Thursday, August 10, 2023

Turning California Purple

Can conservatives ever win again in the Golden State?


California is the epicenter of Democratic power in the United States. The ultra-blue state backs up its progressive agenda with a state legislature that commands a Democrat “mega” majority in both the State Assembly (62-18) and the State Senate (32-8). Every higher office in the state, from Governor down to State Superintendent of Public Instruction, is occupied by Democratic politicians. California’s last Republican governor was Arnold Schwarzenegger, a RINO whose legacy includes his 2006 signing of the Global Warming Solutions Act, an authoritarian, economic power grab that has further concentrated the wealth and all but destroyed upward mobility in the once golden state.

By now every American who values their political and financial freedom should know that what happens in California does not stay in California. At $3.6 trillion, the state’s GDP is not only by far the largest in America, but the wealth imbalance in the state – only edged by New York among large states – spells even more billions for California’s plutocrats. There are an estimated 186 billionaires living in California, almost all of them Democrats. As Mark Zuckerberg proved when he deployed over $400 million to “get-out-the-vote” in Democrat-heavy urban precincts in crucial swing states, California’s billionaires aren’t shy about using their financial clout to buy national elections.

And then there is the music and entertainment industry, still centered in California, along with all the new high-tech giants that have come to dominate communications and online finance in America: Facebook, Google, Apple, Netflix, and PayPal. Elon Musk may have disrupted the space with his purchase of Twitter, and there are a few other mavericks left in Silicon Valley, but it’s not the haven of free thinking it once was. California’s once eccentric, individualist culture has given way to compliance. In the epic – and very recent – shift by Democrats from antiwar, anti-corporate, pro free-speech zealots into pro-war, pro-corporate, anti free-speech zealotry, Silicon Valley has led the way, abandoning everything it once represented.

Can Conservatives Ever Win Again in California?

The one-sided war being fought by conservatives in California ought to animate every conservative in America. It isn’t as if there isn’t a conservative base. In 2020, six million Californians voted for Donald Trump, up from 4.5 million four years earlier. This total exceeded that of any other state, narrowly beating #2 Florida (5.3 million) and #3 Texas (5.2 million). This total also exceeded the entire Republican registration in California at the time, 5.3 million. California may be a Democratic stronghold, but there are millions of Californians who’ve had it with Democratic rule. With crime, homelessness, violence, and the cost-of-living all rising since November 2020, one would think Democrats would be starting to lose their grip. So why aren’t they?

To answer this question, it’s useful to compare registration by party in California today to where it was 10 years ago, and then identify geographically where the Democrats have increased their numbers, as well as the places where they have lost ground. In October 2022 there were 10.3 million registered Democrats in California, and 5.2 million registered Republicans. Ten years earlier, there were only 7.9 million registered Democrats in California, and 5.4 million registered Republicans. It isn’t hard to see that trend. Democrats went from having a 14 percent registration advantage over Republicans 10 years ago to having a 23 point advantage today. Statewide, that is an insurmountable barrier. But what about individual counties? Were Republicans successful in any of them?

The answer to this is unequivocal, and revealing, because it echoes what is in store for the rest of the country if the Democrats – and the RINOs – aren’t stopped. California’s Republicans gained ground in 16 of the state’s 58 counties. All of them are rural, all of them are geographically huge, and none of them have populations big enough to matter in a statewide election. In Lassen County, for example, there was a 15 percent shift, increasing the Republican advantage in that county to an overwhelming 39 percent. But there are only 21,984 eligible voters in the entire county. In all 16 counties combined that were Republican ascendant in California, the net number of new Republican voters totaled a mere 32,822. This in a state with 21.9 million registered voters.

This pattern is felt around the U.S. Rural counties are Republican, urban counties are Democrat. In California, 25 counties have a Republican voter advantage. Every one of them is sparsely populated and rural. In actual numbers, the amount by which registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats in these counties amounts to 144,235 votes. In state politics, they are powerless.

Being powerless has consequences. These counties are red and getting redder because their economy, which relies on ranching, farming, mining, and timber harvesting, has been under relentless and escalating attack for decades. Using state and federal environmentalist laws and regulations, often dropping eye-watering “grants” to enlist the support and unique legal standing of Native American tribal nations for additional leverage, a coalition of state agencies and billionaire supported “nonprofits” have been waging lawfare against every facet of their lives. Whether it’s dam removal, closing another sawmill or mine, rolling back the timber harvests to a fraction of their historical size (the real reason for California’s catastrophic fires), denying farmers their water allocations, canceling property insurance in the pristine “urban/wildland interface,” exercising eminent domain to expand protected “green spaces,” or prohibiting ranchers from shooting wolves that prey on their livestock and are now threatening their children, California’s rural population is being driven off their land and out of their homes. This litany of abuse barely scratches the surface. The onslaught is endless.

