Abortion, why it is complicated.

One of the problems with discussing the abortion issue is the most adamant on both sides believe they are 100% in the right. Progressives believe it is a "my body, my choice" decision while Neo-Conservatives believe every beating heart inside a woman has the right to be born. 

Ironically, Trump thinks the Neo Conservatives have gone too far with their six week time period to get an Abortion. 

There are many micro discussions about abortion that complicate the issue. 

One MAJOR Human flaw that about 99% of the population engages in is prioritizing those who they have had sex with, are having sex with, or may have sex with in the future, over their friendships and those who maybe they respect but would never have sex with. 

Women who use abortion for healthcare (I'm not talking about have an abortion or die situation) have life and business career advantages over Women who try and not create a situation where abortion is required, and as a result engage in less sex or no sex unless they are in a serious relationship. 

Even the area of allowing abortion in the case of rape is sketchy. 

If a woman is desperate to have an abortion, and can get one by claiming she was raped, I am pretty sure a cottage industry in the legal profession will crop up where woman are accusing men they had sex with of rape in order to get an abortion. 

Then there are those who state, "ok, you can have an abortion, but before you do, you have to watch five minutes of a video of the beating heart of your child / fetus before you make your decision". That sounds fair, the child / fetus gets to make their case for living, and the woman has all the facts, not just selective facts, before deciding what to do. However, being forced to watch such a video can then create PTSD like symptoms for the rest of their lives as they unrealistically imagine they could have had the child and still had their career or other life fulfilling experiences they warmly regard.

Ultimately, I do agree that men are playing too big of a role in the decision making process regarding abortion legislation. 

However, Men have been put in a submissive position in terms of if the woman has the child, he MUST pay child support if she demands it.

However if the "Sperm Donor" is willing to completely cover all the child's financial needs until age 18, he still does not gain any additional rights as to whether or not the child is aborted, or not aborted.

Perhaps the issue of Abortion will only be resolved when the day comes where a fetus can be removed from the Woman who does not want to carry the fetus to term, and safely implanted in the Male Sperm Donor who then carries the fetus to term. 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Apparently some of the excessively high July 2023 heat wave reports may have been false.

Apparently there have been remote reports of excessive temperature readings because of climate change that were falsely reported.

I feel as if the California weather over the past year has mirrored weather from 40 years ago, with the weather producing record rains and maybe slightly colder weather during the winter.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Flash Mob of 50 to 75 descend on a Seven Eleven Store, what they do at the end is hilarious.

There's something about a flash mob of 50 to 75 taking what they want from a Seven Eleven Store, and then when they leave the store they conscientiously pick out their own bicycle out of dozens strewn in front of the store, that gives us hope for the future.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Supreme Court June 2023 Ruling "303 Creative vs. Elenis Ruling", Proponents on both sides of the legal ruling miss the bigger picture.

News Outlets are comparing the June 2023 Supreme Court "303 Creative vs Elenis" ruling to a precedent setting court case from 30 years ago in which a Gay Couple was refused Photographic services at a Class Reunion with the most recent ruling in which a Web Designer refused to design a web page for a Gay Couple.

The problem is there are so many distinctions with meaningful differences between the two cases Daily PUMA is somewhat surprised no one is digging deeper to explain the distinctions and the differences, therefore Daily PUMA will.

In the case of not being photographed at a public event, I think the Supreme Court was right in ruling 30 years ago that the couple's rights were violated. This was a public event, publicly sanctioned, and the members who were denied their photo had standing since one of the two was directly connected to the event. For the photographer to have the right to not film them, the photographer would have needed to print a warning ON EVERY SINGLE piece of company related printing that they do not film gay couples under any circumstance. This would give the photographer standing, but most likely, would have resulted in a significant drop in overall business and most likely they would NOT have landed this particular gig.

In the case of the web designer not wanting to design a web space for a gay couple, this is electronic work, it is not work in the physical world, and that is a distinction with a difference. In what universe do we allow someone to be FORCED to do work in THEIR OWN WORK SPACE that goes against their beliefs? The answer is, we don't. 

What about the wedding cake designer who refused to design a cake for a gay couple? Again, in a person's own private work space, they have the right to refuse service of their own personal work skills if they choose to do so, to anyone. However, they should make such a notice presently visible in their work space, or, at the very least, be required to make such a posting upon their first enforcement of their rule.

When it comes to the sale of refrigerators, appliances, food, I do not think the provider of those goods can discriminate against someone who has different beliefs because this goes beyond the scope of their own work space. What about a repair shop, can they discriminate? ONLY IF they have it visibly posted on their site and also on all of their advertisements. The prevailing hope would while a small percentage would support this decision, the vast majority would be disgusted and the loss of business would allow competing businesses who do not discriminate, to thrive.

