Checking in on Quantum Leap

Last year, before the series started (or, resumed), I wrote about what we might see and not see in this revival of Quantum Leap. 

Was I right? And what are my other thoughts and observations?

It was smart of them to make this a continuation instead of a remake. This instantly hooks those of us who were fans of the original series and are willing to give a revival a chance.

So far, this series seems less "playful" than the original, although I could just be missing a lot of easter eggs. For example, in one episode, when the lead character organizes a makeshift Rube Goldberg operation, he gives a nod to The A-Team.

Like the original, it makes use of the Universal Studios backlot and various episodes seem inspired by hit movies from other the years. For example, one episode was reminiscent of "The Bodyguard."

A significant difference this time around, which, given what's happened to television and sci-fi isn't a surprise, is that much more of it is set in the present day, at Project Quantum Leap headquarters and mostly nearby, with ongoing storylines involving the characters who work there. As such, episodes typically bounce back and forth between where and when the Leaper (Dr. Ben Song) is, and PQL HQ (and where the members of the team go). In the original series, Sam was pressured to leap because of official government actions. This time, Ben apparently went rogue even against the staff of PQL, including his own fiancee. So while the original consisted of mostly self-contained episodes, this is more of a primetime soap opera. So far, it's working.

So far, 12 episodes in, elements from my previous post I've noticed are:

• Promotion of Leftist ideology regarding gender (transgender, genderfluid, non-binary, etc.)
• Greedy landlords and business owners/executives
• "Dreamers" and "undocumented immigrants" with hearts of gold and contributions to the USA

I'm not sure they well full-speed on the last one. The character might be a legal immigrant, but he joined the military for citizenship purposes, and was portrayed as having a clean record.

One of the actors is out as nonbinary, and their character is, too. Amazingly, there was great restraint in not mentioning it until several episodes in. Anyone who can see and hear knows from the start "something is up" with the character. I looked up the actor. But don't worry! They made up for their restraint in Episode 12!

Episode 1 touches on healthcare costs.

Episode 3 depicts PTSD from Vietnam.

Episode 5 depicts an old west town in the Nineteenth Century with "diverse" residents, fighting off the greedy railroad. I'll give you one guess at the gender and skin color of the main villain.

Episode 8 depicts am abusive boarding academy for troubled teens in 1996. Of course one of the several who have been abused and are running away is pretty much just there at the academy because she's a lesbian.

Episode 10 kind of does a bit of "The Fugitive" thing with Big Pharma.

Episode 11 features a military cover-up involving nuclear technology in the 1960s.

Episode 12 gets us a double dose! Ben leaps into a high school basketball coach in 2012 who has a son who thinks he's a girl, and wants to play basketball. Of course it has to be that way, because nobody gives a damn if a girl who thinks she's a boy wants to play on a boys basketball team. And in the present, team members visit a transgender poet. The Leftist narrative on transgenderism wasn't pushed in the original series. I guess the people who made that series must have been a bunch of bigots? Or is it that the current push didn't start until about midway through 2015. Hmmm... I WONDER what happened then?!? (A disclaimer: This is the one episode I haven't seen yet as of this writing. I'm relying on an episode description. But yeah, do I really have to watch it to know it unquestioningly accepts the Left's narrative on transgenderism? How about leaping into someone, who in the original timeline, underwent "treatments" and later detransitioned, so that they don't make the mistakes of getting "treatments" in the first place? Or even better, their parent??? Detransitioners do exist, like or not. Denying that they exist and their understanding of themselves is valid means you want to kill them, or so I've been told.)

This may be when I cease watching and simply read recaps. Leap the shark?

Quantum Leap Is Coming Back

I was a loyal viewer of the original Quantum Leap series.

Yes, I know some of the episodes were pushing liberal themes.

Dennis Prager is right. Liberal and Leftist are not synonymous.

There's a revival of the series that's premiering soon.

I hope it is good.

If it is good, I hope it does well.

I hope it isn't Leftist/partisan Democrat. These days, though I expect it will be.

My pessimistic side predicts we can expect the following elements, provided there are enough episodes made:

• Climate change alarmism
• Critical race theory (USA is racist, on stolen land, built on slavery, etc.)
• Negative digs at Trump (he is portrayed briefly as a child in the original series) and/or his voters and/or his SCOTUS picks
• Digs at prominent Republicans from the last 30 years
• Promotion of Leftist ideology regarding gender (transgender, genderfluid, non-binary, etc.)
• Affirmation of marriage neutering
• Negativity about private firearm ownership
• Police corruption and brutality
• Pro-union messages
• The "gender wage gap"
• Pro government expansion messages (government health care, for example)
• Greedy landlords and business owners/executives
• "Dreamers" and "undocumented immigrants" with hearts of gold and contributions to the USA
• Negative portrayals of someone concerned about degradation of media/arts/entertainment

We'll see. Maybe someone should make bingo cards?

