One Citizen Speaking

LOS ANGELES TEACHER'S STRIKE -- 2019

UPDATE: UNION INTIMIDATION TACTICS…

If anything happens to the substitutes listed in union communications, now or in the future, the union will deny any responsibility and blame the troubling event on some individual acting on their own without union knowledge or sanction. Yeah Right!

Original post… 

Don’t get me wrong, I always have liked my teachers, some more than others; but I am appalled at the way teachers are manipulated by the Los Angeles Unified School District as well as their unions…

“Fighting for our students,” yeah right!

First, let us recognized that the Los Angeles Unified School District’s leadership is all about political power and doling out the money to special interests, be they land developers, contractors, vendors, or simply billionaires who want to leave their imprint on the school system. Much of the work of the School Board is done by staff, and they almost always adhere to staff recommendations. Like any other bureaucracy, they are all about perpetuating the institution, preserving their leadership, enlarging their political influence, and increasing their budget. Their product, or might I say, their hostages are our children. The Board consists of progressive socialist democrats who support progressive socialist democrat causes.

Second, let us recognize that their unions are socialist creations and pretty much have the same goals of perpetuating the institution, preserving their leadership, enlarging their political influence, and enlarging their dues-paying membership. Their product, or might I once again say hostages, are the teachers which they keep in lockstep using a combination of peer pressure and thuggery. The unions overwhelmingly support progressive socialist democrats and buy political power by supplying campaign funds, voter support, and media attention to select “go along to get along” politicians. Needless to say, they mostly negotiate against their hand-picked representatives, pushing parents and other concerned citizens away from the bargaining table.

So why did approximately 40,000 teachers go on strike?

It appears that the union is demanding a 6.5% pay increase that has little or nothing to do with their productivity in the second largest school system in the nation which is facing declining enrollment numbers. They are demanding more “classroom funding” which rarely trickles down to the classroom as it is used mostly for personnel (including unfunded pension liabilities) and infrastructure. And, even then, the decaying infrastructure appears to be in desperate need of repair or replacement. The union believes that the school system is withholding millions of surplus dollars in its rainy-day fund and wants that money to go for more teachers.

Then there is the dispute over smaller class sizes, less testing, more unionized personnel like librarians, nurses, counselors, psychologists, and social workers.

** In the context of union-dominated politics, smaller class sizes do not equate to better-educated children, it means more unionized teachers. No matter what the class size, the collective body of teachers continue to turn-out functional illiterates who cannot read, write, or do simple computations without computer intervention. All of the technology that was touted to improve individual learning and allow for larger class sizes has been resisted by the unions. If anything, the computers have become electronic babysitters.

** One can see why the union wants less testing as it also means less accountability. The tests have been dumbed-down in proportion to the statistics being pumped up. Money is not the answer. The answer is one, leadership; and two, the ability to rate teachers on their teaching ability and subject-matter knowledge. I hate to say it, but the rumors of the difficulty of firing an incompetent teacher or even one who has perpetrated a crime are true. The school system even has their own version of teacher jail where troubled teachers report each day to twiddle their collective thumbs – of course; they still earn full pay and benefits.

** The library I used to research my reports appears to be a thing of the past. The collection of books is curated to be politically correct, the card catalog is a computerized search system, and the librarian is part disciplinarian, part computer instructor, and the need for a student to use a library in today’s internet age of search programs is almost non-existent.

** School nurses? This is problematical because most nurses are forbidden to dispense an aspirin, but have little problem with dispensing condoms and birth control advice. If a student falls ill, it does not take a nurse to provide care. In most situations, the parents are called and told to deal with their children, or a call to 911 resolves the issue. School systems are so wary of lawsuits that they are ineffective. Any teacher with first-aid training should be allowed to clean off a minor cut or scrape, apply an antiseptic, and put on a bandage that will resolve the issue until the parent arrives or the child goes home.

** Counselors and psychologists are also problematical. It appears that these people are reducing the resiliency of our children and turning out delicate little snowflakes who need trigger word warnings and safe spaces. Children have been accosted by the police for simply making what looked like “gun fingers” or drawing something a teacher found disturbing. These are the people who are trying to turn little boys into obedient little girls – often using psychotropic drugs to inhibit normal rambunctious behavior.

** Social workers imply that the school system has a greater role in the child’s welfare than the parents. Since when did the school become the guardian responsible for feeding, clothing, and providing other parental-type guidance to children? Schools already have usurped parental powers to the point where a child can receive birth control – or even an abortion – without parental consent.

But the real dispute is over publicly-funded charter schools which are privately-governed and staffed with non-union teachers who must turn out a superior educated child to attract parental attention, students, and the funding that goes along with the students – money which the union believes should stay in the unionized school system as if they own the children from grades K-12. Children and good teachers are leaving for charter schools where children are educated and not indoctrinated as obedient progressive socialist democrats. The unions are demanding the ability to be part of the decision-making process when it comes to charter schools, especially those co-located on public school property.

You will notice that the union is saying little or nothing about the impact of illegal immigration which is decimating the school system. They are also silent on why they are not spending their resources on bright students with a future and concentrating their time, energy, and money on those who do not value education. And, heaven forbid, they reintroduce trade education for those who do not want to pursue an academic path to college. When I was in junior high, we had drafting (Mr. Cavanaugh), electric shop (Mr. Paden), wood shop (Mr. Silvera), metal shop (Mr. Barber), print shop (Mr. Kelsey), and an agriculture class with Mr. Galper. We learned to fix things, to build things, and to find out if we were suited for an academic path. Mr., Paden taught us more about advanced mathematics and science used in electronics than our most advanced math and science class. And, it was fun. There were few discipline problems, and those were dealt with rather quickly by the boy’s vice principal.

Bottom line…

This is a prime example of the progressive socialist democrats feathering their own nest and using children as a convenient talking point. Children need instruction, not indoctrination. Enough with the craziness and back to the basics: reading, writing, arithmetic, history, civics, social studies, and other classes that teach life skills.

Enough with giving anybody, especially minorities, a pass when they misbehave and disrupt others.