Both Progressive and Conservatives have tried to own the "303 Creative vs Elenis Ruling" for their own political gain, and lost in all of this political gain posturing is the Supreme Court has ruled correctly in all three instances. Those accusing the Supreme Court of politicizing gay rights issues based on these three cases are the ones who are politicizing the issue for their own agenda.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

The Mainstream Media will NEVER Challenge the Trans and Pride Movement no matter what the Movement says or does.

Apparently this is fake news. "We're here, we're queer, we're not just shoppers", is what is actually being sung. The very first stanza either the camera person or someone near the camera microphone says "we're coming for your children", but each verse after that, it sounds like the word shoppers is being used, as in, "we're not just your shoppers". 

The sound byte clip seemed so perfect when I first heard and saw it it I was suspicious, but the woman with her breasts showing influenced me, she seemed so in your face that along with the caption below the thumbnail I fell for it. I was reviewing Twitter comments under the original Tweet and a Twitter commenter explained the word shoppers was being used. I reviewed the video clip and I agree...."We're here, we're Queer, we're not just your shoppers."

This level of frenzied self righteousness will continue to go unchallenged by the mainstream media, remember that the next time the mainstream media is all in on the next Trump Hunt. 

We're here, we're Queer, and we're coming for your Children!

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Unless the FBI arrived to pick up classified documents with or without a search warrant, and were PHYSICALLY DENIED ACCESS to pick up the classified documents, then Trump has done nothing wrong or indictable.

Sometimes the Washington Swamp loves to convolute the law so they can force their intended target into a court of law, which now includes the former President of the United States. 

Allegedly Trump has denied, stalled, ignored and avoided dealing with repeated requests to return classified documents to the FBI and the present Government.

It appears the FBI, knowing how Trump would respond to being forced to do something, entrapped Trump for the purpose of arresting and indicting him when all they had to do was show up and take what they felt was theirs. Yes, it's really that simple.

What if the FBI had just appeared one day at Mar Lago and said they were there to retrieve all the classified documents Trump had in his possession? If Trump lets the FBI in and the FBI retrieves all the Classified Documents, then has Trump committed an indictable crime? If the answer is no, then once the FBI showed up and as long as they were allowed in to remove classified documents, then Trump did not violate any laws. 

Why didn't the FBI send a couple of agents over to review and discern which documents had to be returned, and which ones did not need to be returned? Unless Trump physically denied access to the FBI agents, Trump has not done anything worthy of any indictments.

Doesn't Trump have his own Secret Service in his presence? Seems like the Classified Documents could have been picked up by verified FBI Agents at any time with no threat to the FBI's safety, and no need to indict Trump.

As for Trump "returning" documents, how is Trump to know what he can keep, and what he must return? Isn't it logical to presume the only way the documents could safely leave Trump's possession would be to have the FBI retrieve and transport them, which in the end, is exactly what they did, but with a whole lot of Swamp Drama attached to the situation.

 

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

When Donald Trump Speaks, he allegedly commits crimes, is that how it is supposed to work?

There is something about the perpetual attacks against Donald Trump going back to 2015 that I find perplexing.

Whenever there has been a breaking news story about something Donald Trump has "done", it seems to involve something Donald Trump allegedly said, not something Trump actually did. 

Whether it's Donald Trump pleading with Georgia to find him some votes to offset the tens of thousands most likely fraudulently collected ballot harvest votes, or stalling the Secret Service as to when they can collect Presidential papers, or refusing to answer questions about an alleged encounter that has no date attached to it, to allegedly falsifying tax returns in a way that is no different than how many others have done, the entire actions of our present regime seems like an insurrection against our prior President.

I recall when Donald Trump wanted to find out if a private citizen named Joe Biden who had not yet announced his plans to run for President, had any financial ties to Ukraine, Trump was laughably accused of "digging for dirt".

Possibly the moment we lost our democracy was when the mainstream media actually claimed that "digging for dirt" was a legal term to be taken seriously, and that Trump was in violation and thus should be impeached. 

Ever since "Digging for Dirt" gate was concocted, we have all been taken down a rabbit hole in which everything Trump says is illegal, and therefore subject to an investigation and now prosecution, when the reality is, if it is not a written order, IT DID NOT HAPPEN because the person receiving the verbal command has the right of refusal until the order is put in writing.

As Trump is repeatedly tried on a multitude of alleged violations of the law, remember this, ASKING, or TELLING, someone to do something, is NOT ordering them to do it, unless it is in writing, or a threat of being fired actually becomes a firing, I don't think Trump has broken any laws.