I predict we will NOT see the show:

• Making a point of the positive benefits of a conservative, churchgoing married feminine heterosexual "cisgender" stay-at-home mother and masculine heterosexual "cisgender" breadwinning father 
• Portraying the perils of underage sex, other than showing screaming protestors when the minor goes for an abortion
• Pointing out the harms of a lack of school choice
• Depicting benefits of homeschooling
• Honorable people being compelled to pay money to unions even though they object to the political spending of the unions
• Portraying the hate from the Left against honorable "Black Conservatives"
• Climate alarmists making dire predictions in the past that have since proven false

UPDATE: 12 episodes in, here are my observations.

Where the Leftist Central Planners Want to Force Us To Go

While small businesses, including restaurants, were locked down by government force, Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom partied with a group at an expensive restaurant. The California Democrats have decreed gasoline-powered automobiles won't be sold in California in a little over a decade from now, while the state's power infrastructure can't handle current demand for electricity. In the county of Los Angeles, freeways can't handle existing traffic, but the "road fund" is regularly spent on buses, rail, and non-transportation projects and programs.

What the Leftist Democrats are doing in California - which they'd love to take national - might not make sense to someone who has common sense, who doesn't seek to control others. But what the power-hungry social engineering central planners are doing makes sense when you realize what they want, and they've publicly said so and/or demonstrated, is to:

• Install most of our children into government-controlled institutions from six weeks of age into their twenties.
• Get those children dependent on government for most of their meals, served at or distributed by the schools.
• Move most of us into large apartment buildings, especially ones with commercial space on the first level or three.
• Ensure those apartment units will have water and power controlled and limited by remote, and waste (like the trash you throw away) controlled, limited, and analyzed.
• Force us out of automobiles we control into government-run mass transit.
• Discourage entrepreneurship and small businesses so that we're all working for government or large businesses, which can be more easily controlled by government, or dependent on government redistribution of money.
• Get most of us dependent on the state for health care.
• Disarm private citizens when it comes to defending themselves, their family, or their property.

We can see this at the state level and with the counties and cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. They are constantly seeking to make government bigger, more intrusive, and more controlling, and get as many of us dependent on government as they can.

They hate liberty for anyone other than their own little clique.

Resist Leftism. Defeat Leftism. Defend Liberty.

National Divorce - What Are The Options?

There seems to be increasing talk about a "national divorce" or "civil war" or "secession" lately, and it is something I've thought about for years. 

The Founding Fathers envisioned a nation in which the average person didn't have to think much about the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, or various federal agencies. The Federal government was to be limited, with the states having powers to govern in diverse ways from each other. People referred to "the United States" in the plural. If things were still like that, we wouldn't be talking about a national divorce, civil war, or secession. But things aren't like that. The Federal government has grown enormously and usurped many powers, and people are trying to use that force to coerce everyone else into doing whatever it is they want.

When I mentioned what the Founding Fathers envisioned, any Leftist reading this thought "I don't give a s--- what the Founding Fathers envisioned. They kept people enslaved." This is part of our problem. Yes, slavery as it was in the USA was a terrible evil, and I'm thankful it's long gone.

Flawed as they were, the Founding Fathers created the best system of governance fallen people could. It is one the main reasons the USA quickly rose to be a world superpower.

Now we're at a point in history in which we have a bitterly divided nation again. It's not cleanly delineated into "North and South." Instead, it is between Deep Blue States (particularly, the large cities within them) and Deep Red States. The divisions involve things like elective abortion, private gun possession, immigration and border control, identity politics, religious freedom, the Electoral College, the structure of the Senate, and more.

What are the options? Let's examine each of them.

1. Peaceful Surrender - One side simply gives up. 

2. Violent Oppression - One side violently enforces its will on the whole country.

3. Wild Pendulum Swings - One side gets what it wants, but when the other side is back in power per elections, the pendulum will swing wildly to their side, over and over. An example: Elective abortion being legal nationwide with no restrictions for several years, then being severely restricted nationwide for several years, then repeat the cycle. These wild swings could be every two, four, or eight years, depending.

4. Constant Struggles - Kind of like what we have now, only growing more intense. Court battles, legislation, media campaigns; demonstrations, acts of vandalism, rioting, and terror; corporations picking sides; more and more of the "average person" having to spend their day thinking about national policy and what they can do to try to tip things their way, where they can work, where they can spend their money, etc.

5. Compromise - The two sides make some grand compromises to largely eliminate the contentious culture.

6. Violent Separation - Some states decide to leave and the rest of the states try to stop them. This was attempted with what is commonly known as the Civil War.

7. Peaceful Separation - Some states decide to leave and the rest of the states don't try to stop them.

8. Two Or More Sub-Unions - Rather than full secession, states are allowed to form sub-Federal unions that act almost like a new federal government, with the Federal government still retaining all states.

Number 1 would be the best, if it was the Left surrendering. Either way, it isn't going to happen.