And, in the final analysis, hold school board members accountable for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars with their inability to administer a large school system. Like the LAUSD’s $95 million payroll system – which required another $37 million to fix its problems. Or the most expensive high school in the nation that was built on a toxic site. The money sloshing through the system is in the billions – and the waste fraud and abuse are staggering. But, the union says nothing as long as they get their share.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

WHERE ARE TODAY'S PATRIOTS?

I have been thinking again ...

Why is it that the progressive socialist democrats appear to lack common sense and support an impossible-to-achieve radical revolution that will inevitably, in their minds, lead to a more just society? Ignoring the long-studied tenets of human nature and the history of man's progress over the ages.

There have been, and will always be, those who are strong and those who are weak, those who are able and those who are disabled, those who are leaders and those who are followers. Those who amass totemic symbols of wealth, be they rocks or dollars. And, those who seek to enlarge their holdings by taking the possessions of their neighbors. Such is the realm of man since creation.

Where disaffected individuals, especially socialists and communists, go wrong is that they tend to excuse their individual shortcomings and lack of achievement by claiming that their present condition and diminished future potential is somehow a direct result of privilege enjoyed by those who have achieved some form of power, wealth, either by hard work, connections, or the less honorable method of inheritance and membership in the lucky sperm club.

As I see it, the conservatives and capitalists have allowed the deterioration of our country by focusing on self-interests in the short term, whereas our enemies have taken the long view. Our enemies believing that the way to change society is to make small cultural changes until one arrives, almost unnoticed, at a more radical destination where what was previously thought to be abhorrent is now accepted as a matter of fact. This is clearly demonstrated by considering how our academic institutions morphed from education to indoctrination to the point where history has been reinterpreted to favor a socialist viewpoint and recast as a struggle between the various classes. Where academic freedom is defined as adherence to fashionable positions. And free speech must be regulated by some authoritarian to disallow the indefinable “hate speech.” A position reminiscent of Supreme Court Justice Potter’s comment on obscenity or hard-core pornography: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... but I know it when I see it ..." Where discussion is overruled by "Don't argue, it's science."

Where the progressive socialist democrats now are incentivized to break apart this glorious union of states into various classes, cultures, and competing interests. All with some measure of victimhood whose grievances can only be redressed in exchange for political power to be wielded by an enlightened elite that will bring about transformational social and economic justice.

However, what is not mentioned in polite society is the elites have been corrupted by their self-interests and their deeds no longer match their deeds. It is a culture of "do as I say, not as I do" put forth by those who are exempt by wealth, power, position, or alleged privilege from the consequence of their prescriptives for the more common among us. Perhaps it would be instructive to look at the personal lives of two prominent progressive socialist democrats, former President Barack Obama and former presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton, to see that their deeds do not match their words and there is a commonality of corruption.

What we should lament is that the mainstream media, formerly society's watchdog that has been corrupted to the point where they have become the propaganda arm of the progressive socialist democrats and wield inordinate power as man confuses the power of the pen with the power of the sword. Allowing one to write a history that never was and record one that is flattering to those who hold or aspire to positions of power.

Unless we are faced with a catastrophic natural event, war, or man-made pandemic, the unity necessary to put one's nation over one's self-interest and possibly one's life, we are doomed to follow the path of least cultural resistance as defined by the progressive socialist democrats.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

GUN CONTROL: PROGRESSIVE HYPOCRISY

The hypocrisy of the progressive socialist democrats knows no bounds as they will officially pursue and prosecute a child for making a “finger gun” or drawing what looks like a gun … But they have no problem with exploiting weapons, violence, mayhem, and gore if it attracts an audience and sells tickets.

So I was wondering how Azzaro, a man’s fragrance gets away with styling the fragrance bottle of their “Wanted” fragrance with what could be considered a revolver’s cylinder.

 

And I am not the only one that noticed, here’s what the GroomingGuru in the UK had to say…

Azzaro Wanted – seriously, what were they thinking? Oh deary, deary me. Let’s talk about Azzaro’s new Wanted fragrance for a moment, shall we? The one in the bottle that looks like a fully-loaded gun chamber. Now, the six-shooter bottle design for this fragrance, regardless of bad timing in light of the tragic events in Orlando, is a quite spectacular exercise in clichéd, one-dimensional and outdated hyper-masculine thinking. I used to think that Davidoff’s The Game, with its casino chip flacon, was terminally naff but this takes things to a whole new level – and a subterranean one at that. Presumably, the thinking behind it is that a. men absolutely love guns and b. guns are sexy and street and therefore customers will think the fragrance is masculine and, like, really, really cool. You can just see the design meeting now: “Right guys, we need an eye-catching bottle – something like Paco Rabanne’s Invictus or that Gaultier one with the massive bulge. What screams ‘men’ then? How about a football? Or a motorbike? Or a big, clunking fist? Oh, no, Diesel did the fist. Wait a minute. I know – how about a gun? What’s more masculine than a gun? It’s cowboy; it’s gangsta; it’s Bond; it’s NRA and man-on-a-rampage. But mostly it’s Bond. Especially if we make it sleek, shiny and gold. What better vessel for our killer fragrance than a killer bottle?” Well, I’m afraid Azzaro have shot themselves in the foot here (sorry) and I suspect they know this too since the bottle description on their website is a masterclass in obscurification. Avoiding the ‘G’ word altogether and with not a passing mention of bullets, the bottle is instead “elegant and precious, with a stunning rugged, mechanical look” (it’s a gun folks) and “a  symbol of freedom and virility” (still a gun). Most bizarrely, it’s also “an embodiment of extreme masculinity tinged with the nostalgia of childhood”. Now, unless your dad was the Son of Sam I’m not entirely sure what childhood nostalgia it’s referring to here but no matter, the bottom line is that, in 2016, Azzaro ’s firearm-inspired Wanted is, to put it bluntly, anything but. <Source>

Bottom line…

What can you say about liberals and their hypocrisy when it comes to money and overriding their principles? "Do as I say, not as I do" appears to be the core principle for the elite progressive socialist democrats. Especially since they are insulated from the consequences of the rules "We the People" must follow. 

How about a gesture of good faith -- and the elite progressive socialist democrats voluntarily give up their weapons are rights under the Second Amendment that the demand all of us surrender?