 

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Are we to believe we cannot convert "excess" Carbon Dioxide into anything useful?

More sky is melting rhetoric from Juan Cole. Cole shows charts that reveal CO2 is allegedly at record levels. Then Cole begins discussing what CO2 levels were 200 years ago, and also what CO2 levels were millions of years ago. Cole never explains how he knows what CO2 levels were 200 years ago, nor how CO2 levels were known from millions of years ago, but we should just believe him anyways. 

 

Even if Cole is correct, Cole's article avoids discussing if there are any ways to convert excessive CO2 to something else. Are we to believe that over the next 10 years all of civilization cannot figure out how to tame and safely convert CO2?

Are any billionaires offering a reward for the first CO2 "invention" that allows "excessive" CO2 to be converted to something more environmentally safer?

If the end of the world is upon us because of excessive CO2 already in the upper atmosphere, and not one reward is being offered by a billionaire to incentivize a way to reduce CO2 that is already in the atmosphere, then, I can't come up with a then, can you?

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

The Republican flaw regarding how they view, Abortion, Gun Rights, Global Warming, Caregiving, and Popular Vote.

Having been a former life long Democrat for several decades, I can see why I now usually loath present Democrat Progressive policies, when the Policies don't work, we are lied to and told they do work. However, it appears that Republican Politicians have an inability to innovate better options and solutions to Societal and Environmental Issues Democrat Politician seem to be bungling.

While Democrat Politicians want their first place trophy for attempting to bring feel good solutions that do not work, they manage to so offend Republican Politicians who know the Progressive ideas are not working that the Republican Politicians walk away without offering a better solution other than to fall back on the "Constitution" or the country is a "Republic, not a Democracy".

I cannot do all the topics stated in the title, Abortion, Gun Rights, Global Warming, Caregiving, and Popular Vote, justice in one article. Instead all I can ask anyone who reads this article is to question why each Political Party seems reluctant to outdo each other with great ideas, and instead are comfortable simply jousting against each other at every turn.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

MSNBC Durham Investigation Rebuke misses the there there there while mocking the there there.

While MSNBC attempts to discredit the four year Durham investigation regarding the conspiracy to connect Donald Trump with Russia, MSNBC creates a new there there without realizing it.

Quoting from the MSNBC biased editorial masked as news analysis...

"All of the substantiated claims that he (Durham) makes were likewise previously acknowledged in a 2019 report from the department’s inspector general that found that despite some serious concerning mistakes, the Russia investigation was justified."

end quote.

51 Former Government Intelligence Officials signed a letter less than 2 weeks before the 2020 Presidential Election claiming the Hunter Biden lap top was a ruse and most likely Russian disinformation. This last minute fraudulent claim of fraud concocted by the Biden Presidential Campaign helped put Joe Biden over the top in 2020, yet MSNBC not only ignores this reality, but attempts to gaslight the Durham Investigation by claiming a report released a year before the 51 signature fraud somehow negates everything in the Durham investigation that has been ongoing for the past 4 years.

How does a 2019 Inspector general report negate facts and stories that emerged a year later, also known as Hunter Biden Laptop Gate just before the 2020 Presidential Election? 

The Gaslighting of the Truth never seems to end with MSNBC.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

What we can all learn from the Jordan Neely, Daniel Penny Subway Choke Hold Tragedy.

I am not against what Daniel Penny initially did to ensure that Jordan Neely's verbal threats in an enclosed area were met with resistance. Unfortunately the news failed to mention if and when the train reached a stop during the 15 minute choke hold.

Was the Train in an actual Train Depot waiting for the Police to arrive? Was the train in between stops and there was no way off the train? Was the Train Moving? 

My suggestion is in this type of situation, and assuming the train was not moving and the other passengers had a safe way to leave the specific train where the stranglehold was going on, the specific train should have been Immediately evacuated and Mr. Penny and the other people detaining Jordan Neely should have then left so Mr. Neely would be all alone inside the train cab, presumably still alive.

While it is easier to come to such a conclusion after the fact and from a distance, this was not an airplane where the passengers had no where to go. Maybe it is time for Subway services to make passengers aware of evacuation options when a situation is occurring involving a physical confrontation, and it is safe to leave the actual train cab.

I hope the New York Subway system begins to offer evacuation instructions when it is safe to do so since not doing anything might have created a problem, while doing something with no end in sight created a tragic outcome.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

How can the E. Jean Carroll trial go on without an actual allegation date attached to it?

Every Detective Show I have ever watched asks one simple question, "Where were you on the night of", or "the afternoon of", etc. This allows the alleged suspect an opportunity to prove where they were at that specific date and time.