Number 2 is what some on the Left are publicly saying is happening right now, because SCOTUS... is allowing states to determine abortion laws in their states rather than SCOTUS imposing it on everyone. We are not living in the same realities. Many on the Left want to violently oppress everyone else. It's a terrible thought, but if it happens it would be better if the Right won. Except that the Right favors federalism, so... the Right wouldn't do this.

Number 3 is a terrible way to live and will result in more corruption of elections and less confidence in elections.

Number 4 is also a terrible way to live, but it is encouraged by those who make money off it: politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, political scientists, campaign managers, activist organizations, media, etc.

Number 5 is something people profiting off of Number 4 won't allow, and a "compromise" won't work on many things.

Number 6 would be terrible, but could be better than aptly numbered Number 2.

Number 7 could be great, right behind "Number 1 with the Left being the side to surrender." However, it would be extremely complicated to pull off, and again, plenty of people are profiting off of Number 4 and will resist this.

Number 8, at first glance, looks like it could be the second-best choice behind "Number 1 with the Left being the side to surrender," but it probably wouldn't work out, because it would essentially add yet another layer of government (no doubt requiring major Constitutional Amendments) and there would still be irreconcilable differences at the federal level.

Do I want to see a breakup of the United States? No. But what are the alternatives?

The Left wants to do away with the Electoral College, two Senators per state, and the Second Amendment. There are also many other irreconcilable differences federalism won't alleviate. The Left doesn't want federalism anyway. There's no compromise on these. What's the compromise on the Electoral College? Any "compromise" will shift more power from the states with lower population. How can there be compromise on the Senate? By making PR and DC states? No thanks!

What can we do right now? Here's one possibility.

A Safe and Reliable Water Supply is a Basic Element of Civilization

The Leftist Democrats controlling California and Los Angeles county are failing again. They are failing at some basic, core responsibilities.

Despite people literally fleeing the state, there is again a water "shortage" and residents are yet again being told to reduce their water usage.

Ever look west? California, including Los Angeles county, is on the world's largest body of water.

There isn't a shortage of water. There's a shortage of competent, dedicated service to the residents of California by people who are supposed to be public servants.

The Leftists running the state will blame "climate change" for their failure.

Hogwash.

Dear Bob Chapek: You'll Never Be Woke Enough For the Left

Dear CEO of The Walt Disney Company Bob Chapek:

As you'll see over and over again, you can never be woke enough for the Left.

I'm not talking about liberals. I'm talking about Leftists. There is a difference.

Like many business leaders, you are going to be forced to decide: Attempt to appease the Left (which is futile), or endure their vitriol & hissy fits, and focus on everyone else: liberals, centrists, independents, libertarians, conservatives, the politically disinterested.

Keep in mind the Leftists don't want your company to own anything, create value or payments for shareholders, make decisions about who you hire and how much you pay them, or make profits. No matter how much you try to appease them culturally or politically, they do not believe your company should exist independent of being an arm of centralized government.

The recent battle was over Florida's HB 1557, falsely labeled the "Don't Say Gay" bill by professional liars.

What did the legislation actually say?

• Parents have to be able to access to their child's school records, including health records
• School district staff can't be prohibited from telling parents about their child's health
• Third grade or before, no instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity
• Inform parents at the beginning of the school year what health services are offered and allow the parents to opt their students out of a service
• Third grade or before, any health questionnaire given to students must be approved of by their parent

That's it. What the problem with that? Who objects to that?

Leftists do. They want to be able to use taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate Kindergartners into the Leftist ideologies on sexual orientation and gender identity. So, they want to be able to encourage Kindergarteners to think of their penis as a problem they'll need to remove, and talk with them about sex. And they want to hide from parents that they are doing this. This is evil. This is insanity.

These students shouldn't be subjected to that. They should be learning how to read, write, speak, and understand English; mathematics; and hopefully some geography, history, science, and art.

On one side, you have people who want to be able so sexualize Kindergartners and promote mutilation to them.

On the other side, you have people who want parents to be able to object to this.

This shouldn't be a hard decision.

Yes, there are some very noisy people in your company, on social media, and in media who screech about how this legislation is bad. Perhaps you should do what you can to keep those in your employ from having access to children when they are on your dime? You should definitely not bend over for them.

It's time to stand up to them and say "No, I'm not going to bend over for you."

It is time to stand up to them and tell them the core of your corporation is about family entertainment and you're not going to push the agenda of people who want to sexualize Kindergarteners. If they stop coming to Disneyworld or Disneyland, if they quit working for you, then your company will be better off in the long run.

UPDATE: People who mock your groveling before them because they don't like the medium of presentation are proving my point. There is no appeasing this mob of unstable, unhappy people who are being agitated by people bent on sexualizing children and putting division between children and their parents.

Minor Children Are the Responsibility of Their Parents

Deferring to and respecting parental authority over minor children used to be standard for anyone taken seriously in public life.

Leftism has been chipping away at that.

The Left considers children to be property of the state, as long as they are in control of the state. This must be rejected.

Minor children are the responsibility of their parents (or legal guardians).

