected the 21 California missions. The bells are a common way of recognizing state history, and have marked the route of the El Camino Real since 1906, with hundreds of them currently dotting the landscape.

“The mission bell outside of Hahn Student Services represents the genocide of the indigenous Uypi tribe on the land that UCSC is now on.”    Tweet This

The state of California has its own “Mission Bell Project,” with state-funded bells running the length of the original path, often in conjunction with major California highways. The bells erected by the state are replicas, crafted from the same molds of the original historical markers, which had to be removed over the years due to damage, vandalism, and theft.

The historic city of Santa Cruz is named after Mission Santa Cruz, and as a result, the UC Santa Cruz campus is home to one simple mission bell marking the path of the El Camino Real, which happens to run through campus.

In conjunction with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, which represents the local Uypi tribe, students are now requesting that the school remove the bell.

While the petition acknowledges that the bell is “intended to symbolize and honor the history associated with the California Missions and El Camino Real,” it insists that the marker is a “painful and oppressive symbol for the Amah Mutsun and other indigenous peoples of California,” and therefore “does not represent the values embraced by the campus community.”

“El Camino Real and the California Missions were responsible for the destruction and domination of the Uypi Tribe including their humanity, culture, environment, and spirituality,” the petition states, asserting that “the mission bell is a painful and oppressive symbol for the Amah Mutsun and other indigenous peoples of California.”

“The mission bell outside of Hahn Student Services represents the genocide of the indigenous Uypi tribe on the land that UCSC is now on,” one student posted to a private Facebook group for UCSC students. “We must remove the bell and replace it with a statue or figure that represents those who rightfully own this land, to give them representation.”

Students are demanding that the bell “be recycled for peaceful purposes, so it may not be further displayed as a symbol of dominance,” and that it be replaced by a “public educational marker” located in “a prominent location on campus grounds that recognizes the Uypi people on whose lands the campus was built, as well as their culture, spirituality, and history.”

Only students with valid UCSC login credentials are able to sign the petition, and petition organizers have not provided Campus Reform with an estimate of the current number of signatories.

“They’re wasting the UCSC student body’s and administration’s time over a non-issue that misrepresents an important part of California’s history for the sole purpose of feeling morally superior, cause who wants to be the person on the side of ‘genocide and slavery?’” College Republicans President Brandon Lang told Campus Reform. “The bells were intended to act as road markers for the historic El Camino Real, the fist road to span California, not as ‘symbols of genocide.'”

“The people who want this and others like them know they can’t get anything of substance done, so they focus on ‘symbolic’ things such as the removal of statues from the public space or changing of names, actions that are quick and easy but don’t cause any real positive change in society for the people they want to help,” Lang added.

 

Major Donor Pulls Funding From University Of Minnesota For Discriminating Against Ben Shapiro

How do you stop the bullies on campus, the professors that hate students and freedom?  The Administrators that refuse to stand up to bigots and haters—how do we bring them down and return sanity to the system?  Only one way—squeeze the schools for money.  Stop donating to your favorite school, stop funding your alma mater—that considers you a racist, bigot and do not deserve free speech—just continue giving your money to finance the second coming of Moscow and Havana.

“In a letter to University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler, the donor, who came from the class of 1962, wrote:

I believe the treatment of Ben Shapiro was clearly a case of discrimination. It was not discrimination by race or gender. It was more damaging than that. You have discriminated against the free dissemination of ideas.

The question then becomes why you discriminate against conservative thought. My simple theory is that the administration and faculty of our major bodies of higher education are fearful. They are fearful that once people like Ben Shapiro speak about their conservative ideas, the students will begin to understand a simple fact. It is the fact that they have been exposed to only one way of thinking and thus will be furious over having spent so much time and money only to find out that they have been essentially brainwashed.”

Does anyone thing the Sanderista’s are going to donate for a new building, a wing of the hospital or for endowments?  Let the Administrators understand they are protecting the evil that causes riots, high taxes and bigotry in America.  Making it easy for Pocahontas to get on campus and stop Ben Shapiro from speaking shows the totalitarian nature of the modern campus.  End the discrimination, bring back free speech—by stopping donations to the college of your choice.