-- steve

5G COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES: A TECHNOLOGY-INDUCED PANDEMIC DRIVEN BY PROFITS AND POLITICS?

I have every reason to believe that certain politically-connected telecommunications companies and their equipment vendors may be attempting to minimize reports of potential health risks much in the same manner as the tobacco companies hid the risks of cancer from the public.

What makes 5G telecommunications so dangerous to humans is that the Earth would be awash in man-made millimeter-band high-power microwaves that could cause deleterious and dangerous effects within the human body. And given the scale of the installations needed for a wide-coverage communications network, few individuals would be spared flesh penetrating microwave energy.

It appears that the politically-controlled Federal Communications Commission has given their permission for at least 20,000 low-Earth-orbit satellites flooding the Earth with tightly-focused beams of microwave radiation. At the present time, it looks like the major players will be Tesla’s SpaceX (12,000 satellites), OneWeb (4,560 satellites), Boeing (2,956 satellites), and Spire Global (972 satellites).

In addition to the satellites will be higher-powered mobile devices and high-powered ground transceivers and boosters to extend coverage within buildings.

While non-ionizing millimeter microwaves lack the penetrating power and tissue destruction capabilities of ionizing radiation such as X-Rays and Gamma Rays, their effects on the human body MIGHT be significant. And there will be no escape as humans in populated cities will be irradiated 24/7/365 with no relief other than to live in shielded areas known as Faraday cages. Of course there would be no direct wireless device communications with the outside world.

At the risk of sounding like one of the no-growth technophobic crazies, I do not believe that the science relating to 5G effects on humans is settled science.  I can find a number of peer-reviewed journal articles that suggest that 5G may present completely unknown long-term health effects.

5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. Russell CL (Environ Res. 2018 Aug;165:484-495. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016. Epub 2018 Apr 11.) Abstract The popularity, widespread use and increasing dependency on wireless technologies has spawned a telecommunications industrial revolution with increasing public exposure to broader and higher frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum to transmit data through a variety of devices and infrastructure. On the horizon, a new generation of even shorter high frequency 5G wavelengths is being proposed to power the Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT promises us convenient and easy lifestyles with a massive 5G interconnected telecommunications network, however, the expansion of broadband with shorter wavelength radiofrequency radiation highlights the concern that health and safety issues remain unknown. Controversy continues with regards to harm from current 2G, 3G and 4G wireless technologies. 5G technologies are far less studied for human or environmental effects. It is argued that the addition of this added high frequency 5G radiation to an already complex mix of lower frequencies, will contribute to a negative public health outcome both from both physical and mental health perspectives. Radiofrequency radiation (RF) is increasingly being recognized as a new form of environmental pollution. Like other common toxic exposures, the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) will be problematic if not impossible to sort out epidemiologically as there no longer remains an unexposed control group. This is especially important considering these effects are likely magnified by synergistic toxic exposures and other common health risk behaviors. Effects can also be non-linear. Because this is the first generation to have cradle-to-grave lifespan exposure to this level of man-made microwave (RF EMR) radiofrequencies, it will be years or decades before the true health consequences are known. Precaution in the roll out of this new technology is strongly indicated. This article will review relevant electromagnetic frequencies, exposure standards and current scientific literature on the health implications of 2G, 3G, 4G exposure, including some of the available literature on 5G frequencies. The question of what constitutes a public health issue will be raised, as well as the need for a precautionary approach in advancing new wireless technologies. <Source> Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? AgostinoDi Ciaula (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011)  Abstract The spread of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is rising and health effects are still under investigation. RF-EMF promote oxidative stress, a condition involved in cancer onset, in several acute and chronic diseases and in vascular homeostasis. Although some evidences are still controversial, the WHO IARC classified RF-EMF as “possible carcinogenic to humans”, and more recent studies suggested reproductive, metabolic and neurologic effects of RF-EMF, which are also able to alter bacterial antibiotic resistance. In this evolving scenario, although the biological effects of 5G communication systems are very scarcely investigated, an international action plan for the development of 5G networks has started, with a forthcoming increment in devices and density of small cells, and with the future use of millimeter waves (MMW). Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature, alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes, could generate ocular damages, affect neuro-muscular dynamics. Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits. An adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases. <Source> The Radiation Safety of 5G Wi-Fi: Reassuring or Russian Roulette? ShearwoodMcClellandIII, MD; Jerry J.JaboinMD, PhD (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.04.051) The impending rollout of fifth-generation (5G) Wi-Fi in mobile phones, augmenting the current fourth-generation (4G) technology toward making global interconnectivity between devices a reality, has been touted as a significant improvement of speed compared to current and previous wireless signaling  Less well explored are the potential consequences associated with this need for speed: namely, the substantial increase in biologic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from the 1900-2100 MHz associated with 4G to the 3500 MHz estimated median bandwidth of 5G <Source>

Bottom line…

Since almost everybody will be exposed to 5G radiation, perhaps it is time to take a closer look at the technology in order to prevent a technological pandemic of cancer-like effects in the near future. And, unlike the political immigration battle over sanctuary cities, there can and will be no opt-outs.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

WILLIAM BARR: IS THERE SOMETHING DODGY ABOUT TRUMPS NOMINEE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL?

As we have seen with soon-to-be former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (if you can believe the mainstream media), former FBI Director James Comey, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, they were all friends and those relationships alone should have forced their recusal, especially since there appears to be some degree of collusion between the AG, DOJ, and FBI in the matter of a conspiracy involving election tampering in favor of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Where special treatment and privilege allowed Clinton to avoid all of the “lying to investigator” traps set for Trump’s minions as well-documented felonious behavior.

So one might ask, why is President Trump repeating the same mistake by appointing former Bush Attorney General William Barr as the United States Attorney General when it is known that Barr has a longtime relationship with Mueller and their wives are close friends that attended Bible study together. Mueller has also attended the weddings of Barr’s children. That in addition to the Barr’s association with the Bush family who despises Donald Trump for what he has said about 41, 43, and especially “low energy Jebbie” Bush.

Barr has already told Senators like Lindsey Graham that he believes Mueller is a serious man and that his investigation is not a “witch hunt.”