Anyone the parent employs, directly or by proxy, to instruct or care for their child should either defer to the parents and respect the will of the parents or shouldn't take the job.

If anyone has reason to believe the parents are abusive, there is already a process for making accusations, providing evidence, and having the parenting investigated.

A parent NOT being a Leftist isn't evidence of abuse.

Children do not belong to the state, including the state schools.

The parents made or legally adopted their child. They get to decide, short of actual abuse, what is best for their child, regardless of what anyone else likes.

Are some parents abusive? Yes. So what? So are some teachers and other state actors. Governments have killed more people than anything else.

When the children reach the age of majority, they still don't belong to the state. They belong to themselves. The people have a government. The government doesn't have a people.

Defeat Leftism. Support parental rights. Defend liberty.

National Divorce: Bring on Bluetopia

Progressives always discovering new rights. The Right hinders the bestowing of these rights by clinging to the ideas of dead, white, male colonizers and slaveowners. The Right has a fundamentally incompatible position on the purpose and role of government and most refuse to give up their ignorance and bigotry. There is no reconciliation or educating most of them.

What are the options?

1. Continue to fight endlessly. Notice that all these years after Roe v. Wade, states like Texas are still denying women life-saving medical treatments.

2. One side forcefully squashes the other. See: January 6, 2021.

3. Embracing the full and true meaning of the 14th Amendment. The Right keeps citing the 9th and 10th Amendments, which have been superseded by the 14th.

4. National Divorce. Please don't be fooled by people who try to liken this to 19th Century secession. That was about keeping slavery. Bluetopia would be about rights for all.

With a National Divorce, the deepest blue states would be free to form utopia, or, Bluetopia, unencumbered by the Right. Here are just a few of the things that could get done much faster and more thoroughly:

• Explicitly enshrine in a constitution the right to government-funded comprehensive health care for all, which would necessarily include: 1) elective abortion on demand throughout pregnancy; 2) gender confirmation surgery and treatments for people of any age; 3) high-tech, dignified euthanasia
• Abolish the Electoral College
• Make a Senate that is proportional to population, or do away with it entirely 
• Appoint Supreme Court Justices who proudly proclaim they will exercise their powers to make everything fair
• Pursue Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Decolonization throughout all of public policy, including providing reparations for slavery
• Implement environmental justice, eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and defeat climate change (this alone would be worth it - there's no time to lose!)
• Ban private gun ownership or personal possession for everyone other than licensed bodyguards
• Government-paid schooling and care from six weeks of age through doctorate programs, medical school, law school, etc. This would include care before and after the instructional school day, meals, etc.
• End poverty
• Shut down prisons and jails (see schooling and poverty above)
• Increased taxation of the rich
• Taxation of churches
• Ensure voting is easy, especially for 16 year-olds, new immigrants and justice-involved individuals
• Prevent/end pandemics

Unfortunately, most of these would only happen within Bluetopia, and that could be a deal-breaker for some, since it wouldn't immediately to apply to the entire current USA. However, I think if we are serious about saving Mother Earth from destruction, which, as we all know is possible at the state level as states like California have assured us, and therefore would be possible for Bluetopia to do, it would be worth it. Also, once every other state and country sees what a shining success Bluetopia will be, they'll beg to be enlightened so as to follow Bluetopia's example.

There's no time to waste!

Yes, the details would have to be worked out, but isn't saving the planet enough of a reason to do that hard work to make it happen? And just think of what a paradise that would be, without progressive policies being hindered by racists!


(Yes, this involved some sarcasm.)

I'm Not Proud of Being White

But I think very highly of a lot of "white" people, just as I think very highly of a lot of people who would have some label other than "white". I'm neither "proud" of being white nor ashamed of it. That's because I had no say in the matter (despite what some "transracial" folks would have me believe). I can say I'm proud to be an American because I could have left the Union and renounced my citizenship. UPDATE: It IS OK to be white. [This entry has been bumped up.]

Lately media and social media SJWs have been giving way too much attention to "white" racists. Yes, they're evil and need to be exposed, but part of exposing them is to note how few and ostracized they are, and not giving them too much attention beyond that. The MSM-SJW Complex (MSC) wants a lot of people to think white racists are everywhere and powerful, and the only way to keep them from hanging everybody is through ceding more of our individual rights to Leftist power, increasing the powers and size of central government.

Hating white people or discriminating against white people based on their skin color is not supporting equality. That should be self-evident, but Leftism has warred against logic, reason, and facts in the name of feelings and breaking the people into squabbling tribal groups.

Leftists will tell you that "racism" can only be done by white people, because it requires power. Call me ignorant, but I understand racism to be thinking of race as important, especially if that is used to mistreat people of a different race. Leftists add systematic oppression as a requirement. Thus, it isn't racism if an African-American business owner tells me he or she won't hire me because I'm white. A lot of people, including some of those Leftists breathlessly tout statistical trends that indicate non-Hispanic or non-Latino white people will soon be a minority in the USA. So what happens to their definition of racism then? My guess is that they will say despite being a minority, even if surpassed in size by another group, racism will still be a white thing because whites will have supposedly retained "too much" power in our systems.