In general, Republicans in California have failed to increase their registered voter numbers, actually losing 124,514 voters between 2012 and 2022, while during that same period Democrats increased their numbers by 2,316,836. California’s registered Republicans, statewide, are down by 2 percent over the past decade, while Democrats are up by an astonishing 29 percent. What happened?

California’s Urban Democrat Dominance is Coming to America

In a nutshell, California’s Republicans get shellacked by Democrats in every heavily populated county, starting with Los Angeles, and it’s getting worse every election cycle. Already a Democratic stronghold 10 years ago, the Democratic voter advantage in Los Angeles County increased by 644,133 between 2012 and 2022. In the once solidly red Orange County, 242,315 voters shifted their allegiance to Democrats, giving that county a 4 percent Democrat advantage for the first time in modern history. The story is the same up and down the state; the big counties, already blue, got bluer still. San Diego went from a purplish 1 percent Democrat advantage to a decisive 15 percent Democrat edge. Big Santa Clara County, home of the Silicon Valley, went from 24 percent advantage Democrats to 35 percent. Without exception, Democrats wield a crushing advantage in California’s populous coastal counties.

This ought to be inexplicable. As California’s rural population endures a withering attack by Democrats that threatens their very existence, it isn’t as if California’s cities are getting a pass. As noted, crime, homelessness, violence, and an unaffordable cost-of-living disproportionately afflict the cities. Add to that worthless, failing schools, and escalating episodes of energy and water rationing, and you ought to have a recipe for Democratic political oblivion.

The problem is California’s GOP offers no solutions. Conservatives correctly complain about a biased media, as well as a lack of donor support to even remotely approach financial parity in campaign funds. They cite legacy stigmas still effectively exploited by Democrats, such as the GOP supported initiative all the way back 1994 that banned public benefits for illegal immigrants, or the 2008 initiative that banned gay marriage. Both of these were approved by voters, but the first, which is still used to tag California’s Republicans as racist, was overturned in court. The second, still used as evidence of Republican homophobia, was ignored by then state Attorney General Jerry Brown. And then there’s Trump, and according to Democrats, if you don’t like Trump, you don’t vote Republican in California. All of these factors are indeed disadvantages. But they don’t mean Republicans can’t win.

The reason all of these supposed fatal obstacles to a Republican resurgence in California are merely excuses for failure is because for every flaw facing a Republican, there is a flaw of equal weight pulling down Democrats. Most voters in California are now registered independents. Neither party is popular. What California’s Republicans need are messages that matter, and politicians with the charisma to communicate them. They’d better get busy.

It is important to note that California, a vast state, is nonetheless the most densely populated in its urban areas. Over 94 percent of California’s population lives in urban areas, which occupy barely 5 percent of its land area. This fact, a result of relatively late settlement, combined with remarkable investments in infrastructure back in the 1950s and 1960s to bring water and power to attractive coastal areas, puts California at the front of the forced-density pack. The agenda of Democrats, integral to the Green New Deal, is to densify every urban area in America, while simultaneously depopulating rural areas. Voters are being herded into urban areas controlled by Democratic political machines, fueled by public sector unions, billionaire supported nonprofits with armies of semi-professional militant activists, and grasping businesspeople desperate to get their hands on public money and public contracts.

How to Beat the Urban Political Machine

The key to winning back California, along with saving the nation, is to recognize the foundation of Democrat power is also its ultimate weakness. Democratic messaging relies on the politics of race and gender redress to overcome oppression, and politically contrived scarcity in order to save the planet. Their remedies are to abandon meritocracy and impose rationing on every essential good including housing, energy, water and transportation. These are false premises with destructive consequences. This destruction is manifested in every pathology afflicting California’s cities.

Convincing voters to fix California can rest on three messages that transcend identity, income, and in some cases even ideology:

Reduce crime and homelessness.

Restore quality education.

Lower the cost-of-living.

For each of these issues, there are specific policies that can be advocated without equivocation or compromise.