The E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against Donald Trump apparently has no specific time or day attached to it. How can anyone mount a defense if no specific date or time is attached to the accusation?

Appearing as a defendant under such loose guidelines would basically allow the plaintiff's attorney to ask any question about anything that might relate to proving that at some point in time Mr. Trump was at the location in question.

It's just such a silly premise under which to have a trial that it may be setting a dangerous precedent. Remember, these are two adults, so it is not as if this was a child who can't remember the exact time and date of an incident. 

I wonder if a dangerous precedent has been set in which in the future, an allegation without an actual date attached to it will still be allowed to go forward. 

I suppose there are cases where someone states..."On or about", but even in that scenario, the on or about I would presume is related to a specific date. If "On or about" is allowed to be used to describe something that happened during a specific year, or decade, it seems like that would both weaken the ability to mount a defense while placing the defendant in peril of having to answer all kinds of questions in an effort to pinpoint a time the defendant may have been at that location as if that would somehow prove something happened. 

There seems to be a nefarious purpose to this lawsuit in which every American can now be accused and tried without attaching a specific moment in time to when the allegation actually occurred. 

Carny was once explained to me as playing a game where the entry fee costs more than the most valuable prize a contestant can win in return. This E. Jean Carroll lawsuit sounds like a carny trial, and we are all the worse for it no matter what the verdict is.

If an appeal has to be filed by the defense, How about the Defendant was unable to mount a defense against an accusation that had no date attached to it? 

Meanwhile, CNN makes no mention of the ginormous elephant in the room, the lack of a specific time and date attached to accusation. And the assertion that E. Jean Carroll no longer had a social life because of this alleged encounter, was this only brought up in the closing statement, because E. Jean Carroll co-founded a dating site called "Greatboyfriends.com" 

Did the defense protest the statement made by plaintiff's attorney that E. Jean Carroll went decades without dates or being married and having children because of the Trump encounter, because this was easily refuted and I hope Trump's lawyer challenged the claim.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

How Reporters screw up basic common sense comments regarding January 6th.

Before anyone can claim no "Credible Evidence" regarding the 2020 Presidential Election and possible vote tampering existed, one would presume that investigations would have been done. There were no credible investigations regarding the 2020 Elections by the mainstream media, not before, during, or after. 

There was no follow up investigations from the mainstream media regarding the many complaints that were cited, depositioned, and then basically ignored by the Judicial system that began claiming no one had 'standing". 

Postal employees ignored their subpoenas to appear for questioning.

Basic questions about how much "power" the vote uploaders had to change a vote, or to reupload the same ballots over and over, or why ballots existed with no folds, which if they were provisional in nature should have still been connected to an actual voter but may not have been, were all issues worthy of investigating.

This article link literally has no understanding of how Ted Cruz is using the phrase "credible evidence"   

Christopher Krebbs admitted during a 60 minutes interview that were problems on the ground, but dismissed them without mentioning what they were.  What type of investigative journalism is this?

This constant MSM gaslighting about the 2020 Elections when no real investigations went on just creates more and more suspicion that there probably was something going on that needs to remain covered up or the news would be earth shattering.

 

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Delusion and Hostility regarding Kyle Rittenhouse proves how damaging the Mainstream Media has become, or has always been.

An insane Facebook message was sent to me about Kyle Rittenhouse. I cannot reproduce it because I was blocked.

My response below.

Why are you lying? Rittenhouse was there to protect businesses from being burned down. It was THREE CONVICTED FELONS who attacked him. One was a SERIAL child molestor. BLM should be supporting Rittenhouse because there were no fires the night Rittenhouse was out there. People lose their lives when their businesses are burned down. You're probably another live off of taxpayer funded job self who spits on them when someone tries to protect the very businesses that FUND YOUR JOB. Wow.

The reply below from what appears to be a brainwashed MSM liberal.

You are a fucking moron worshipping a cold blooded MURDERER.

P.J.

 

VIGILANTES are not the law

P.J.

 

PEACEFUL PROTEST is not cause for MURDER.

P.J.

Go polish your guns, TRUMP HUMPER. And be sure to send him all your money !

 

Below is the image of the comments followed by a final commentary...

At this point I was blocked from responding. How can the mainstream media have done such a horrible job telling the truth about Kyle Rittenhouse? 

News Reporter Brittney Hopper was recently fired / quit from KCBS because she tried to use honest phrasing while reporting the news. The result of what the news crews have unleashed is revealed by the comments up above by a highly misinformed person. By the way, I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Donald Trump in 2020.

I apologize for the grammatical errors I made in my Facebook post, those narrow margins and small typing areas really are not conducive to writing with minimal to  zero grammatical errors.