Milo Yiannopoulos, the polarizing Breitbart News editor, speaks at California Polytechnic State University as part of his "The Dangerous Faggot Tour" of college campuses, Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2017, in San Luis Obispo, Calif.  His speech was met with dozens of angry protesters outside a campus theater. (David Middlecamp/The Tribune (of San Luis Obispo) via AP)

Major Donor Pulls Funding From University Of Minnesota For Discriminating Against Ben Shapiro

By Hank Berrien, Daily Wire,  5/22/18

After the shabby treatment the University of Minnesota doled out to Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro in February, relegating him to speaking off-campus rather than on the main campus despite the fact that they had easily found space on campus for arch-leftist Senator Elizabeth Warren and home state leftist Senator Al Franken, a major donor to the university has pulled their funding and shifted to partnering with Young Americans for Freedom—the chapter affiliate of Young America’s Foundation, which had sponsored Shapiro’s speech.

In a letter to University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler, the donor, who came from the class of 1962, wrote:

I believe the treatment of Ben Shapiro was clearly a case of discrimination. It was not discrimination by race or gender. It was more damaging than that. You have discriminated against the free dissemination of ideas.

The question then becomes why you discriminate against conservative thought. My simple theory is that the administration and faculty of our major bodies of higher education are fearful. They are fearful that once people like Ben Shapiro speak about their conservative ideas, the students will begin to understand a simple fact. It is the fact that they have been exposed to only one way of thinking and thus will be furious over having spent so much time and money only to find out that they have been essentially brainwashed.

Because of this, I have decided to give my annual contribution for scholarship at the U of M to the Young Americans for Freedom.

The donor concluded the letter, “An excellent example of how much damage you have done; I am not signing my name for fear of political retaliation.”

Young America’s Foundation spokesman Spencer Brown stated,

We applaud this patriotic American’s decision to withhold support from an institution that undermines and discriminates against conservatives. Such a decision is an important first step in giving students a full, ideologically diverse education that includes conservative ideas. It’s a tragedy that this once-proud alumnus of the University of Minnesota has been abandoned by his alma mater. With the meaningful support of individuals such as the author of this letter, Young America’s Foundation is able to continue the vital work of holding schools accountable, including through YAF’s First Amendment lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley.

 

Committee Holds Proposal to Tax Services, Schedules Additional Hearings

Great news!!  The Democrats have found a way to raise taxes, cut job opportunities, bring tens of billions to Sacramento and help the economy of Nevada, Arizona and Texas.

“CalTax leads a coalition of more than 100 businesses and trade associations in opposition.

“This is a massive tax increase on California employers,” said CalTax Director of State Fiscal Policy Therese Twomey, the primary witness for the opposition. She noted that while the bill exempts healthcare services from the tax, it would increase the cost of healthcare in California because medical providers’ purchases of services, including legal services, billing, accounting and janitorial, would be subject to tax . Similarly, she said, private colleges and universities would be subject to tax on their services, which would lead to tuition increases for California students.”

This is what happens when you have a one Party State—with GOP’ers helping raise taxes (i.e. Chad Mayes, Rocky Chavez and others) and Democrats deciding to tax your CPA, attorney and anything that moves or does not move.  Think living in California is expensive?  If SB 993 passes, even the rich will leave the State.  Unless you are in the Zuckerberg class, an ordinary millionaire will find it hard to make ends meet.  Then Jerry Brown would have won—his foal of depopulating California will be at hand.

Taxes

Committee Holds Proposal to Tax Services, Schedules Additional Hearings

CalTax,  5/18/18

The Senate Governance and Finance Committee on May 16 declined to vote on CalTax-opposed legislation proposing to tax services purchased or used by businesses in California (SB 993, Hertzberg), and instead announced plans to hold several additional hearings on the issue.

Senator Mike McGuire, who chairs the committee, announced at the start of the proceedings that there would be no vote – often a sign that the author believes the bill would fail if brought to a vote. Instead, McGuire said, the hearing would be “a kickoff … to a series of hearings … that will be advancing an extended conversation about a services tax.”