To reduce crime in California, repeal Proposition 47, the 2014 ballot initiative which downgraded penalties for drug possession and petty theft. To reduce homelessness, start constructing inexpensive shelters in inexpensive parts of California’s cities, instead of continuing to pay corrupt, politically connected developers to build “permanent supportive housing” on beachfront property at an average cost of $500,000 to $1.0 million per unit (yes, that is really happening).

To restore quality education, refuse to negotiate with the teacher’s union, end unreasonable restrictions on charter schools, bring discipline and standardized tests back to public schools, and implement vouchers or education savings accounts to give parents the option to send their children to private schools.

To lower the cost-of-living, deregulate the housing market, end the war on natural gas and nuclear power, and cancel the “bullet train” in order to invest the money instead in infrastructure projects that yield practical value and long-term economic returns.

That’s the message, and those are the policies behind the message. But who will carry that message? Who will fight for those policies? And more to the point, who will do more than just run another bait-and-switch, straight out of the RINO playbook, talking up these points to get elected then do absolutely nothing once in office?

Supporters of President Trump will accurately claim he would support all of these policies. And it would be a mistake to write Trump’s chances off in California if things get much worse, and if he were to decide to make it a priority to campaign in the state. But in a gubernatorial race what California needs is someone who can expose the woke and green foundations of Democratic policies as extreme, and do so in a way that embraces the inevitable controversy but deflects counter-accusations of extremism.

Someone like Vivek Ramaswamy, for example, could come to California and would not be tripped up by the biased media. Ramaswamy would rhetorically destroy, relying on facts and logic, any politician the Democrats might select to oppose him. Trump’s gift to America is the ongoing transformation of the Republican party into a party representing working people who are having their ability to achieve and maintain financial independence taken away from them in the name of woke and green ideals. Trump has exposed this as a special interest driven fraud. Ramaswamy’s gift is to embody a future for the Republican party that recognizes and extends Trump’s peeling away the Democrat façade, as well as mirror and extend Trump’s policy solutions.

California will turn purple, and then red, if and only if the Republicans still standing in that state decide to espouse a message, and policies, that attack the heart of the Democrat agenda. Instead of fighting an incremental, defensive battle, they must insist, without reservations, on tougher penalties for repeat drug and theft crimes, immediate transfer of homeless to popup, cost-effective shelters, school choice and restoring school discipline, standardized tests and teacher accountability in public schools, and radical deregulation of environmentalist laws that have crippled California’s housing, timber, food, cattle, natural gas, and nuclear power industries.

That agenda will save California, and nothing else will. It has the virtue of being the truth, ready for anyone with the courage to wield it against a corrupt political machine that runs on lies. This truth has the added benefit of offering anyone willing to listen to it a vision of a bright future in a state that works again, where people are safe, can pay their bills, and rely on a good education for their children.



X22, On the Fringe, and more- August 10

 



Tomorrow, negotiations between the WGA and the studios officially resume. I'll try to keep you updated on if there's progress. (though, if you hear me cursing them, that's usually a good indicator that nothing good happened).

New Poll Reveals How Americans Really Feel About Joe Biden





 President Joe Biden’s time in the White House has been plagued by a weak economy, slow job growth, skyrocketing inflation, the Ukraine war, an illegal immigration crisis at the southern border, and the disastrous and deadly withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

🚨 POLL: Is Joe Biden fit to be president?
YES 👍 or NO 👎

As a result, Biden has suffered the consequences as polls show he’s one of the most unpopular presidents in US history.


An NBC News found that 68% of voters say they are concerned that Biden does not have the necessary mental and physical health to be president.

This includes 43% of Democrats, which is twice as high as the same poll in 2020. An ABC News in July found Biden’s approval rating is 38% with 57% disapproving.

Polls show that Biden’s approval rating has been declining since he took office. The economy is the top issue for Americans, and many are unhappy with Biden’s handling of it. It is important to note that polls can be volatile, and Biden’s approval rating could change in the future. However, the current polls suggest that he is facing a difficult political environment.

Key Takeaways:

FiveThirtyEight has an average of polls that shows Biden’s approval rating at 40.7% as of August 9, 2023. This is down from 55.7% on January 20, 2021. Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted on August 2-8, 2023, found that Biden’s approval rating is 40%, with 55% disapproving.

CNN poll conducted on July 1-31, 2023, found that Biden’s approval rating is 39%, with 56% disapproving.


ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted on July 1-10, 2023, found that Biden’s approval rating is 38%, with 57% disapproving.

Gallup poll conducted on June 27-July 1, 2023, found that Biden’s approval rating is 38%, with 59% disapproving.


New Poll Reveals How Americans Really Feel About Joe Biden - America Insider



Elon Musk Partners with Global Disinformation Index, the Progressive Disinformation Specialists, to Diminish Advertiser Fears


The Global Disinformation Index (GDI) is the group who define the content on platforms according to their ideological worldview and then blacklist sites who do not align their content to support the GDI perspective.   According to the Washington Examiner, Elon Musk has just partnered with them in order to enhance the advertising portfolio of Twitter and find ways to make it lose less money.

CTH has previously said to watch the economics of the Musk situation, because that will determine the outcome of the decisions. The hiring of NBC-Universal executive Linda Yaccarino was explicitly to lure the advertising side of the issue back onto the platform.

Once you are reliant on the advertising, you must then comply with the content terms of the companies who control the advertising.   Joining with a group to define “disinformation” is an outcome.

WASHINGTON – Elon Musk’s X, the social media company formerly known as Twitter, signed an exclusive partnership with a “misinformation” tracker linked to a government-funded group blacklisting conservative media outlets, records show.

On the heels of Musk in July describing how the social media company had negative cash flows due to a 50% drop in advertising revenue, X is teaming up with Integral Ad Science, an ad-verification company, for a “brand safety” initiative. That same ad group, which uses an artificial intelligence algorithm to rate alleged “misinformation,” is affiliated with the Global Disinformation Index, a British group with two affiliated U.S. nonprofit groups that the Washington Examiner revealed is covertly feeding blacklists of conservative websites to advertisers to defund disfavored speech.

“I am completely against GDI in any form,” Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), who sits on the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees and has launched investigations into the British group over its alleged censorship efforts, told the Washington Examiner. “This new partnership with a group connected with GDI would only amplify the coercive and destructive powers targeting free speech.”

The partnership between X and IAS appears to undercut Musk’s touted commitment to free speech. The X owner has notably released “Twitter Files” documents to journalists, including Matt Taibbi, from Jack Dorsey’s time running the platform that show the company’s apparent coordination with the government to thwart right-leaning voices online. (read more)

I don’t want to say I told you so, but….

…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”.  There is only information you accept and information you do not accept.  You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”… 

Keep in mind, long before people realized the Dept of Homeland Security (FBI, DHS, CISA etc.) had a portal into Twitter, I was explaining how transparently obvious it was. {Go Deep – Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop} In part, the transparency of the problem is driven by CTH understanding of the costs associated with Twitter as a very unique platform in the sphere of social media. {Go Deep – Understand the Costs}

With the latest revelations we shared about the financial position of Twitter {Go Deep on FINANCIALS}, all of the moves now underway make sense.  Musk was on track to hit a date in/around October of this year where Twitter would be insolvent. If you had read those previous “Go Deep” links, you will easily see the problem.

In 2021, Twitter generated $5.1 billion in revenue, according to the Wall Street Journal.  According to the New York Times, in 2023 that revenue has dropped to around $1 billion per year.

Musk stated during public conversation that Twitter was essentially break even at $4 billion, which was the position in 2022 just prior to his taking over.  [2022 costs around $4.5 billion and revenue around $4 billion +/-, per public financial statements and reporting].   Musk cut approximately $500 million in expenses from realignment and staffing reductions.

Musk has a $1.5 billion debt service on the loan he took out, per his own admission: that’s more than $100 million per month.  The debt service alone is higher than his revenue.  As I noted last month, Twitter is losing somewhere around $300 million per month.  With $1 billion liquid in the bank, as of June (per Musk), that only gets him to September; by October, he needs another influx of cash, or else.

There is no business model, even with paying subscribers, for Twitter to exist without a major increase in revenue (Yaccarino) or a major decrease in costs.  As the business grows (more users), the costs increase (more simultaneous users), and the costs to subscribers would grow.  Twitter Blue subscriptions are around 180,000 users, paying $11/mo.  That’s around $2 million a month- a pittance in comparison to what he needs.

On March 2, 2023, the people in control of the Joe Biden administration officially announced that government control of internet content was now officially a part of the national security apparatus. [White House Link] If you have followed the history of how the Fourth Branch of Government has been created, you will immediately recognize the intent of this new framework.

