Quid pro quo. This for that. On the second day of President Donald Trump's defense in the Senate impeachment trial,  former National Security advisor John Bolton leaked information from his yet unpublished book alleging that the president withheld aid to Ukraine in order to get an investigation into his political rival.

Threatened by a rising tide of hysterical pundits claiming the Bolton revelations changed everything, one of the president's star lawyers, Democrat Alan Dershowitz, reversed the entire course of the public narrative:

"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power, or an impeachable offense. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using terms like "quid pro quo..."

If anyone is still ignorant of what quid pro quo means, they must be living under a rock. The whole country has been hearing about a quid pro quo for months now.

Keeping in mind that asking for one thing in return for another is not illegal. President Trump allegedly demanded a quid pro quo from Ukraine's president Zelenskiy. He allegedly demanded that Zelenskiy investigate the activities of Hunter Biden in Ukraine in exchange for US aid; aid for investigation.

Two things:

  • one, the president has the right to ask for something in return for US aid.
  • two, Trump did not mention withholding aid until Zelensky started an investigation of the Bidens

The Democrats have been framing the argument this way: the president withheld aid to Ukraine to get President Zelenskiy to dig up dirt on the president's political rival, Joe Biden.

But, that is not what happened. The president released transcripts of two calls that he had with Zelenskiy, and he does not ask in either of them for political dirt on Joe Biden. What he does ask for is cooperation investigating the 2016 election and help getting to the bottom of the firing of Viktor Shokin.

Read the transcript. The US and Ukraine have a lot in common and have good reason to cooperate in the ongoing battle against corruption.

Watch:

On Day 2 of President Trump's defense, attorney Pam Bondi addressed the elephant in the room, the Bidens dealings in Ukraine. This issue is the core of the impeachment effort. President Trump wanted to find out about corruption in Ukraine that involved US officials, and Democrats have worked hard to cover it up or "debunk" it.

Dems mention Biden and Burisma over 400 times

At the beginning of Bondi's devastating presentation, she pointed out that a discussion of the Bidens was merited. The House managers had spent a significant amount of time on the Bidens in the 21-hour long presentation of their case to impeach the president. Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and Burisma were mentioned over 400 times.

Bondi emphasized that the House Democrats tried to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no reason to investigate, because if there was a reason to investigate, then the House impeachment case crumbles.

Bondi uses Democrat witnesses, mainstream media and Obama State Dept. to prove that the Biden's should be investigated

The Democrats continually assert that the issue of corruption in the Biden-Burisma affair has been debunked, but Bondi presented plenty of reasons for the president to look into the matter, even now.

Biden joined Burisma while they were being investigated for corruption

The energy company Burisma was already being investigated in March 2014 by the UK Serious Fraud department for money laundering. Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board in April 2014. The UK froze millions of dollars of assets of the owner of Burisma. Biden remained on the board, in fact, Burisma announced that Biden was on the board after the assets were seized.

Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky under investigation

Ukraine prosecutors were investigating the owner of Burisma, Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky, a former "minister" in the government, who has been accused of using his position to grant his own company, Burisma licenses.

WATCH: Trump legal team member Pam Bondi lays out Hunter Biden’s “nefarious” dealings with #Burisma (as WaPo wrote at the time), validating @realDonaldTrump’s request to investigate corruption. pic.twitter.com/JjmvkSpvaI

.

Bondi also showed that many news outlets thought the Biden-Burisma connection was worth investigating. She even used the testimony of two of the House Democrat's witnesses, Marie Yovanovitch, and George Kent, to show that there was definitely a reason to be looking into the Biden-Burisma connections. They both agreed that there was a potential appearance of a conflict of interest.

Commenting on Bondi's presentation, even CNN's Jake Tapper had to admit that the arrangement between Hunter Biden and Burisma was "swampy."

Go here to watch more of Bondi's presentation which includes clips from ABC and other news outlets investigating the Biden's activities in Ukraine.