The unsolicited opinion …

William Barr wrote an unsolicited memo to the Department of Justice earlier this year that said special counsel Robert Mueller was “proposing an unprecedented expansion of obstruction laws” in his apparent investigation of President Donald Trump. Barr, who is Trump’s pick for attorney general, previously was in the position during the administration of President George H.W. Bush. In his June 8 memo, Barr said he was writing as a former official who hoped his views could be useful, the Wall Street Journal reported in its story breaking the news. The Washington Post and the New York Times also have coverage of the memo, released Wednesday evening by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Barr’s memo could be an issue in his confirmation hearing, although some commentators and Trump’s own lawyers have made a similar argument, according to the stories. Barr said Mueller was apparently investigating Trump for telling FBI Director James Comey he hoped he could let go of the investigation of Michael Flynn and for later firing Comey. But the president has the authority under the Constitution to remove an official, to use his prosecutorial discretion to give direction on a case, or to use his pardon power, Barr wrote. Barr asserted that Mueller’s obstruction theory is premised on “a novel and legally insupportable reading of the law.” Obstruction laws don’t “criminalize just any act that can influence a ‘proceeding,’ ” Barr said. Rather, they generally target actions that compromise the integrity of judges and juries or impair the integrity or availability of evidence, he wrote. More at the American Bar Association Journal.

One might also ask, or suspect, whether the Barr memo was designed to obtain a job interview, either with the Trump Administration, or with the Department of Justice who desperately needs to demonstrate something other than their well-documented anti-Trump bias.

And, not every one was impressed as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer characterized Barr’s participation in Trump matters is “fatally conflicted” when it comes to Mueller; especially citing the memo questioning legal theories that Mueller was pursuing. Certainly, there is enough smoke and mirrors to delay Barr’s confirmation until after the release of the initial Mueller memo to the Department of Justice. 

It is believed that the Mueller report, unless released by the White House, subpoenaed and leaked by the Congress (probably by Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA)) or leaked by the DOJ (including Mueller’s staff) will not be public. Yeah right!

Not the first time…

How many people noticed that Trump’s FBI Director, Christopher Wray, is a longtime friend of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the very person who appointed Robert Mueller. Rosenstein backed Wray to succeed then FBI Director James Comey. Then there is the matter of Dana Bronte, the FBI’s General Counsel, who arrived from Rosenstein’s office where he worked as an assistant attorney general.

The problem is that Donald Trump is transactional, and not a long-view “chess player” …

Trump’s record of hiring stiffs is well-known and well-documented. Upon hiring the individual hired is wonderful, a genius, and on-and-on. When a failure occurs, the individual is kicked to the side and castigated as a loser, a dog, and anything else that pops into Trump’s head. But he rarely holds long-term grudges and will go on to praise the individual again for some accomplishment that Trump likes. Pretty much with the media: hero to zero depending how much you concentrate on Trump and his agenda.

Bottom line…

I have no clue to why Trump continues to hire people who are definetly part of the swamp and have deep associations with those who are out to damage or destroy his presidency.

Welcome to the Washington Clubhouse.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

WARNING: CALIFORNIA AB 161 “SKIP THE SLIP” IS A DANGER TO YOUR PRIVACY

Using the words “common sense legislation” and “minimal cost,” Assembly Member Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) has introduced Assembly Bill A.B. 161 which is known as “Skip the Slip.”

If enacted, the legislation would make paper receipts secondary to electronic receipts sent to your email address by 2022. Of course, this would necessitate the capture of your email address which could serve as a key to tracking your purchases and medications with a level of detail only available to internet shoppers. And, since the store claims a property right to your information, you would be surrendering significant information that could be used you in various ways.

42359.1. (a) On and after January 1, 2022, a proof of purchase for the retail sale of food, alcohol, or other tangible personal property, or for the provision of services, provided to a consumer by a business shall be provided only in electronic form, unless the consumer requests that the proof of purchase be provided in paper form. (b) This section shall be enforced by an enforcement officer. The first and second violations of subdivision (a) shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each day the business is in violation, but not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300) annually. <Source>

Notice, not one word about the ownership of the underlying data, the use to which the data and email address can be put, and nothing about the security of the customer’s information which is of great value to insurance companies, marketers, law enforcement, and the government. AND NOTHING ABOUT SENDING SENSITIVE INFORMATION TO AN INSECURE E-MAIL VIA AN OPEN SERVER PATH.

Sold as a green environmental initiative…

“Most of us don’t need a physical receipt for every transaction. It doesn’t make sense to kill so many trees and produce 12 billion pounds of carbon emissions, the equivalent of one million cars on the road, to make something we don’t often need,” Ting said in a statement. The San Francisco lawmaker cited a study from the environmental group Green America, which claims up to 10 million trees and 21 billion gallons of water in the U.S. are used to create receipts every year. [OCS: Who is Green America and what is the chance it is a politically progressive biased group? Green America (originally known as Co-op America until January 1, 2009) is a nonprofit membership organization based in the United States that promotes ethical consumerism. Founded in 1982, by Paul Freundlich, it is dedicated to harnessing the economic power of consumers, investors and businesses to promote social justice and environmental sustainability through helping responsible consumers and green businesses find each other in the marketplace. Businesses displaying the Green America Seal of Approval have successfully completed Green America's screening process and have been approved to be listed as a socially and environmentally responsible — or green — businesses in their National Green Pages directory. The Green America Approved seal is given to applicant businesses that operate in ways that support workers, communities, and protect the environment. <Source>] Along with the environmental impacts, Ting also noted that many receipts contain chemicals such as bisphenol-A and bisphenol-S, which have been linked to developmental and neurological problems. <Source>

Bottom line…

That this measure comes from San Francisco, the bastion of big-government, centralized management, top-down control, and coercive rules and regulations, it should surprise nobody that this is a progressive socialist democrat idea. I can understand your frustration with a six-foot receipt slip for a few purchases (like at CVS), but that is no justification to further compromising your safety, security, and privacy.

We are so screwed when progressive socialist democrats bundle their agenda into everyday activities.