I'm convinced the best way to fight racism is to stop focusing on race and treat people as individuals, not favoring nor disfavoring someone because they would be categorized in the same racial group as you or a category you think needs help. Half a century after the Reverend/Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed a dream of treating people according to their character rather than the color of their skin, Leftist "civil rights" activists and professors now say it is racist to do that! They call it racist for me to say "There is one race: human, and someone's 'race' beyond that doesn't matter."

Join the Ranks!

Apparently March 31 is the day activist groups have designated as one of their special campaign days. This time it is Transgender Day of Visibility. This is not to be confused with the Transgender Day of Remembrance, Transgender Day of No Longer Calling Yourself Gay Even Though Ex-Gays Don't Exist, or Transgender Day of Attempting to Gender Conform Even Though Gender is a Social Construct.

Remember when it was "gay and lesbian" people who were at the forefront of activism? Well, with things like marriage neutering now the nationwide Court-imposed thing that it is, the activists switched immediately to pushing "transgender," "genderfluid," "non-binary," "genderqueer", "gender nonconforming" despite how many of them insisted neutering marriage was "the last great civil rights issue."

Want More Gun Control?

My follow Americans:

Do you want more gun control?

Want to ban private gun ownership entirely?

Let's make a deal.

Certain "blue" cities/counties/states should be allowed to secede. 

Then you can have all of the gun control you want.

You could also have no restrictions on immigration, abortion, euthanasia, drugs, or drug needles, and you could have it all taxpayer-funded. Also, plenty of more taxpayer funding of health care, including "gender confirmation" surgeries and treatments, and daycare, college, housing, and the arts. You can tax the rich all you want, you can more green energy and have more laws to fight climate change, you can reduce the prison population, and you can have mail-in voting for everyone, including anyone still incarcerated, 14 year-olds, and "undocumented immigrants". You can defund the police. You can ban hate speech and misinformation. You can ban and any discrimination by anyone against LGBTQQIA+ people, including ensuring that transwomen can compete in all women's sports.

The minimum wage can be as high as you want it!

No more Electoral College!

Think about the antiracist utopia you can create, without racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes, and bigots.

You can ditch Citizens United and have a Supreme Court with only the right people on it!

Science and experts will guide public policy! Pandemics will be prevented and handled so much more effectively.

Doesn't that sound great???

I will support you if you want to do this. I will advocate for it as much as I can.

Please, secede and form this new utopia. Show the rest of the world how it should be done!

The Left's Reaction To the Passing of Successful Republicans or Conservatives

I am posting this the day after the passing of Rush Limbaugh, but it has applied so many other times and will apply again.

The way many on the Left publicly react to the death of successful Republicans and conservatives is more evidence as to why they should be denied the power over others they so desperately seek.

What did Rush Limbaugh do that was bad? He said some mean things? Said a few incorrect things? Engaged in some distasteful humor? 

Who hasn't?

Really, who hasn't?

Limbaugh was on radio for three hours per day, five days per week, for decades. (He also wrote books and had a television show for a while, and engaged in public speaking.) Of course he said things he shouldn't have or got a few things wrong. So what??? For some of the things, he apologized. I've seen the lists of supposed sins of Limbaugh circulated by the Left. Many items on the list aren't even a problem, especially when taken in context. It's just that Leftists don't like them. 

There's the real "problem." Limbaugh very effectively articulated a conservative, America-loving message, and defended and promoted Republicans, and what's worse to Leftists is that he did it to tens of millions of people because he was so entertaining while doing it. What's even more, he paved the way for so many other conservatives in talk radio and other media, so that people were exposed to something other than the Leftism-Democrat Narrative they were getting from media, academia, etc. Leftism can't abide dissent. Facts, logic, and true history, discussed openly, obliterate Leftist narratives. That's why Limbaugh, and those he inspired, are hated by the Left. 

They hate him because he was successful. And they hate you just the same. These people want you to shut up, they want to control you, and they want you dead. They have provided the evidence themselves. 

This is why Leftists should never have any control over anyone other than themselves.

Disunited Methodists

I'm not a member if a United Methodist Church, but my family does have multiple ties to the UMC denomination. UMCs vary widely from place to place. For example, my wife grew up in a UMC in California, and she doesn't recall ever hearing presentation or explanation of the core Gospel until she was attending a university and went to a Christian event with a classmate. She was a bit embarrassed that she'd grown up in a church and yet has missed the central point of Christianity: a proper relationship with Jesus Christ.

The LGBTQQAICDEFGHJKMNOPRSUVWXYZ activists within the denomination are trying to move the organization away from applying what has traditionally been understood as the Biblical teachings of there being men and women, marriage uniting a man and a woman, and reserving sex for marriage.

Remember when the activists said that marriage neutering wouldn't have any effect on churches?

There was a conference in February that address this. If you want the bottom line, skip down to my comments at the end.