Democrat House manager Adam Schiff wrapped up the House's case on Day 4 of the Senate impeachment trial.

Schiff told the Senators, "CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike. I don’t know if that’s true."

It wasn't.

Beginning and ending with lies

It is fitting for Schiff to conclude his arguments for the impeachment and removal of the president of the United States with an untrue statement. He opened the Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry hearing with a statement that was also not true.

Schiff infamously interpreted with a mobster persona, reminiscent of The Godfather, the transcript of President Trump's call to Ukraine's President Zelenskiy, on national television, and left it like that in the congressional record, without reading the actual transcript into the record.

It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.

This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all.

Schiff put words in President Trump's mouth, words, that if true, would get him in a lot of trouble. That was the intent. But President Trump did not say those words, and Adam Schiff is a liar.

Washington Post lie tracker

The Washington Post keeps track of Trump's exaggerations and calls them lies. Things like, "My tax cut is the biggest tax cut ever," which they have tracked 181 times. They claim he has lied thousands of times because they track the same exaggeration every time he utters it, and he does repeat himself. Here's another "lie" the president told.

"Eighty times, Trump has claimed his phone call with the Ukrainian president was “perfect." Another "lie" the president told 242 times — "is that the U.S. economy today is the best in history." These rhetorical exaggerations are what the Washington Post tracks and calls "lies." Who is really lying?

Schiff's lies vs. Trump's exaggerations

Now, exaggeration about how good the economy is or how big the tax cut is has its problems, but it doesn't really hurt anyone. Lying about what was said to another head of state in a telephone call has far greater consequences, such as the divisive effort to remove a president from office and the disturbance of the peace of the country that has brought.

Where is the WaPo lie tally for Schiff? I would argue that in comparison, Schiff's lies are more of an existential threat than Trump's exaggerations.

Senator Marshal Blackburn on Schiff and the Democrats

Sen. Marsha Blackburn commented on Schiff's words in his closing statement and said that he should have retracted the statement as it was not true. She also pointed out the other insulting things the House managers said during their opening arguments. The Democrats have called the senators liars, accused them of participating in a cover-up, and called the president a dictator and a monarch.

It seems that Senator Blackburn has seen through Schiff's lies; let's hope all the senators have.

Watch:

On Day 3 of the Senate trial of President Trump, Sylvia Garcia, a Democrat House manager, presented arguments designed to debunk the idea that Joe and Hunter Biden were involved in corruption in Ukraine. It was surprising to hear so much about the Bidens and Ukraine during the impeachment trial.

In fact, it is puzzling that Russia and Ukraine have loomed so large over Trump's time in office. The career bureaucrats, the Biden's, and career congressmen and women seem to know so much of what is going on in Ukraine, but President Trump and the American people are just finding out now.

It is getting to the point that when folks hear the names Russia or Ukraine, they get a bad taste in their mouths since these two countries have been coupled with all the divisiveness, acrimony, and antagonism directed toward President Trump and anyone that supports him.

A tale of two Ukraines

Even the most unpolitical American must be wondering what is going on over there in Ukraine. President Trump surely stirred up a hornet's nest. Most Americans are probably in shock over the role Ukraine is playing in our lives, now.

Perhaps this is really a tale of two Ukraines, the permanent progressive international political class's Ukraine that works like an ATM, US aid in and then right back out into the pockets of the politically connected, and President Zelenskiy's Ukraine that is tired of being the playground of corrupt international progressives (Soros) and oligarchs, that wants to function like a real democratic republic.

Why are the Democrats willing to tear apart the US over Ukraine?

One has to wonder why the House Democrats and others are so furiously worked up about President Trump's request to Ukraine President Zelensky for help investigating what went on in Ukraine during the 2016 election? Why the relentless bombardment? Morning, afternoon, evening, in the House, on cable news, on the campaign trail.

Why are they so furiously denying Joe Biden's role in firing the Ukraine prosecutor that was investigating the company, Burisma, on which's board, Hunter Biden sat? What are they hiding?