The “National Cybersecurity Strategy” aligns with, supports, and works in concert with a total U.S. surveillance system, where definitions of information are then applied to “cybersecurity” and communication vectors.  This policy is both a surveillance system and an information filtration prism where the government will decide what is information, disinformation, misinformation and malinformation, then act upon it.

In part, this appears to be a response to the revelations around government influence of social media, the Twitter Files.  Now we see the formalization of the intent. The government will be the arbiter of truth and cyber security, not the communication platforms or private companies.  This announcement puts the government in control.

All of the control systems previously assembled under the guise of the Dept of Homeland Security now become part of the online, digital national security apparatus. I simply cannot emphasis enough how dangerous this is, and the unspoken motive behind it; however, to the latter, you are part of a small select group who are capable of understanding what was in this announcement without me spelling it out.

”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”.  There is only information you accept and information you do not accept.  You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”… ~ SUNDANCE


UN Climate Chief Gives up a Dirty Little Secret—World Leaders Must Coerce Citizens Into Green Agenda


If you are not a climate change alarmist, you already are aware that climate change has less to do with the climate and much more to do with governmental control over your life. Jim Skea is a professor of sustainable energy at Imperial College in London. He was also recently installed as the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the top U.N. body on climate change science.

But whether intentional or not, Professor Skea, in a recent interview with London’s Evening Standard newspaper, let the climate cat out of the bag, essentially saying that climate change, the worldwide green agenda, and the movement away from a fossil fuel economy, must be pushed by world leaders on their citizens, that those leaders are the “ringmasters.” to combat purported climate change. Ringmaster does indeed seem to be an appropriate title for the worldwide circus that is climate change.

Skea also says that, in order to combat climate change, there needs to be a “society-wide” effort, and that, “political leaders have a particular responsibility because they set the tone for it all… They are the kind of ringmasters or ringmistresses that [sic] try to co-ordinate the different actions.”

When asked what it is that citizens can do most in their respective nations, Skea says they must, “keep voting… is the key issue.” Skea acknowledges that there are groups of citizens around the world, who are more radical in their climate demands than their own government, and that there are also some fringe radical groups that are “extremist” in their views, and could possibly alienate a portion of a country’s voters. But the ends apparently justify the means, because they are, “keeping the issue of fossil fuels on the agenda.”

Professor Skea is undoubtedly a true believer. He goes on to tell the Evening Standard, 

Climate change is happening now. You can see it on your TV screens, you can see even looking out the window, deciding what clothes you need to wear when you go out. All of this was predicted, but perhaps it’s happening more quickly than was anticipated.

He also states that political action is more important than ever, and that “global warming may be accelerating faster than previously believed.” While Skea did not specifically say, beyond voting, what sort of political action could be taken by the world’s citizens, he did offer a suggestion to the “ringmasters,” a.k.a., world leaders when it came to the climate change war.

He says that world governments should pledge to the IPCC plan that would leave 50 percent of oil reserves underground. He explains that if reserves continue to be added to, that means that more reserves will be left underground, if the 2015 Paris Climate Accords are to be met. Skea also stated that leaders should stick to their commitments to switch from gas-powered vehicles to electric.

Just one problem. Electric vehicles, at least in the U.S., are an economic boondoggle. Ford Motor Company recently announced a whopping $4.5 billion loss from its electric vehicle (EV) division, up from $3 billion in 2022. And on Monday, Proterra, a producer of electric busses, that received a lot of backing from the Biden administration, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

While world leaders are the ringmasters, what happens if they choose not to be? During Joe Biden’s interview with The Weather Channel, he stated that “it’s not enough for us to do it, we have to change the whole world’s attitude. And right now, Russia and China are very, very difficult partners.” Translation, they don’t give a rip about climate change.

But Biden, who has been sucked into the climate change hysteria by progressives, proved he is a willing ringmaster. During the interview, he dutifully called climate change “an existential threat,” and also lamented the fact that he was stopped in court when he tried to stop drilling on both the East and West coats, and in the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile, gas prices are on the rise once again, with the national average at $3.82 per gallon. Joe Biden also told The Weather Channel’s Stephanie Abrams, when she asked if he was prepared to declare a national emergency with respect to climate change, that he already had, “practically speaking.”

Even though he works at the U.N., Professor Skea doesn’t seem to know Americans very well. We like our gas-powered cars and gas stoves. And yes, we will absolutely keep voting accordingly.