McGuire said the committee will hold a panel discussion on June 13 to conduct “a deeper dive into this issue.” The panel will include representatives of the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, he said.

During a 35-minute opening statement that included several tangents about his multiyear quest to tax services – comparing it to walking to the moon with an elephant on his shoulders – Senator Robert Hertzberg said his bill is intended to mitigate volatility of tax revenue and to “modernize” the system. “Services today account for nearly 80 percent of the economy,” he said.

Hertzberg repeatedly said his bill would be revenue-neutral in the aggregate, and that some taxpayers would have a net benefit because the measure includes a 3 percent tax on services and a 2 percent reduction in the state sales and use tax rate on tangible personal property. He also played an animated video that began with the message that taxes are needed to pay for things people want their government to do, like pave roads, but then shifted to a message that his bill represents “a tax cut for most Californians” and would mean that “out-of-state corporations will be forced to pay their fair share.”

Although supporters of the bill argue that the tax on services is needed primarily to reduce the volatility of the state’s tax structure, which is heavily dependent on income tax revenue from high earners, the video said the bill would “ask the most fortunate among us to do their part.”

CalTax leads a coalition of more than 100 businesses and trade associations in opposition.

“This is a massive tax increase on California employers,” said CalTax Director of State Fiscal Policy Therese Twomey, the primary witness for the opposition. She noted that while the bill exempts healthcare services from the tax, it would increase the cost of healthcare in California because medical providers’ purchases of services, including legal services, billing, accounting and janitorial, would be subject to tax . Similarly, she said, private colleges and universities would be subject to tax on their services, which would lead to tuition increases for California students.

Twomey discussed the problem of tax pyramiding, giving an example of a product that is taxed during multiple stages of production, and said the costs either would be passed on to consumers, or would result in businesses reducing wages, cutting jobs or relocating out of the state. The job losses would translate to lower income tax revenue for the state, she said.

Additionally, Twomey pointed out that under provisions of SB 993 that would require apportioning of the tax to services used in California, a service provider would have to know at the time of sale how and where the purchaser would use the service. She noted that the seller would have no knowledge of these factors at the time of sale, but would be subject to penalties if the tax is applied incorrectly.

Jim Ewert of the California News Publishers Association testified that the bill is “an existential threat to newspapers,” and that the tax-pyramiding problem “cannot be overstated.” Newspapers are operating on a “razor-thin margin” already, and could be forced out of business by the new tax, he said.

Hertzberg has introduced a services tax every year for the past four years. After stating that that he has taken the time to “ask the hard questions,” he compared his tax measure to the landmark federal law that banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, telling the committee: “It took 41 times for the Civil Rights Act to pass Congress.”

The senator said he understands that some people argue that his bill is just the “nose under the tent,” possibly leading to a more expansive tax on services, and said: “Maybe so.” He called his bill a “first small step toward modernization.”

The bill is supported by the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The hearing room was packed with opponents, including representatives of the California Manufacturing and Technology Association, National Federation of Independent Business, California Cable & Telecommunications Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, UPS, California Broadcasters Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and associations representing architects, accountants, wineries and other industries.

A representative of the California Chamber of Commerce said the bill “would increase the cost of doing business in an already costly state.”

 

How Obama became the first communist president

The issue is not the use of the term “communist”, but the proper use of the term.  While most do not like to proclaim themselves communist, because of the Soviet Union, China and Cuba, that does not mean they should run from their ideology—Barack Obama is a great example of being a “communist”, a believer that government is greater than the individual, that government should own the means of production and set the rules for living.

“The Protestant church was a driving force in ending slavery. “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” is exactly what the title says it is. (“As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, while God is marching on.”) Yes, I know Southern churches favored slavery, but the black church served as Moses for the slaves.

Revisionist history swept this aside. Obama refused to associate with the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation or the Gettysburg Address or Lee’s surrender at Appomattox or passage of the 13th Amendment. Obama knew well that the deaths of 300,000 Union soldiers to set men free is a truth that undercuts the communist argument that ours is an illegitimate country built on genocide and slavery.