Here's what Katherine Jackson reported for Reuters, as I found at Yahoo News (which really got crappy after the most recent corporate acquisition).

The United Methodist Church voted on Tuesday to uphold and strengthen its ban on same-sex marriage and LGBT clergy in a move likely to alienate large numbers of followers who had pushed for reform.

Ban. Ban is loaded language. We're not talking about secular law here. This is a supposedly Christian organization. There's no more a van on "same-sex marriage" than a ban on squared circles or kosher shrimp.

Also, as we'll see, there is no ban on LGBT clergy.

The State of California

[I'm bumping this up because the new gasoline tax is about to take effect.]

I was born in California and have lived my entire life in California. The state has great climate and geography, natural resources, and human resources. Unfortunately, it is ruled unchallenged by gender-confused, big government, nanny state, unionist, environut reconquistadors, or, to be redundant, Leftists. Democrats have a supermajority in the state Senate and Assembly, and our Governor is a Democrat. These are not moderate Democrats, either. They are far on the Left. Not only is San Francisco city/county led by Leftists, but so is Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles. L.A.’s Mayor is itching to run for Governor or even President.

Illinois is having trouble and California isn't far behind. This is what the rest of the Union faces the more Left it goes.

Here are just some of the things going on in the state right now, that are getting closer and closer to driving me and my family from our home state.

Without DACA Trump Will Eat Your Children!

We seem to be in a perpetual state of bad political theater, panics induced by the media-activist complex, in which each and every thing people think President Trump has done is treated like some outrage. Quite often, the objections are completely bogus or entirely partisan. Yesterday it was the bleating over DACA.

To make a long story short, DACA pertains to illegal aliens who were children when they came here, most brought by illegal alien parents. Many of them (contrary to what the mob says,  it is certainly not all) don't really know any other country as home other than the USA. That's squarely on the people who brought them here. Make no mistake about it. They are in this situation because of the people who sent or brought them here, not because of Trump. If they want to blame a politician, they should blame former President of Obama.

President Obama could have worked with his Democrat-controlled Congress to pass laws dealing with "dreamers", to give them some sort of permanent legal standing, but he didn't. Then in 2011, he correctly said it was something he couldn't do himself; Congress had to do it, because of the Constitutional separation of powers.

But in 2012 he did it himself anyway, prompting a flood of children to head for our border for a few years. It was a crises and Lord only knows how many children didn't make it or were severely abused along the way.

Obama knew damn well his unilateral Executive action was 1) unconstitutional, and 2) reversible by the next POTUS.

Most of the elected officials with their bluster in the media over the last couple of days know this, but they figure they'll rile people up anyway, and the usual activist groups are all too happy to put on a show. It's theater of the absurd. So many of these loudmouths are fakers or liars, if they're not completely ignorant of what's really going on.
It's really clear that states are going to get the courts to rule against DACA, striking it down as unconstitutional, so President Trump rightly decides to drop it and calls on Congress to pass legislation. This isn't some wild policy change, or some nefarious action. It is exactly what any President should've done. Any threat to sue President Trump over dropping DACA is an empty threat, unless someone can find a judge so bereft of integrity who is willing to issue a ruling that will be definitely be overturned.

President Trump did NOT announce that "dreamers" are going to be deported. They're all still here, you'll notice. He simply announced that he's not going to engage in the futile exercise of defending an unconstitutional order, which was supposed to be temporary anyway even according to Obama, that gives some illegal aliens privileges over others. That's it. You'd think from all of the whining that Trump had announced "dreamers" are going to be rounded up and tortured to death.

Hey, I get it. People were fleeing hellholes of corruption, crime, failed big government, and poverty and felt like they didn't have time to waste, so rather than dealing with the hassles of our legal immigration system, people came here or sent their kids here, and so you have these people who came here as kids because they didn't have a choice in the matter and are now adults with "illegal alien" status, and most of them have been socialized as Americans, and they want to go to school here, work here, etc. and being illegal aliens makes that problematic, and especially if they have to go back to their country of origin (which is unlikely unless they've been really bad criminals), it'll be a real mess for them. I understand. It sucks.

But this attitude of entitlement-that-must-not-be-questioned needs to be dropped. There are still consequences to doing things outside the law. If your parents stole a bicycle, gave it to you, and you got used to riding it, it is still your parents' fault, not the police officer, if you have trouble claiming that bike as your own.

This idea that Americas are all supposed to bend over backwards because the parents of these kids did things outside of the law is insulting. Yeah, it would be a nice thing to do to pass legislation to allow "dreamers" with clean records to stay permanently (but NOT allowing them any edge over legal immigrants and naturalized citizens). But that shouldn't be tried until the border is secure, or we'll get another flood of children being shoved across the border.

You should listen to the audio linked at the ends of this entry (if it is still there) for a good overview of what has really happened when it comes to DACA.

A few other thoughts:

Anyone who refuses to distinguish between naturalized citizens and legal immigrants on one hand, and illegal aliens on the other, can't be taken seriously when it comes to matters of law.