-- steve

MASCULINITY IS NOT A PATHOLOGY UNLESS YOU ARE A FEMINIST AND PROGRESSIVE PSYCHOLOGIST

At its best, psychology is a semi-empirical phenomenological attempt to match behavioral patterns and symptoms to convenient shorthand labels that pass for diagnosis and lead to suggested treatment protocols. The fact that researchers use statistical tools in their work does not imply a precision that is not there. For the best explanation of this phenomenon, you may wish to read Hayek’s Noble Prize lecture, “The Pretense of Knowledge.”

Furthermore, like all associations of professionals, they gravitate to the fashionable science of the day, pretty much to satisfy the majority of their members, keep themselves employed, and avoid creating major controversies which will potentially damage the credibility and trustworthiness of the reputation in the public.

And, when politics infiltrates even rudimentary science, the result can be disastrous both to the individual patient and society as a whole.

Therefore, one might become concerned when the American Psychological Association issues its first-even guidelines for practice with men and boys. The concern does not lie in the fact that they have issued the guidelines, but they have adopted the fashionable science as narrated by feminists who are doing everything to neuter the concept of masculinity in their attempt to achieve some form of “equity” between the sexes and respect among the various flavors of gender as expressed by the vocal activists who I label the “alphabet people.” (LGBTQ and its various extensions)

However, when a professional organization attempts to redefine traditional masculinity, the type that built this nation and keeps it safe, as toxic, then someone needs to examine the organization and its leadership for any evidence of systematic bias.

Excerpts covered in bull-pucky…

APA issues first-ever guidelines for practice with men and boys For the first time ever, APA is releasing guidelines to help psychologists work with men and boys. At first blush, this may seem unnecessary. For decades, psychology focused on men (particularly white men), to the exclusion of all others. And men still dominate professionally and politically: As of 2018, 95.2 percent of chief operating officers at Fortune 500 companies were men. According to a 2017 analysis by Fortune, in 16 of the top companies, 80 percent of all high-ranking executives were male. Meanwhile, the 115th Congress, which began in 2017, was 81 percent male. [OCS:  I would posit that the militant feminists who are almost always progressive socialist democrats created their own self-fulfilling prophesy.] But something is amiss for men as well. Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims. They’re the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women’s. Boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, and they face harsher punishments in school—especially boys of color. [OCS: One of the key characteristics of the progressive socialist democrat movement is to create classes of people and then bestow a victimhood status that can only be redressed by the surrender of political power to the progressives. The idea that boys should be more likely to be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, especially in early education where most of the instruction/indoctrination is offered by females who want boys not to be boys, but to be as well-ordered and compliant as little girls. Character-building exercises such as team sports where someone wins and loses, someone doesn’t make the team, and where one risks some possibility of injury are an anathema to this group.] APA’s new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men strive to recognize and address these problems in boys and men while remaining sensitive to the field’s androcentric past. Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly. [OCS: For those who do not know the word androcentric, it is used by the feminist movement to denote “the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing a masculine point of view at the center of one's world view, culture, and history, thereby culturally marginalizing femininity.” To claim that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful is to ignore the traditional risks of being a man in a world where strength and power equal the type of achievement that is recognized and feted throughout the culture.] APA’s Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Girls and Women were issued in 2007 and, like the guidelines for men and boys, aim to help practitioners assist their patients despite social forces that can harm mental health. Many researchers who study femininity also work on masculinity: Several contributors to the guidelines for girls and women have also contributed to the new guidelines for boys and men. [OCS: It appears that previous generations grew up just fine in spite of the “social forces that can harm mental health.” Perhaps we should regard converting an entire generation into snowflakes that need trigger warnings, safe spaces, and special counseling to feel safe. Of, if you follow my prescriptive, throw their sorry asses into the military to learn about tolerance, equality, and just how different and great America is when compared to the rest of the world. We need to produce butter not buttercups. Now that guidelines have been issued, nobody should be surprised when we see a spike in children with masculine toxicity which needs to be treated by expensive therapy sessions that seem to charge the going reimbursement rate.] Prior to the second-wave feminist movement in the 1960s, all psychology was the psychology of men. Most major studies were done only on white men and boys, who stood in as proxies for humans as a whole. Researchers assumed that masculinity and femininity were opposite ends of a spectrum, and “healthy” psychology entailed identifying strongly with the gender roles conferred by a person’s biological sex. [OCS: “All” seems to be overstating the case because individuals were treated as individuals not as members of a group artificially defined by class One would assume that it was the fault of the researchers who selected research subjects – but then again, most traditional medical studies co-mingled women and men.] But just as this old psychology left out women and people of color and conformed to gender-role stereotypes, it also failed to take men’s gendered experiences into account. Once psychologists began studying the experiences of women through a gender lens, it became increasingly clear that the study of men needed the same gender-aware approach, says Levant. [OCS: To a person only equipped with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And those who participate in those women’s studies, or racial studies, etc. are starting from the biased viewpoint that something is wrong and it is up to them to find the problem and fix it – or at least get peer approval by publishing about it.] The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors. For example, a 2011 study led by Kristen Springer, PhD, of Rutgers University, found that men with the strongest beliefs about masculinity were only half as likely as men with more moderate masculine beliefs to get preventive health care (Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 52, No. 2). And in 2007, researchers led by James Mahalik, PhD, of Boston College, found that the more men conformed to masculine norms, the more likely they were to consider as normal risky health behaviors such as heavy drinking, using tobacco and avoiding vegetables, and to engage in these risky behaviors themselves (Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 64, No. 11). [OCS: I am confused, “avoiding vegetables” is a risky health behavior like drinking and tobacco use. Have they ever driven a freeway in Southern California or participated in a potentially dangerous sport? “Boys and men of color [are] dealing with all their hurts and their struggles in ways that are consistent with masculinity,” Liang says. “So, ‘be tough,’ and ‘don’t show your hurts.’ And they have to do this in a system where their behaviors are looked upon more negatively than boys and men from different groups.” These dynamics play out in the prison system as well. As of 2014, black men made up 37 percent of the male state and federal prison population and were more than 10 times as likely to be incarcerated in state or federal prison as white men. Hispanic men were also overrepresented, making up 22 percent of the prison population despite making up only about 8 percent of the general U.S. population (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015). [OCS: Excuse me! The fact that minorities commit more crimes is a fact. The idea that behaviors of minorities and the results of individual actions must conform to their percentage representation in society is absolutely crazy. To believe there is some form of systemic injustice is to believe that the minority politicians, law enforcement officials, prosecutors, judges, and juries are also massively racist. It is the progressive socialist democrats who want to ignore individual responsibility for one’s actions and to assign blame to a collective systemic problem is one of the hallmarks of progressivism. Again, to accrete political power and to further the progressive socialist agenda.] Gender and sexual minorities, too, must grapple with societal views of masculinity. This is an ever-shifting territory. When Levant and Rabinowitz launched the guideline-drafting process in 2005, only Massachusetts recognized same-sex marriage. Today, transgender issues are at the forefront of the cultural conversation, and there is increased awareness of the diversity of gender identity. “What is gender in the 2010s?” asks Ryon McDermott, PhD, a psychologist at the University of South Alabama who also helped draft the men’s guidelines. “It’s no longer just this male-female binary.” [OCS: Gender is whatever you want on a given day or a self-selected time.] Though there is now more flexibility in gender norms than 30 years ago, according to Liang and McDermott, boys and men who identify as gay, bisexual or transgender still face higher-than-­average levels of hostility and pressure to conform to masculine norms. The 2015 National School Climate Survey found that 85 percent of LGBTQ students reported verbal harassment at school over their sexual orientation or gender expression (GLSEN, 2015). Gender-­nonconforming students reported worse treatment than did LGBTQ kids who conformed with traditional gender norms. These kinds of results indicate that gender policing still occurs, Liang says. [OCS: Much what passes for vocal activism is little more than a methodology to gain mainstream acceptance of what were heretofore aberrations or unacceptable sexual practices. It appears that the characterization and normalization of non-mainstream behaviors is little more than a bid for political power using man-made (yes, I know what I wrote) divisions in the population. The idea that we will let little children decide, from day-to-day, what sex they want to identify with – especially without a level of maturity to consider the ramifications of their selection, is ludicrous. Adults and children who are identifiably different have problems, many of which are manifest internally when the difference is contained only within one’s mind. This is life. A life that prefers tribal similarity rather than difference.] First, clinicians must be aware of dominant masculine ideals, and cognizant of their own potential biases. Second, they must recognize the integrated nature of masculinity, and how factors ranging from spirituality to ability status to age and ethnicity interact. Mental health professionals must also understand how power, privilege and sexism work both by conferring benefits to men and by trapping them in narrow roles. They should consider how stoicism and a reluctance to admit vulnerability hamstring men in personal relationships, and they should combat these forces, in part, by encouraging fathers to engage more fully with their children. [OCS: Feminist propaganda mostly from the progressive socialist democrats. And if the APA was serious about fatherhood and children, perhaps they should issue a bulletin designating irresponsible black men and tolerant black women as a national emergency as they have norms that are widely disparate from the general population.] Clinicians should also understand broader institutional issues and support educational systems responsive to the needs of men. Boys who drop out of school are more likely to be unemployed than those who get to high school or college graduation, so addressing school-related challenges early can head off lifelong problems, according to the guidelines. Mental health professionals should strive to reduce aggression and violence and to understand the precursors to substance use and suicide. They should encourage men to protect their own health. And they should offer services sensitive to the socialization that men have undergone, while fighting against homophobia, transphobia, racial bias and other types of discrimination in institutions such as the criminal justice system. [OCS: Perhaps the root cause of boys dropping out of schools was that progressive socialist democrats destroyed the idea of trade schools in favor of making everyone suffer through college-prep courses that taught information that was useless in day-to-day life? The precursors to substance abuse are legal items like cigarettes and alcohol. And, why are the progressive pushing marijuana consumption? One, to raise taxes? Two, to avoid incarceration of minorities? And, because most of today’s influential people are products of the 60s hippy culture.] Getting that message out to men—that they’re adaptable, emotional and capable of engaging fully outside of rigid norms—is what the new guidelines are designed to do. And if psychologists can focus on supporting men in breaking free of masculinity rules that don’t help them, the effects could spread beyond just mental health for men, McDermott says. “If we can change men,” he says, “we can change the world.” [OCS: Sounds like communist propaganda to me.] To read the entire the summation in its entirety and in context, it can be accessed at https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner.aspx To read the guidelines, they may be accessed at https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf.