If, as Biden says, there was no corruption, how would an investigation hurt him? Wouldn't a thorough investigation exonerate him? 

Corrupt anti-corruption activities

If Biden and our embassy were involved in corruption in Ukraine, what better way to deflect attention than touting your "anti-corruption" activities?

The president's personal lawyer, Rudy Guliani, has an explanation. He asserts that the Democrats are fomenting this impeachment so vociferously to cover up their own corrupt dealings in Ukraine. There is evidence that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US election, and there is evidence that our US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was meddling in Ukraine affairs issuing "Do Not Prosecute" lists to Ukrainian prosecutors, among other things.

John Solomon

Guliani is not the first to uncover the shady dealings of Obama administration officials. Investigative reporter John Solomon has been writing about Ukraine, Burisma, and the Bidens for several years. He's written for Politico and The Hill (which describes him as a former employee) and posts on his own website.

On the Burisma investigation, Solomon wrote:

This may be the single biggest under-reported fact in the impeachment scandal: four months before Trump and Zelensky had their infamous phone call, Ukraine law enforcement officials officially reopened their investigation into Burisma and its founder.

The Democrats "spike" Rudy Guliani's arguments in a two-pronged attack

The House Democrats and the Biden campaign conducted a two-pronged pre-emptive attack. House manager Garcia ran interference in the Senate impeachment trial and the Biden campaign took on the press.

House manager Sylvia Garcia made an impressive presentation intended to prove that Biden was just helping to rid Ukraine of a corrupt prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, a man that all of Europe considered corrupt. Why were the Democrats risking bringing up the topic of Biden when they don't want him as a witness in the impeachment trial?

Guliani has been pretty vocal about what he has been uncovering in Ukraine, so it stands to reason, if he has damning evidence of Biden corruption, that the Democrats would like to take out the argument before it is made.

But Guliani is ready to spill the beans, and Biden's campaign is also preemptively striking by issuing a memo to news agencies, warning them not to push a "debunked" theory about him in Ukraine.

Biden Memo orders media to stop spreading "misinformation"

Biden, who has told the media more than once what they can say about him, issued a memo recently, to inform the media what they should be saying about him, Hunter, and Ukraine.

According to Politico, "The memo, released a day before the start of Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, says there is “no evidence” for disproven claims pushed by the president that Biden sidelined a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating an energy company that his son, Hunter, held a high-paid position with."

The memo goes on,

“To fail to make clear that the conspiracy theory and false accusations about Joe Biden have been comprehensively disproven, to artificially prop-up these egregious lies based on the 'principle' that if partisans make accusations, they have to be treated as legitimate regardless of the facts, is to make you an enabler of misinformation,” the memo warned reporters and media outlets.

John Solomon has responded with an article of facts that Biden and his campaign must have forgotten when they wrote the memo.

Watch:

The House Democrats are only on day 2 of presenting their case to the Senate, so we haven't seen much of the president's dream team in action, yet.  They will start presenting their defence of the President on Saturday, and we already have some ideas of the strategy they will be pursuing in bringing the impeachment trial to an acquittal.

Yesterday, in Part 1, we covered the first half of President Trump's legal defense team. Now, for Part II.

Alan Dershowitz Constitutional Law expert and Harvard professor

Alan Dershowitz is not a conservative. He voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and in the summer of 2019 he was ready to "enthusiastically" support Joe Biden. During an interview on "The Dan Abrams Show," Dershowitz said, "I’m a strong supporter of Joe Biden. I like Joe Biden. I’ve liked him for a long time and I could enthusiastically support Joe Biden.”

Dershowitz has been a vocal voice defending the president since the Mueller investigation, even publishing a book in 2018 titled, "The Case Against Impeaching Trump." He is often seen on Fox News shows defending the president from his Democrat accusers. He has plenty of TV experience which is important in what is definitely a TV event.