 

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

California leads the U.S. in Renewable Energy, but it's not all good news.

The irony of renewable energy is renewables absolutely have to have battery back-up before it can ever lead the way for supplying energy to all. Renewables by themselves require many built in safety checks to ensure the renewable energy source is not volatile, but stable. Battery storage back-up will always be needed whenever renewable energy is mentioned.

 

So, while California can tout they are number one in the U.S. in renewable energy sources, it is because there is also hydro, nuclear, natural gas, geothermal, and biomass that steadies out the unsteadiness of Solar and Wind energy.

 

California also imports the most electricity of any State in the U.S., but has the smallest per capita consumption of electricity. Additional California electricity consumption can be found here. 

 

What does this all mean? Effective Battery Creation that does not use child labor is required. Once the child labor issue is resolved, then hopefully battery storage can be used to preserve and steady out solar and wind energy. 

 

Until battery storage is safe, ethical, cost effective and available, there is no such thing as "we're number one" when it comes to renewables because the renewables are unsteady and absolutely require several other forms of steadier energy sources to be up and running for solar and wind to be relied upon.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

DeSantis knocks it out of the Park with his description of Russia with Putin in charge, or was it John McCain's quote?

Quick update: Monday Mar 27, 2023: About a week ago The View mentioned that DeSantis's "gas station with a bunch of nuclear weapons" comment was actually first said by John McCain around 2014. If this is true, then shame on DeSantis for plagiarizing someone else's comment, that's what Joe Biden did back in the 90's when he plagiarized several speeches from British Politicians. 
end of Monday, Mar 27, 2023 update:

After calling the Russia-Ukraine war a 'territorial dispute,' DeSantis says Putin is a 'war criminal' and 'basically a gas station with a bunch of nuclear weapons'

Desantis's quote about Putin is pretty accurate specifically because of when Putin decided to go to war. After two consecutive budget surpluses, the second surplus bigger than the first, and with Europe and India lapping up all the petro and natural gas products Russia can export, Putin decided to start a war of destruction.

An imbalanced leader of the largest territorial country on the planet, twice as large as the next largest country, sees no value in having a highly successful economy that was running surging budget surpluses with no end in sight.

If Putin had not gone to war, Russia would probably be heading towards its fourth consecutive budget surplus. Instead, 20,000 to 80,000 Russian families have lost a son and there is no end in sight for this war. 

Viewing Russian Soldiers in Syria and Turkey helping with the Earthquake recovery while other Russian Soldiers are launching missiles doing the same type of physical damage as the earthquake, is surreal, and brings home De'Santis's point. Putin has turned Russia into a Gas Station with Nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

2017 Los Angeles County has over 800,000 Permanent Vote by Mail voters and an ever increasing percentage of Mail In Voters.

DailyPUMA was surprised to discover that there such a thing as a Permanent Vote by Mail designation for Los Angeles City.

  LA City Council Voter Counts.

 

Over 800,000 Permanent Vote by Mail voters are on the Voter Rolls. (see above illustration) as of 2017.

  

 

L.A. Almanac Link

Above are yearly tallies showing the remarkable rise in vote by mail as the percentage of total votes. Sure seems odd that it takes a week to count mail in votes that are locally mailed in. Local mail is supposed to pretty much be overnight, maybe 2 nights max.

Please feel free to review the links and leave a comment regarding your observations.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

L.A. Registrar's Office required 2022 George Gascon Recall Petition Drive to collect an extra 68,000 valid signatures than were lawfully required.

According to the LA Times, To put Gascon's job on the ballot, the campaign seeking his ouster needed to gather 566,857 valid signatures by mid-July (2022); the figure reflects 10% of the people who were eligible to vote in the election cycle when he won office in November 2020. The L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk's office said about the 520,000 of the signatures submitted were valid.

According to Breit Bart discussing the Judicial Watch Lawsuit,

In its statement, Judicial Watch noted the lawsuit alleged several key facts, which included, the following:

• Los Angeles County has more voter registrations on its voter rolls than it has citizens who are old enough to register.  Specifically, according to data provided to and published by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112 percent of its adult citizen population.
• The entire State of California has a registration rate of about 101 percent of its age-eligible citizenry.
• Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100 percent of the age-eligible citizenry.  

 According to the Judicial Watch Lawsuit

• 1.2 million inactive voters removed from Los Angeles voter rolls, more than half haven’t voted in 10 years 

What does all of this mean? It could mean that when the LA county registrar mandated that the Recall George Gascon Petition drive needed 566,857 votes to qualify, it was based on falsely inflated voter registration rolls of 5,668,570. 