Bottom line…

Pretty much these guidelines read like a raison d'être to generate new business and to weaken our social, cultural, and defensive postures.  I might suggest that many of the problems listed above are symptoms of politics rather than psychological issues.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OR PRIME TIME EGO ADVERTISEMENT? (UPDATED)

UPDATE: January 8, 2019 -- The President gave a clear, if somewhat subdued, pre-written speech that was on-point and compelling. No ad-libs, script deviations, fact-checkable distortions, or lies. On the other hand, both Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker of the House, and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Minority Leader used their time to make it all about ending the government shut down with the suggestion then they would take up the matter of the wall. Of course, neither were credible when they spun this lie.

Original Post...

I am deeply disturbed by the news that the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has requested the news media to provide coordinated airtime for a national address to the American people. The subject is said to be immigration and the border wall/fence/barrier/whatever. Some speculate that the president is considering declaring a “national emergency” so that he can bypass Congress to build the wall as a protection against an invasion of what will become illegal immigrants when they cross the U.S. border.

The part that disturbs me the most is that the tools for stemming the flow of illegal aliens already exist and have been deemed to be lawful under the United States Constitution.

Let us consider…

(1) Illegal aliens crossing the United States border are encouraged to do so by local, state, and federal politicians who openly welcome illegal aliens as if they are lawful migrants. These policies serve as a magnet to attract more and more illegal aliens who are slowly changing the political, cultural, and economic character of America. The government should put an end to all sanctuary laws, policies, and procedures using the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution to seek to judicially prohibit such laws, policies, and procedures. And enforcing this position by denying federal funds to any entity which does not support the Constitution of the United States.