Dershowitz is a controversial choice for the Dream Team because of his past clients and his own legal troubles. He has defended men like OJ Simpson,  Jeffrey Epstein, and Harvey Weinstein.  He is currently defending himself against accusations of sexual assault by a Jeffrey Epstein victim.

Robert Ray, Former Independent Counsel

Robert Ray succeeded Kenneth Starr on the Clinton investigation in the special counsel's office and issued the final reports at the end of the investigation. He is a frequent contributor on Fox News, maintaining that the impeachment is unconstitutional.

Pam Bondi

Pam Bondi served as Florida's Attorney General for eight years. She supported the president's 2016 campaign and now works for the White House.

Jane Raskin

Jane Raskin, of Raskin and Raskin, joined President Trump's legal team in 2018. She is known as a tough litigator.

Mike Purpura

Mike Purpura joined the White House legal staff in 2019. He also worked in George W. Bush's administration. According to Politico, "As associate counsel in the Bush White House, he worked on the administration’s response to congressional investigations."

He argues strongly for executive privilege. "Executive privilege is not a partisan issue. It’s important to protect the principle of allowing the president to receive candid, full, frank advice from his top advisers without fear that those deliberations and communications will become public.”

President Trump's legal team jumped into the fray in the Senate on Tuesday, and their strategy to defend the president is taking shape on national television for all to see. Most obviously, they are not allowing the House Managers to get away with calling the president or them liars.

Who are the members of the team?

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone graduated from the University of Chicago Law School. Cipollone worked for then-Attorney General Barr in 1992-93. He replaced Don McGahn in the Trump administration in 2018.

He is considered the chief strategist in handling the July 25th, 2019 call to Ukraine's President Zelenskiy, suggesting that the president release the transcript of the call. He wrote a combative letter to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler about the president's participation in a hearing on December 4th, 2019:

Your letter asked that the President notify the House Committee on the Judiciary ("Judiciary Committee" or
"Committee") by December 1, 2019, whether the Administration intends to participate in a hearing scheduled for December 4, 2019. You scheduled this initial hearing-no doubt purposely-during the time that you know the President will be out of the country attending the NATO Leaders Meeting in London. 

Cipollone displayed the same combativeness in the Senate when responding to Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, and other Democrat House Managers during the debate to establish the rules that will govern the impeachment trial.

Cipollone's combativeness should be an asset in this impeachment battle as the Democrats like Schiff, Nadler, and Senator Chuck Schumer are relentless in their attacks against the president, the Senate, and the Constitution.

Nadler accused Cipollone of lying, Cipollone responds and then Chief Justice Roberts admonished them.

Deputy Counsel to the president, Patrick Philbin

Patrick Philbin joined the Trump administration in 2019 and assists Cipollone in the legal office of the White House. He also served in the Bush II administration. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Philbin attended Yale and earned his law degree at Harvard.

He spoke during the rulemaking debates, and excoriated the House Democrats for not allowing the president to have lawyers present during the impeachment inquiry in the House. He explains why the case should be rejected just because of that.

Watch:

Jay Sekulow, President Trump's personal lawyer

Sekulow has been assisting President Trump since the Mueller investigation. He has also been assisting the president in the matter of his financial records, a case that will go to the Supreme court in March.

Sekulow has extensive experience arguing before the Supreme Court, but his primary expertise has been in the area of religious liberty and the first amendment.

Sekulow addresses the issue of the withholding of aid to Ukraine. He pointed out that President Obama had done something similar regarding aid to Egypt.

Watch:

Former Independent Counsel, Kenneth Starr

Starr has the most experience with impeachment as his investigation and subsequent report of Bill Clinton's scandals e.g. Whitewater, perjury, and Vince Foster's suicide led to the impeachment of Clinton in 1998.

The House Managers have finally made it to the Senate to begin the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. During the next three days, they, as well as the president's legal team, Chief Justice Roberts, and the Senate will be deciding what rules will guide the trial.