According to Breit Bart

• Judicial Watch, along with co-plaintiff the Election Integrity Project of California, filed a lawsuit in federal court back in 2017 (Judicial Watch Inc., v. Dean C. Logan) on behalf of several lawfully registered voters in Los Angeles County, which alleged that both the State of California and Los Angeles County have failed to comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which was passed in 1993.

If Los Angeles and California have been routinely not cleaning up voter rolls since the National Voter Registration Act was passed in 1993, the non compliance has helped insulate elected officials from voter recalls by artificially inflating the number of valid petition signatures needed to place a recall of an elected official on the ballot.  

It seems plausible that a judge would prefer to rule in favor of a retroactive reduction in the number of valid petition signatures needed to recall George Gascon, or, it would incentivize non-compliance of Federal Law such as NVRA with the worst penalty being nothing but, compliance? How would that be fair to the Voters who were thwarted from being heard due to bloated petition signature requirements?

I am not sure how a lawyer for the recall George Gascon Petition would argue in court for a retroactively assessing a lower number of required signatures, but there may be an argument waiting to be made in court that would make the 2022 George Gascon Recall Effort instantly valid and whole.

If a judge did nothing more than agree that an instant reduction from 112% to 100% of all LA adult age voters as a way to establish a new, lower Gascon Valid Signature number, the 2022 George Gascon Recal petition would have passed! When we subtract 12% from 5,668,570 overinflated LA Voter Rolls it would decrease LA Voter Rolls by 680,228 voters. This would make the NEW 100% total voter rolls in LA 4,988,342. 10% of 4,988,342 equals 498,348 valid signatures needed for the Gascon Recall to go through. The "failed" 2022 Gascon Recall netted 520,00 valid signatures! The 2022 George Gascon Recall should be declared as having reached the proper signature total, AS IS!

The 2022 George Gascon Recall Petition netted 21,500 more valid signatures than were legally required based on 100% of all LA Adult Voters!

Put another way, the L.A. Registrar's Office required 68,000 additional valid signatures than were legally required for the George Gascon Recall Petition Drive to have been approved.

Wed. Mar 22, 2023 5:51 am, Update:  This is a link to the LA Vote total Almanac pictured below.

 End of Wed. Mar 22, 2023 5:51 am, Update.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

The 2022 George Gascon Recall Petition netted 21,500 more valid signatures than were lawfully required based on 100% of all L.A. Adult Voters!

According to the LA Times, To put Gascon's job on the ballot, the campaign seeking his ouster needed to gather 566,857 valid signatures by mid-July (2022); the figure reflects 10% of the people who were eligible to vote in the election cycle when he won office in November 2020. The L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk's office said about the 520,000 of the signatures submitted were valid.

According to Breit Bart discussing the Judicial Watch Lawsuit,

In its statement, Judicial Watch noted the lawsuit alleged several key facts, which included, the following:

• Los Angeles County has more voter registrations on its voter rolls than it has citizens who are old enough to register.  Specifically, according to data provided to and published by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112 percent of its adult citizen population.
• The entire State of California has a registration rate of about 101 percent of its age-eligible citizenry.
• Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100 percent of the age-eligible citizenry.  

 According to the Judicial Watch Lawsuit

• 1.2 million inactive voters removed from Los Angeles voter rolls, more than half haven’t voted in 10 years 

What does all of this mean? It could mean that when the LA county registrar mandated that the Recall George Gascon Petition drive needed 566,857 votes to qualify, it was based on falsely inflated voter registration rolls of 5,668,570. 

According to Breit Bart

• Judicial Watch, along with co-plaintiff the Election Integrity Project of California, filed a lawsuit in federal court back in 2017 (Judicial Watch Inc., v. Dean C. Logan) on behalf of several lawfully registered voters in Los Angeles County, which alleged that both the State of California and Los Angeles County have failed to comply with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which was passed in 1993.

If Los Angeles and California have been routinely not cleaning up voter rolls since the National Voter Registration Act was passed in 1993, the non compliance has helped insulate elected officials from voter recalls by artificially inflating the number of valid petition signatures needed to place a recall of an elected official on the ballot.  

It seems plausible that a judge would prefer to rule in favor of a retroactive reduction in the number of valid petition signatures needed to recall George Gascon, or, it would incentivize non-compliance of Federal Law such as NVRA with the worst penalty being nothing but, compliance? How would that be fair to the Voters who were thwarted from being heard due to inaccurate petition signature requirements?

I am not sure how a lawyer for the recall George Gascon Petition would argue in court for a retroactively assessing a lower number of required signatures, but there may be an argument waiting to be made in court that would make the 2022 George Gascon Recall Effort instantly valid and whole.