Saying that "dreamers" or any illegal aliens commit crimes as low rates should be answered with "They wouldn't commit any crimes here if they weren't here!!!"

What's with people using the line "But these young people don't know these countries they'd be sent back to!" First of all, very few of them are going to be sent back to those countries. Secondly, they didn't know this country when their parents dragged them here. Nobody mentions that. The difference is they are adults now and have some control over their own lives.

Then there are the people who say today's American "whites" can be held liable for the evils of the past, but these "dreamers" shouldn't suffer for parental crimes

And notice some people pleading to keep DACA make it sound like Mexico and other countries are awful places. I thought it was racist to do that? At least according to them.

While some of these "dreamers" have jobs right now, that might not always be the case. After all, some of them might think marriage unites a bride and groom, or that men and women are different, or that men can't become women and vice-versa, which according to many people makes someone unfit for employment. So maybe they should all be quizzed before being granted immunity from deportation?

The 14th Amendment is generous enough when it is interpreted to confer citizenship of a baby that drops out of a woman who is a national of another country who illegally crossed the border ten minutes ago. It doesn't apply to children born on foreign soil to citizens of that country who've never been naturalized here.
Finally, it's great to see Leftists pause from saying how oppressive, xenophobic, & racist this country is to say it would be cruel to send poor illegal aliens of "minority" ethnicity back to their country of origin.

Wrong Turns on the California Roads

What a surprise! Unions of engineers and laborers who rely on taxpayer dollars want higher taxes and fees to "fix the roads" in California, and the Leftist Democrats who literally control the state like the idea of higher fees on automobiles and higher taxes on gasoline and diesel.

Mind you, the fuel is already taxed to build and maintain the roads, but the fund has been raided by politicians and what's left has often been spent on underused transit projects.

Over and over and over again, Californians have been taxed with promises of "fixing" one thing, only to have the money go elsewhere.

Not this time, say the Democrats, like Lucy offering Charlie Brown a chance to kick the football.

They claim that the law they just adopted will amend the state constitution to ensure these new taxes and fees will go to the roads. Ah, but 1) they sneak in "and transit"; 2) even if they stick to this, they'll simply redirect the existing taxes and fees away; 3) there's always a loophole that allows the money to be redirected.

To add to the nefarious nature of this, the increase is tied to inflation, so that means the pain for the taxpayers will never ease, and since raising fuel taxes causes inflation, it's a vicious cycle. Gas taxes go up, inflation goes up as a result (because just about every good and service we use has transportation costs), and so gas taxes go up again.

This is what happens when your state is completely controlled by Democrats. Every statewide office is held by a Democrat and the Democrats have enough of the needlessly bicameral legislature that they can do whatever they want. And they do. So as the socialists, unionists, and reconquistadors who control Los Angeles and San Fransisco run Sacramento, everyone else in the state has to bend over and take it.

If You Don't Want Babies Slaughtered You Have to Grow OSHA or Something

You've encountered this in different forms, probably, but we'll deal with this specific example for now.

Notice they don't deny that elective abortion kills innocent humans.

Instead, they try to either silence pro-lifers or co-opt them into Leftism by listing off a bunch of other things these Leftists CLAIM must be part and parcel with being pro-life.

Yes, "chemical" spills (I assume they mean toxic substances) into water can kill people. Dumping of toxic substances into the water support is already banned, and I don't know of elected or significant Republicans who are trying to make it legal.

Gun rampages anywhere are already illegal, too, and again, I don't know of any Republican who is trying to make them legal.

The Delusional Democrat Voter Returns

Hey folks, do you remember this?

Well, the same guy posted another round of stuff that Dennis Prager could write if he was trying to do a parody of a typical Leftist.

Simple question: Why is our nation so divided?

For one thing, it always has been divided. It was a massive feat to get our Constitution, and then we went through a terrible war between the states less than a century later.

A Prime Example of a Delusional Democrat Voter

A Leftist posted this:

This nation is in trouble, so let's be clear:

Someone's been listening to Obama speeches! Trouble, eh? Hmmm. Who's been President the last 7.5 years?

If you're still talking about Hillary Clinton's emails

Dismissing what Clinton did as just about "e-mails" is like dismissing what Nixon did as "just about tapes". Actually, Nixon did far less. And fellow Republicans dropped him and he resigned. You Democrats are not calling for Clinton to drop out.

instead of the urgent need to get weapons of war out of the hands of civilians, you are part of the problem.

What exactly qualifies as a "weapon of war"? I'm guess it is a gun that is currently legal to own somewhere in the country that this guy thinks is too big. Or maybe he's talking about all firearms. Whatever. Well, considering there are millions of people - PEOPLE, meaning things that are 100-300 pounds and need shelter, food, etc. so they can't exactly stay stashed under a floorboard - who came into this country and are here illegally and we "can't" find them or stop more from coming here, then how in the world would we effectively prevent firearms from being smuggled, at great profit, into this country?!? And is this guy talking about confiscation? So he's in favor of something that would certainly lead to stand-offs, barricade situations, groups retreating into fortified armed compounds with their children, and resulting shootouts???