Democrats want more

Unsurprisingly, the Democrat managers are demanding more discovery, more witnesses, more evidence. These demands come after weeks of the House Democrats insisting that their impeachment case is "infallible," "undisputed," etc.

If that is so, why do they need more evidence and witnesses? They are admitting that they don't really have a case that will hold up without the extra evidence and witnesses.

Fairness for whom?

The House Democrats say they want a fair trial, but anyone who has been following the impeachment inquiry knows that they ran a very one-sided inquiry, forbidding the president's lawyers to participate for 71 of the 78 days it took to complete the inquiry. In fact, it has been all Democrat impeachment show, all the time.

You have to hand it to the Democrats, they never stop, whether they have a case or not. They never let the truth get in the way.

They continue to argue that they are fair and the Republicans are not. If those arguments don't appear disingenuous to you, they should after you listen to the president's lawyers.

President Trump's lawyers put things in perspective

Deputy Counsel to the President Patrick Philbin clearly explains in the video below the abusive behavior of the House Democrats in bringing an incomplete case to the Senate. He pointed out that in a real court of law, the Democrats would be thrown out.

Philbin quoted Manager Adam Schiff, "If you only allow one side to present evidence, the outcome will be pre-determined," and pointed out that that is exactly what the Democrats did in the House. As Philbin said, Schiff has a lot of gall!

Amendments ad nauseam

The Democrats continue to propose amendments to Senate Resolution 483 to subpoena more evidence, most of it from sources that would be covered by executive privilege. So far, the Republicans in the Senate are voting in a solid block to table the amendments according to Senator Marsha Blackburn. At this time, six or seven amendments have been proposed and tabled along party lines, Republicans 53 to Democrats 47.

I predict that the trial in the Senate is going to become very tedious and unwatchable.

The rule that the Senators are not allowed to talk about the trial must not yet apply, as both Democrat and Republican senators are commenting to the press at this time.

Watch:

On Martin Luther King day, 2nd amendment defenders, many of them armed, marched on the Capitol in Richmond, Virginia. They wanted to let Governor Ralph Northam and the Democrat majority legislature know that they would not comply with the gun-control laws they consider unconstitutional.

Democrats cause the problem

After the Democrat election victories in November in Virginia, one draconian bill, SB16, was introduced which will designate shotguns that hold more than seven shells and other long guns with certain features as assault weapons.

Handguns that meet certain criteria would be considered assault weapons, too. If the bill becomes law, it will be illegal to own or possess these weapons. Many Virginians will become criminals when and if this bill passes.

In response, the majority of Virginia's counties have become 2nd Amendment sanctuaries where the sheriff's say they won't enforce unconstitutional gun laws.

Senate Bill 16 was struck from consideration and "died" in committee last week, but three more gun-control laws just passed the Virginia Senate last Thursday.

Governor declares a state of emergency

Governor Northam, in anticipation of violence at the rally, declared a state of emergency and banned guns around the Capitol. Thousands of armed citizens remained outside the cordons.

Fearmongering MSNBC and CNN

The mainstream media spent a lot of on-air time trying to portray the rally as a racist event. They all but told their viewers that the rally would turn into another "Charlottesville," with armed violence.

 MSNBC and CNN ran many stories asserting that there were thousands of white nationalists, militias, extremists, far-right extremists and white supremacists "swarming"  the state capitol.

But at the end of the day, their fearmongering fell flat as the armed protestors were not violent. In fact, the whole rally was law-abiding and peaceful. Was the media really worried or were they hoping for violence?

Watch the montage below:

No violence at the rally, Democrats disappointed

The Associated Press reported: "that the rally concluded uneventfully and the mood was largely festive. An estimated 22,000 people attended, authorities told AP, and one woman was arrested on a felony charge of wearing a mask in public."

According to the Washington Post, there was almost no sign of counter-protests, and no appearance of Antifa was reported.