The law is clear, it is unambiguous, and it can be easily understood as it is written…

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.  It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. Article VI All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

(2) It is no secret that almost half of the people have entered the United States legally, but who are currently in the United States illegally, had overstayed their visas in which they swore, upon penalty of perjury, that they would abide by the conditions of the visa and leave when the visa expired. Yet the government seems to be dragging its feet on creating a system that tracks both entry and exit – and posts overstays on a central database leading to an immediate judicial review and deportation whenever these people are encountered.

(3) It is no secret that the use of E-Verify to verify the eligibility of all American job applicants and workers has never been fully implemented and employers held accountable for illegal hires. For those who presented forged or stolen identity documents, let them be immediately taken into custody for identity theft – a felony as opposed to the misdemeanor of crossing the border illegally the first time – given an immediate judicial review and then deported if they have not committed any known crimes.

(4) It is no secret that the United States allows foreign nationals to purchase residency and work credentials and that a number of known evildoers are known to hold such government documents. This policy must end.

(5) It is known that birthright citizenship was not created by Congress and is little more than a court determination and interpretation of the law. This issue should be immediately be placed before the United States Supreme Court without the necessity of ruling on a specific case that has wound its way through the court system.

(6) It is time for each judge that is physically fit and mentally alert to spend time on a rotating panel of judges located at entry/exit points and trained to make immigration decisions quickly. No more catch and release. No more “due process” delays as we are not speaking of American citizens. And, if we want to be “fair,” let’s use the Mexican or Swiss immigration model as our guideline.

Bottom line…

If President Trump wants to implement immigration policy, let him first by declaring that all illegal aliens have 60-days to register, provide biometric data (fingerprints and DNA), and then be enumerated and an environmental and economic impact report prepared for a national discussion of a resolution to those who are in this country. Anyone arriving after the expiration date will be subject to immediate judicial review at a port of entry/exit and immediately deported. Any nation that refuses to take their nationals will be denied American military and economic aid with the exception of humanitarian and disaster relief funds.

Anyone who cannot prove residency for a period three years before registration deadline would be subject to deportation. Young children of illegal aliens will be deported as a family unit. Older children who have only resided in the United States will be given residency and work permits but not citizenship.

If done correctly, immigration will be orderly and illegal immigration will disappear after a single generation.

Why are the Republicans allowing the progressive socialist democrats to reframe our constitutional sovereignty and necessity of securing our borders as a matter of national security and economic viability to the human face of a single child and her parents who just want to escape the hell-hole that they just left?

It appears that with progressive socialist democrats, compassion and feelings trump common sense and even the survival of our nation's unique American culture.

But, it also appears that the Republicans, many of the professional politicians who are acting in their self-interests, are unwilling to place their nation above their reelection to office.

Does the President of the United States have the cojones to do more than posture and talk tough? We will have to wait until tonight’s address to see.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

IT HAS BEGUN: PROGRESSIVE CONTROL OVER FUTURE ELECTIONS

With the progressive socialist democrats, there are three ways to win: one, stuff the ballot box by registering more and more voters with relaxed registration standards; two, control the vote counting mechanism and allow for post-vote reconciliations that, in fact, extend the ability to submit valid votes past election deadlines; and three, develop a litigation strategy to use progressive judges to issue temporary or permanent restraining orders restricting or delaying actual voter reforms – full well-knowing that it will take years to override such rulings in the higher courts, and by that time the subject will be moot.

For those who do not see the handwriting on the wall, they have to look no further than House Resolution H.R. 1 which is an amalgamation of previous attempts to control voting, vote counts, election finance, and further impose federal oversight over state elections. And, of course, it contains provisions that demand 10-years of a candidate’s past tax returns – just for you, President Trump.