If a judge did nothing more than agree that an instant reduction from 112% to 100% of all LA adult age voters as a way to establish a new, lower Gascon Valid Signature number, the 2022 George Gascon Recal petition would have passed! When we subtract 12% from 5,668,570 overinflated LA Voter Rolls it would decrease LA Voter Rolls by 680,228 voters. This would make the NEW 100% total voter rolls in LA 4,988,342. 10% of 4,988,342 equals 498,348 valid signatures needed for the Gascon Recall to go through. The "failed" 2022 Gascon Recall netted 520,00 valid signatures! The 2022 George Gascon Recall should be declared as having reached the proper signature total, AS IS!

The 2022 George Gascon Recall Petition netted 21,500 more valid signatures than were legally required based on 100% of all LA Adult Voters!

Put another way, the L.A. Registrar's Office required 68,000 additional valid signatures than were legally required for the George Gascon Recall Petition Drive to have been approved.

 

 

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Southern California 50 dollar Natural Gas refund is not enough.

To anyone who may normally pay 100 to 200 dollars a month for natural gas, suddenly getting a 250 dollar to 575 dollar gas bill, followed by a 50 dollar rebate a month later, is a Cruel JOKE. If it were me, I would consider taking a 50 dollar bill and burning it in front of the Gas company headquarters to show them how insulting the $50 dollar rebate was.

All the Gas company had to do was take the hit themselves for one month of really high natural gas prices, and then be more frugal with their own executive bonuses in the upcoming year. All gas paying customers who normally have a 100 dollar or higher gas bill, are STILL OWED MONEY (in my opinion). The credit to their natural gass account should be equal to HALF of the record billing amount of their January 2023, bill.

Perhaps the Gas company is relying on someone filing a class action lawsuit so they can kick their problem down the road a few years by stalling the lawsuit. Call District 12 City Council Member John Lee's office and demand a 50% rebate from your January gas bill. 

If the Gas company is not held accountable this time, and if their executives receive their normal bonuses going forward, then where is their incentive to do better the next time?

 

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

L.A. County Registrar and the Missing Mayoral Election Vote Update Links.

Please look at this LA country Nov. 8, 2022 thirteen Vote count update image, should not every vote update in the first column be linkable? Do not click on the image below. Click here for the link to the actual page this image appears on.

Here is the link to the above image. 

If you click on the link, try clicking on any of the "updates" numbered 1 through 13 in the first column. The Updates numbered 1 through 13 don't link to anything! This seems to be an act of omission in which necessary data for transparency purposes, is omitted from the record. Those Update totals exist, and since I like statistics, I want to study the updates. Where are the linkable updates? I won't claim the omission is intentional, but the omission needs to be "updated" and linked to actual vote totals that match the time and date of the update.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Using Math to prove the 2022 Recall Gascon Petition gathered enough Valid Signatures.

Judicial Watch has pulled the scab off of a very serious situation involving Registrars who do not keep their voter rolls current. It becomes increasingly difficult to remove an elected official through a recall petition drive because the 10% Petition signature threshold fraudulently inflates as the number of no longer valid voters kept on the voter rolls keeps rising.

A 2017 Judical watch lawsuit results in over 1.2 million voters being removed from the 2023 L.A. registrar voter rolls.  

However, the 1.2 million L.A. voters being removed opens up a Pandora's box of issues related to what is the correct number of valid signatures needed for a Recall Petition campaign.

According to the LA Times, To put Gascon's job on the ballot, the campaign seeking his ouster needed to gather 566,857 valid signatures by mid-July (2022); the figure reflects 10% of the people who were eligible to vote in the election cycle when he won office in November 2020. The L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk's office said about the 520,000 of the signatures submitted were valid.

When the L.A. Registrar's office attempted to quantify how many total signatures the Recall Gascon Petition needed to gather, what L.A. Voter roll total were they using? Was the L.A. Registrar's office using a 2020 voters roll that had minimally removed voters from their voter's rolls going back a decade or longer, or were they using an updated 2020 voters roll that included subtracting a significant percentage of the 1.2 million voters that were recently removed from the LA voters roll?

When the LA Registrar gave the Recall Gascon Committee a signature goal of 566,857 signatures they needed to collect, how many of the 1.2 million no longer valid voters were still being counted to inaccurately inflate the Petition Signature Requirement? 

The difference in Recall signatures needed to remove an elected official before and after 1.2 million voters has been removed is statistically astounding. 5,668,570 total L.A. voters requires 10%, or 566,857 valid petition signatures for the recall to be approved. However, since we know that 600,000 L.A. voters had not voted in 10 years or longer as of 2022, we can at the very least remove 60,000 petition signatures from the total needed for the Gascon recall to have had enough signatures.