Blaze TV was on the ground to capture what the rally was really about.

The Babylon Bee offers its take on the msm and the Virginia gun rally.

In all of the noise surrounding impeachment, it is easy to lose sight of the facts. Here are some important ones to keep at the forefront of your mind as we move into week one of the Senate impeachment trial.

No crimes in the articles of impeachment

The House Democrats did not charge President Trump with a crime in either of their two articles of impeachment. A constitutional impeachment would be based on at least one high crime, bribery or misdemeanors. There are none. That makes the impeachment unconstitutional. If the Senate treats this impeachment as legitimate they will be setting precedents that the Democrats can use again and again against Republican presidents.

A Democrat Impeachment

This impeachment is a Democrat impeachment. No Republicans voted to adopt the articles.

Impeachment was always the Democrat plan

Many of the Democrats in the House, the media, and the DOJ have been trying to impeach the president long before President Trump ever made the July 25 call to Ukraine President Zelenskiy. In fact, Nancy Pelosi admitted that the Democrats have been working on impeachment more than 2 1/2 years. The call to Zelenskiy just gave them a new opportunity after the Mueller investigation failed to produce any impeachable crimes.

So-called "evidence" is no evidence

All of the "evidence" that the House Democrats have is either hearsay, or "expert" opinions, or opinions of career government bureaucrats, e.g. Marie Yovanovitch, Bill Taylor, Gordon Sondland, Noah Feldman, Alexander Vindman, et al.

They have the whistleblower letter which is full of second-hand information, as the whistleblower was not a witness to the call. The only real evidence is the transcript of that July 25th call to the Ukraine president that Trump released himself. None of this so-called "evidence" would be sufficient to convict anyone in a court of law.

Kellyanne Conway points out in the video below that the House inquiry was not like a trial at all, with Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, the "judges," verbally abusing the president from the "bench." They were not impartial, and that was obvious to anyone who watched.

The House Republicans on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees did a great job defending the president during the House inquiries, but does anyone need reminding that the president did not receive due process in the House? President Trump will finally get his turn in the trial in the senate and the whole world will hear from the president's lawyers.

President Trump has assembled a team of high-powered lawyers: Jay Sekulow, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Pat Cipollone, Robert Ray, Pam Bondi, and Jane Raskin. They have already urged the Senate to reject the charges, writing,

The articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election — now just months away.

Watch:

If you are not a Democrat in charge of California, you might have noticed the sad decline of the once-great state. Most of the decline can be tied to Democrat policies. If you don't want your state to look like California, don't vote Democrats into office.

That's right. The state of Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein and Maxine Waters is an unmitigated disaster.

Newsom, Brown and the Democrats

If you listen to Governor Gavin Newsom or former Governor Jerry Brown, you might think that California is the best state in the country.

Brown and Newsom and many Democrats like to crow about all that California is doing to stop climate change. They have taxed gasoline more, established cap and trade, and set goals to make California "carbon-neutral" by 2040. They have pushed for electric cars, wanting 5 million of them on the road by 2030.

But here's a dirty little secret. The electricity used to charge the cars is still being largely produced using fossil fuels. In 2018, Governor Brown signed a bill mandating that 100% of California's electricity grid would be powered by "green"  sources by 2045. And of course, while the state is transitioning to greener sources of energy, the cost of electricity is much higher in most of California than in other states.

High energy costs

Meanwhile, the people in California are bearing the brunt of the pet policies of the Democrat leadership. The governor is a Democrat, and both the Assembly and the Senate are majority Democrat, so these policies are passed even though they hurt the state's economy.

If you don't qualify for home energy subsidies, you are spending a lot of money on electricity. Californians that rely on PGE for their power can spend $400-$500 a month if they are heating or cooling their homes. Price per kWh can be almost $0.40. Gas prices range from $3-$4 throughout the year.