If you're planning to vote for a corrupt businessman whose chief concern is his bottom line with no concern for the small businesses and workers who got him there, you're part of the problem.

I'm no fan of Trump as a candidate. He might be an awful President. He might be a great one. We know Hillary Clinton is corrupt, thinks she can get away with anything, and would do harm to this Union.

And don't feign ignorance. Clinton's biggest concern is her own finances, hence the Foundation shenanigans. Trump's successes and even some of his failures at least helped many other people.

Let's not even get into his overt racism, misogyny, and avocation of violence against his opponent's supporters.

Of course you're not going to get into it because you're probably thinking of parodies of what he actually has said. For example, saying that some illegal aliens coming here are murderers and rapists is not racism. And it is fact.

If you believe your 'good book' means that civil rights and equal rights doesn't apply to gay, trans, or other historically oppresses minorities, you are part of the problem.

The Holy Bible says that there are two sexes, marriage unites the sexes, and that sex is for marriage. That has nothing to do with denying anybody any rights. And MLK Jr. was a REVEREND. I know you like to forget about stuff like that. By the way, my argument against judicial neutering of state marriage licenses didn't invoke the Bible or appeal to theology or religion.

If the congress critter you elected has voted more than once to repeal the affordable care act or defund Planned Parenthood or for lower taxes on the rich, you are part of the problem.

So if  you don't want your tax money used to slaughter innocent human beings for convenience, if you don't like being forced by the federal government to buy a service, and if you think people should be able to keep more of their own money to invest (and grow the economy) as they see fit, then that's a problem?!?

Right now we need to be united as a nation

HA!!! This is from someone who aligns with people who are constantly trying to label and divide people and treat them differently based on their skin color, national origin, religion, sexual desires, and so forth!!!

to reform ourselves into a society where there is really respect for all,

Why are we supposed to respect clumps of cells/collections of molecules? And reform... wasn't Obama going to "fundamentally transform" the USA? Is he a liar or failure?

no poverty

There will always be poverty if for no other reason than Leftists will always say people who have less wealth are poor.

where healthcare is a right

Healthcare is already a "right". Say, didn't you mention Obamacare above? But true rights do not obligate others without their consent unless a crime is involved.

education opportunities are the same for the child in the highest income neighborhood as the poorest

So you're for vouchers? Yeah, didn't think so. There's no way to achieve this other than to criminalize private education, tutoring, and to get all children out of their homes (which may be chaotic) and stick them in uniform government dorms. After all, their parents might subvert the law and give them some sort of educational advantage if they are left with their parents. Say, who runs those school districts in the "poor" neighborhoods? Around here, Leftist Democrat Unionists do. Hmmmm...

and we live in a way that values natural resources

Selling oil does value natural resources!

so we can start making real inroads against global climate change.

I don't believe he really cares because he's not living in a cave with nothing manufactured.

The good news is there is a path forward and it starts this November by getting out the vote and installing elected officials who will actually work toward a progressive future.

So, Obama wasn't it? You were screaming "Yes we can!" when he was elected. I saw you.

We cannot stay on the path we're on today and expect workable solutions.

On that we agree.

Handy Dandy Leftist Democrat Statement Generator

Leftism is based on feelings and emotion and Stage One thinking. This can make consistency difficult to achieve during something as important as a Presidential Election campaign. So to help Leftist Democrats out, I have here this Handy Dandy Leftist Democrat Statement Generator, which should be especially helpful when asked to respond to something said by a Republican.

Whatever the Republican has said, respond with...

"That's [1] and will [2] and is just another example of how Republicans are [3]. This is backed up by [4].

"Democrats, on the other hand, fight your fair share and your rights and want to ensure everyone has equal access to services even if they haven't been lucky enough to get rich."

[1]
sexist
Islamophobic
xenophobic
homophobic
intolerant
racist
bigoted
ignorant
fear mongering
partisan
A Big Lie

[2]
destroy the arts
suppress votes
destroy education
destroy the environment
starve children
give wives cancer
prompt suicides
incite hate crimes
force women into back alleys
kill people

[3]
uncaring
secretive
trying to turn back progress
stuck in the past
out-of-touch
extremist
divisive
anti-science
anti-education
anti-intellectual
anti-worker
anti-woman
mean-spirited
hate-filled
trying to oppress women and minorities
against the poor
trying to force their religion on everyone

[4]
The New York Times
TIME Magazine
MSNBC
the SPLC
the NAACP
GLAAD
NOW
the National Education Association
the APA
the AFL-CIO
the Guttmacher Institute
the United Nations

Then, move on to one of the following, if it will fit:

1. "Oh, so you're against a new federal program? That's just like opposing local fire departments. Conservatives like you opposed ending slavery, too."

2. "Bush did it too, only worse!"

3. "We tried that and it didn't work."

4. "Your opposition to Obama doesn't put food on anyone’s plate."