Forget the constitution and ethics, we want power…

H.R.1 - To expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes. While the text of the bill is being analyzed and an official summary prepared, here are some of the highlights from the various legislative efforts in the past and some of the new wrinkles to strengthen the Voting Rights Act. The preliminary text has three basic components: voting, campaign finance, and the always oxymoronic subject of political ethics. VOTING:  ** states would be required to “automatically register” every eligible voter even though there would be no ability to verify eligibility after initial registration unless a specific challenge was presented. According to a preliminary analysis by Steven Rosenfeld… The voting section seeks to remove barriers to participation by: * Requiring every state to offer online voter registration; [OCS: This is an effort to eliminate photo identification requirements during the voter registration process.] * Requiring all states to automatically register every eligible voter; [OCS: the devil is in the details of providing an approved methodology of checking voter eligibility post registration.] * Allowing voter registration at more state and federal government offices; * Allowing same-day registration during early voting and on Election Day; [OCS: adding to the chaos and confusion of verifying eligibility requirement at the last minute and creating a pool of potential of voters who can upset elections. There will be no means of checking multiple registrations in different in-state venues or within the national territory.] * Preventing states from using sloppy data mining to purge voters from rolls; [OCS: to prevent states from removing dead people or ineligible people based on unapproved algorithms. There is no doubt in my mind that progressive people are dying to vote early and often.] * Preventing states from using returned mail as the basis to purge voters; [OCS: Precludes the use of special mailers to determine residence and voting venue. Especially when a single residence or group of residence produces a large number of registrations or votes.] * Limiting who can challenge a voter’s credentials at polling places; [OCS: This is an attempt to gut challenges from poll watchers who may have online access to verified databases and especially concerned citizens.] * Outlawing distributing deceptive information about the process; * Restoring voting rights to felons after serving their sentences. [OCS: Creating a class of criminals who may vote against any hard-line propositions meant to reduce or eliminate criminal activity.] It seeks to fortify the integrity of the voting and counting process by: * Requiring all states use paper ballots where votes are counted by hand or scanners; * Requiring provisional ballots will be counted—no matter where they are turned in; [OCS: most venues do not process provisional ballots or absentee ballots until late in the game – during the time period when mysterious election-overturning tranches of votes seem to magically appear.] * Requiring at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections; [OCS: This would also apply to state elections held in conjunction with federal elections. More time to vote will increase both the voter turnout and voter fraud as more people are strong-armed to vote in a particular manner.] * Requiring early voting locations be near public transportation; * Preventing states from imposing restrictions on voting by mail; [OCS: To eliminate the traditional need to explain why you need to vote as an absentee.] * Making colleges and universities voter registration centers; [OCS: make sure all of those progressive institutions register progressives. There is some talk about college enrollments being a component of automatic registration process for transients who live elsewhere.] * Requiring the Post Office deliver mail-in ballots for free; * Making Election Day a federal holiday; [OCS: Another paid federal holiday that reduces productivity and increases costs.] * Paying for modernized voting systems. [OCS: This is a ploy for the federal government to fund election systems and assume control over their use, monitoring, inspection, and to set standards that just may be vendor-specific. A move toward internet voting.] It seeks to restore federal oversight of voting rights by: * Affirming Congress’s right to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which granted the Justice Department veto power over jurisdictions with histories of voting discrimination; [OCS: This is a blatant attempt to use the DOJ to supervise elections and possibly nullify results. The federal government should have no power to control state elections for the benefit of any particular class of people – with the exception of preventing illegal aliens and prohibited others from voting.] * Affirming the federal government’s power to protect Native American voting; [OCS: Just when you thought Native Americans lived on sovereign ground not subject to local and state oversight. I was not aware of a voting problem within the Native American community.] * Declaring that being an infrequent voter is insufficient ground to be purged. [OCS: It has always been a prudent idea to pull voter records for eligibility and identity verification if someone missed three consecutive votes. These people stay on the rolls with an asterisk that requires in-person verification or post-election sampling scans. I can easily see the limit being something like a voter who fails to vote every 110 years.] The bill would also counter extreme partisan gerrymanders—which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to do in several recent major cases—by requiring states to use independent redistricting commissions to draw congressional districts after the 2021 Census. Last fall, a handful of states passed ballot measures to create such commissions after seeing the GOP’s domination of that process in 2011. [OCS: Somehow those commissions wind up being composed of politically-connected people. Personally, I like the idea of computer drawn bands composed of a certain number of people. And, that would be a district for ten years. If this means shifting politicians who could not be guaranteed election – YAY!] The bill’s campaign finance reform sections are a mix of new disclosure requirements and procedural improvements to revive the presidential public financing system and expand public financing as an option in the states. Those provisions, which are designed to close current loopholes, include: * Banning the use of shell companies that funnel foreign money into U.S. campaigns; * Banning campaign contributions from corporations with significant foreign ownership; * Requiring super PACs and other vehicles to disclose donors giving more than $10,000; * Requiring large digital platforms to maintain a public archive of all political ads, and prevent foreigners from directly or indirectly buying ads; [OCS: a stunningly bad idea as it gives the large platforms extraordinary power.] * Calling for the IRS to create new rules for non-profit political spending; [OCS: While the IRS is responsible to the executive branch, it is Congress that creates tax laws and loopholes. Make them create the legislation and have a recorded tally of the vote.] * Requiring government contractors disclose their political spending; [OCS: I thought they were required to do this now, but simply donated to foundations who laundered the money into voter registration drives and “awareness programs.”] * Requiring presidential inaugural committees disclose their spending. The bill also seeks to restore and expand public financing of campaigns, where small donations are matched by public funds—a means of lessening the reliance on larger donations and special interests. It does this by: * Asserting Citizens United was wrongly decided by the Supreme Court and Congress has authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures; [OCS: Bye bye free speech and your constitutional rights.] * Creating a six-to-one match for donations up to $200 to congressional and presidential candidates; [OCS: How does one filter out marginal candidates who are in it for the money and can use those funds to purchase a political position for themselves?] * Allowing lower-income candidates to use campaign funds for expenses like rent, childcare and elder services; [OCS: This negates the separation between personal and campaign expenses and is constitutionally discriminatory as it provides a state-mandated use of funds based on class.] * Defining what is and isn’t a “coordinated” expense among political allies. The bill’s ethics section calls for a “code of ethics” for the U.S. Supreme Court, spends additional money on policing activities by foreign agents in domestic campaigns, and expands who is required to register as a lobbyist. It seeks to prevent conflicts of interest by requiring presidential appointees to recuse themselves in issues where the executive branch or their spouses have a stake in the outcome. There are other provisions targeting the executive branch, including: * Barring payments from corporations to people entering government service; * Barring former employees from being a federal contractor for two years; * Barring ex-executive branch employees from lobbying former colleagues; [OCS: Why should members of congress be exempt?] * Requiring the president and vice-president file financial disclosure reports; [OCS: Why not demand that all government elected or appointed officials be required to file disclosure reports with actual values – not broad ranges. In some cases, Donald Trump’s assets exceed the top brackets for disclosure.] * Reviving the oversight powers of the branch’s Office of Government Ethics; [OCS: Notice the House and Senate ethics offices are a joke.] * Instituting rules barring personal enrichment or gifts to executive branch employees; * Requiring the president and vice-president release their income tax returns. [OCS: The Donald Trump provision. Isn’t it funny that classified information is leaked by the DOJ, CIA, and others – but no one has leaked Trump’s tax returns which are allegedly under audit?]

Bottom line …

The devil is in the details and we are sure to meet him sometime in this congressional session.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

OCASIO-CORTEZ: THE MEDIA’S DANCING QUEEN OF COMMUNISM

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires that Members of the U.S. Congress be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Members-elect of the U.S. House of Representatives typically take the Oath of Office on the House Floor on the first day of a new Congress, immediately after the Speaker of the House has been elected and sworn in. The Speaker administers this oath: “I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God” (5 U.S.C. §3331).

YEAH, RIGHT!

Bottom line…

Without the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who ensured that all states have a part to play in presidential elections, the country would be controlled by a mob. Where the most populous states would be able to elect their candidate of choice and essentially disenfranchise those in less populous states.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez not only demonstrates her ignorance of the U.S. Constitution, but she disrespects the great preponderance of Americans who are not racist and whose ancestors had nothing to do with slavery.

Perhaps the dancing queen should revisit the concept of constitutional checks and balances – and if she were a true believer in the Constitution, would demand that the Senate be elected by the State legislatures as it was never designed to be the second House of Representatives, but a body to protect the interests of the individual states.

We are so screwed when a communist can be elected to high office even when they make their failed and toxic agenda public.

-- steve