Devastating wildfires and climate change

For all the talk about the dangers of climate change, Gov. Brown and Gov. Schwarzenegger (a Republican and an environmentalist) before him really didn't prepare California for the devastating wildfires that have burned throughout the state the last five years. and it's not like they hadn't been warned.

In 2006, the Western Governors Association proposed that the overgrowth in western forests could be used to produce electricity cheaply at about 8 cents per KWH, and reduce not only carbon emissions but also the undergrowth that could fuel devastating wildfires.

As the vast forests of the Western United States have become overgrown over the past century, dramatic wildfires have become more common, putting vital habitats, watersheds, and communities at risk. The biomass energy industry offers a low environmental impact, productive use for dead wood that would otherwise require open burning or – more likely – serve as fuel for a future wildfire. Use of woody biomass for energy production provides an important economic incentive for fuel treatment.

If only Schwarzenegger and Brown had acted back then.

But, instead of cleaning up the forests, both state and federal, they spent a lot of time getting legislation into place to change our energy production grid. (After the devastating Camp Fire in 2018, Brown, just before leaving office, did sign two bills that address forest management.) The fires have cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It makes one wonder if the Democrats really believed what they were saying about the urgency of climate change.

These recent wildfires have hurt people in the rural areas of California as insurance companies refuse to renew policies and people have to pay thousands more for the California Fair plan to insure their homes. Home values are starting to decline, too, which, for most folks, is their biggest asset.

Power outages

PGE, the state-sponsored utility monopoly,  has been responsible for starting many of the recent wildfires. They have chosen to try to avoid sparking more fires by improving their infrastructure, but while they are doing that, they are also shutting off the power if there is an impending wind event in an area.

This policy has led to many rolling blackouts in the fall of 2019, which has led to many businesses, schools, and households to go without the electricity needed to run pretty much everything. PGE plans on using this policy for several more years.

A laundry list of problems making the state less livable

Many Californians moved into the rural/wildland interface to escape the urban areas of the state which have become intolerably crowded, and more lately, crime-ridden, dirty, dangerous and depressing. The state population continues to grow, but water storage, and housing remain inadequate for the new residents.

California's sanctuary state law SB54, income taxes (top at 13%), energy taxes, gas taxes (47.3 cents/gallon), building restrictions (low growth, no growth policies), criminal justice reform laws, and the homelessness epidemic have combined to make living in the state intolerable for many now.

Small businesses and farms struggling

Small businesses struggle to remain open as new minimum wage laws make labor too expensive. Income taxes take a large chunk of everyone's earnings. Healthcare costs are high.

Farmers in the big valley, the country's most productive farmland, have been struggling over water rights for years, now, as it seems our leaders value wild and free rivers and fish over our agricultural economic engine and the families that farm.

Many farmers have sold their farms and moved to other states or quit farming altogether. A decline in California's agricultural output will affect the whole country as a large majority of the nation's fruit and vegetables are grown there.

Dirty cities

Visiting our once beautiful and desirable cities has become a health hazard as the streets in San Francisco and Los Angeles are littered with human excrement, drug paraphernalia, and mentally unstable and often drunk or high homeless people. Many other cities in the state have the same problems, as California has the highest homeless population in the country.

Big budget small results

California has a huge state budget, nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars, but our infrastructure continues to crumble, and the state agencies seem powerless and moneyless to fix anything. Californians drive on roads that are so bad that their cars fall apart faster.

California spends hundreds of millions of dollars on the homeless problem, but it continues to grow worse. The press will only run stories lauding the homeless, but first-hand accounts from first responders tell a different story.

Hospitals and first responders are spending a lot of time and resources on the homeless, and they are even putting their lives in danger to aid the homeless, frequently being attacked as they render services.

Don't let your state look like California

Though some people, like Democrat candidate Michael Bloomberg, want the rest of the country to look like California, many Californians have read the writing on the wall, so to speak, and are voting with their feet to find states that don't.

WATCH:

Copyright© 2025 - Conservative Institute LLC - All Rights Reserved