Indeed, academia now views the Constitution as a slave document rather than 13 colonies forming a unified nation.”

He loves taxes—government knows how to spend your money.  Obama opposes free speech, incarceration of criminals, thinks schools are indoctrination centers and Islamic terrorism is OK, but Israeli freedom is wrong.  Is Obama a communist?  Probably, but I will guarantee he is a totalitarian.

obama-confused-600x347

 

How Obama became the first communist president

Don Surber,  5/20/18

The use of the state to spy on and infiltrate the campaign of a political opponent is the final proof of the truth that we have averted our eyes from for the last 14 years.

Barack Obama is a communist. Mild compared to Castro or Mao, but nevertheless a believer in state control of everything.

Electing a communist president was easy, although it took more than seven decades. While the steps were many — Stalin’s Soviet Union collapsed before achieving his goal — the major ones are obvious in hindsight.

The quest began after Stalin stole America’s nuclear bomb secrets. Roy Cohn prosecuted Stalin’s spies. We hanged them.

Stalin got revenge. He placed a big fat target on Cohn, who went to Washington to help Senator Joseph McCarthy ferret communists out of the Army and State Department.

Many people confuse this with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, which examined communism in Hollywood. Much ridiculed in the press (even conservatives mocked HUAC) look at Hollywood today and try to deny that communism lives on in America’s entertainment industry.

The elitists ripped McCarthy, called his quest for the truth a witch hunt, and made his name synonymous with the type of investigative fishing expedition Bobby Mueller has engaged in.

The net result was you no longer could call anyone a communist in America. Not even an actual communist. We call them liberal, progressive, socialist, and even Marxist, but never in polite society may we call them communists.

The downfall of McCarthy protected the communists in our federal government. We put one — John Brennan — as head of our CIA.

Various Lyndon Johnson changes weakened state governments. Medicaid, which pays for health care for the poor, consumes 15% or so of state budgets. This has driven states to adopt gambling, state sales taxes, state income taxes, and more in an effort to pay the state’s share

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 forced states to gerrymander along racial lines, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. Johnson was too clever by half as states herded black voters into black electoral ghettos. This made it easier for Republicans to eventually regain control of the House.

The takeover of the academic world was a natural. Smart people are easy to fool. Just stroke their egos and tell them how smart they are.

Churches were easily compromised. Johnson in the 1950s convinced Congress to ban allowing churches to engage in politics — using IRS tax exceptions to keep them in line. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment as well a repudiation of the founding principle of the nation: freedom of religion.

The Protestant church was a driving force in ending slavery. “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” is exactly what the title says it is. (“As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, while God is marching on.”) Yes, I know Southern churches favored slavery, but the black church served as Moses for the slaves.

Revisionist history swept this aside. Obama refused to associate with the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation or the Gettysburg Address or Lee’s surrender at Appomattox or passage of the 13th Amendment. Obama knew well that the deaths of 300,000 Union soldiers to set men free is a truth that undercuts the communist argument that ours is an illegitimate country built on genocide and slavery.

Indeed, academia now views the Constitution as a slave document rather than 13 colonies forming a unified nation.

But the churches did not go away into that last goodnight. Born-again Christians — now called evangelicals — broke away from the mainstream churches to oppose what eventually became the New World Order.

Communists hate churches. Stalin leveled thousands of them. Religion is the opiate of the masses, comforting them and giving them hope of a New Day long after this life ends.

This is not to denounce all the changes over the last seven decades. My goodness is our world better than our grandparents world. Race relations have greatly improved. the air is clean and so is the water. Mental illness no longer is a life sentence in a state hospital.

But many changes threaten the soul of America, most predominately the acceptance of abortion as a means of birth control, even as pills and devices should make abortion obsolete.

The Lord has given us tools to communicate instantly and globally.

But these tools also give the government, through its corporate sponsors, the ability t oppress.

Donald Trump poses a threat to all that power. When they say he is destroying democratic institutions, what they mean is he is taking back control of those institutions from the Deep State communists. His is a battle for the soul of America.