The properly updated number of petition signatures needed to qualify would have been at the most 10% of 5,068,570, or 506,857. The Gascon Recall Committee produced 520,000 valid signatures, also known as 13,143 signatures MORE than what should have been the 2020 Gascon Recall Petition minimum needed to qualify. 

The 600,000 L.A. voter roll reduction is a VERY CONSERVATIVE AMOUNT. As of 2020 when Gascon ran for office, the actual number of L.A. voters who should have been removed from the L.A. voter's rolls was probably closer to 650,000 to 750,000, which would have meant 65,000 to 75,000 less valid petition signatures than the L.A. Registrar's office had mandated.

The question that a court needs to decide is what is a fair estimate of the total L.A. voters roll as of 2020 when Gascon was elected. I doubt any court would claim the increasing numbers of L.A. voters who were no longer eligible in 2020 was zero, nor would the court agree that all 1.2 million voters should be subtracted from the L.A. Voters roll in 2020. Clearly a number in the middle would be a fair result, and if that number is 400,000 or higher out of 1.2 million, the Gascon Petition recall already has enough valid signatures. Considering that 600,000 voters had not voted since 2012, 650,000 to 750,000 sure seems like a conservative estimate, which is well above the 400,000 threshold needed for the Recall Gascon Petition to have been accepted, AS IS.

No matter how one slices it, it looks like the Gascon Recall petition already has enough Valid signatures with at the very least, 13,143 petition signatures to spare. 

This is the follow up article to the 1.2 million voters removed from the L.A. Voters Roll could reverse the failed 2022 George Gascon recall.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

The 1.2 million voters removed from Los Angeles County Voter Rolls could reverse the failed George Gascon Recall.

The George Gascon recall drive may have been thwarted by bloated Los Angeles voter rolls that most likely inaccurately raised the recall signature threshold needed to recall George Gascon.

The recent removal of over 1 million, 2 hundred thousand voters from the LA voter Rolls may, or may not, have inflated the number of petition signatures required for the George Gascon recall vote. And, even if the argument is made that that was then, this is now, we would then have to ask how long was the voter roll reduction stalled before it came to be. 

Voter Roll Removal could become a quid pro quo in which LA Officials were stalling before the voters were removed from the voter rolls, thus inflating the number of signatures needed to recall George Gascon. 

Stay tuned as Daily Puma attempts a calculation to see how many less signatures the George Gascon recall actually needed.

 

Update: This excerpt is from the LA Times...To put Gascon's job on the ballot, the campaign seeking his ouster needed to gather 566,857 valid signatures by mid-July; the figure reflects 10% of the people who were eligible to vote in the election cycle when he won office in November 2020. The L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk's office said about the 520,000 of the signatures submitted were valid.

  

On first glance this would mean the recent removal of 1.2 million voters from the rolls has no standing in regards to the Gascon recall. However, lets backwards engineer the numbers. From a claimed 5.67 million LA voters, the new numbers reflect a drop of 1.2 million voters, meaning there are now 4.47 million voters. This would mean only 447,000 votes would now be needed to recall George Gascon. 

 

Is it fair to just suddenly jettison 1.2 million voters and claim it had no effect on recent recall attempts? DailyPUMA believes the 1.2 million votes that were removed would have to be charted on a graph as if the voter rolls were actually being cleaned up every year. Just because 1.2 million voters were removed from the voter rolls does not mean they all "rolled off" this year. A calculation would have to be made going back at least 10 years and the 1.2 million removed voters could be calculated at 120,000 per year.

2012 to 2020 equals 8 years x 120,000 per year voter attrition. That would mean 960,000 thousand more voters were on the roll in 2020 than actually existed. Instead of 5.67 million voters, the argument can be made that when Gascon was elected, there were only approximately 4.71 million voters. This in turn means the Gascon recall only needed 471,000 votes to qualify, NOT the mandated 567,000.

This also raises the issue that by not updating voter rolls, local Governments are engaging in a power grab in which voters ability to recall an official diminishes the more bloated the voter rolls actually are. This also means vote percentage totals have been significantly inaccurate, which in turn can demoralize voters into thinking their city is apathetic because of inaccurately lower voting percentage totals.

 

If I were involved in the Gascon Recall effort, I would be in court demanding the petition total required to recall Gason was based on voter rolls that were not in compliance with FEDERAL LAWS, and that a new calculation needs to be retroactively applied that would instantly make the Gascon recall valid. 

Please see the follow up to this article, "Using Math to Prove the 2022 Gascon Recall had the necessary valid signatures to be approved".

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.