Chronology of California's Conflagration
On January 7, 2019 Gavin Newsom became the governor of California. In November of that year President Trump urged Newsom to make a greater effort to prepare the state to deal with its frequent wildfires and warned that "if California doesn't get their act together there will be a disaster of major proportions. Don't expect the federal government to bail you out."
Armed with an AP "fact check" pooh-poohing Trump's warning, Newsom disregarded the risk. Though voters had approved $2.7 billion in bonds to increase the state's water storage capacity back in 2014, none of this money was invested in new reservoirs or groundwater storage facilities. So, when heavier than normal rain fell in the state during 2023 much of this water was allowed to flow into the ocean. Loss of this water led to firefighters not having enough to get the Los Angeles County fires under control before thousands of homes and businesses were burned to the ground. Newsom blamed local officials for it, saying "the Pacific Palisades Reservoir is within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. They're the ones who have to figure out how to make it work."
From January 2 to 3, several weather experts including Jonathan O'Brien of the US Forest Service and Rose Schoenfeldof the National Weather Service warned Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of the extreme risk of a firestorm.
On January 4, Bass flew off to Ghanna for the inauguration of President John Dramani Mahama. On January 7 Los Angeles was hit with multiple major fires. Bass finally returned to LA on the 8th citing the need "to honor my long-planned trip and not insult the new president Mahama. The fires are just temporary. Our diplomatic relations with Ghanna is lasting."
On January 9,President-Elect Donald Trump called for "the resignations of the incompetent Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass. They had years to take steps that would have enabled firefighters to have more water that could have put out the fires before they became huge. Billions were especially earmarked for such a purpose, but they did nothing. This endangered the lives and homes of so many."
Also on KJanuary 9, President Biden promised that "the federal government will cover 100% of the cost for the damage done by these fires. There is no need to scapegoat the hard-working Gov. Newsom and Mayor Bass for the global climate change that caused this conflagration. The real villains are those who refuse to make the sacrifices needed to reduce carbon emissions. They won't buy electric vehicles because they're too expensive. They don't support wind and solar because these expensive sources of power are intermittent and unreliable. Sadly, the incoming president's vow to unleash the fossil fuel producers and make America energy-independent is pandering to the selfishness of those who voted for him. That's a disgrace."
Gov. Newsom sees "a silver lining in all the destruction these fires have wrought. First, contrary to Trump's prediction that the federal government wouldn't bail us out, President Biden has just authorized 100% compensation for all the damage. The estimated $50 billion that will be flowing into our state from the federal government will be a great stimulus to investment and employment. In hindsight, this makes my $100 million cut to this year's firefighting budget look ingenious."
"Second, looters have managed to salvage some of the valuables that would otherwise have been burned to ashes," Newsom added. Now, instead of having to murder so many folks for the money needed to support their drug habits, the money from this serendipitous looting will make our streets a little safer."
"And finally, the incineration of so many upscale homes in the beautiful Beverly Hills area can now be rebuilt with high-density low-income dwellings. This will give the have-nots of society to have a chance come out on top in the aftermath."
"Special Relationship" Endangered
The historic "special relationship" between the United States and the United Kingdom is being threatened by Elon Musk's open criticism of the UK government's toleration of "Asian grooming gangs." The scandal has been underway for decades as Muslims have been treating infidel youngsters as the sex slaves the Quran says they should be. Girls as young as 12 years old are enticed by gifts of candy, food, taxi rides, and drugs. They are gang-raped until they are "too old"--usually around 18 years of age--and then discarded.
Current Prime Minister Keir Starmer headed the Crown Prosecution Service during most of this scandal. Social workers were intimidated into silence. Local police ignored, excused, and even abetted pedophile rapists. Senior officials avoided action in the name of maintaining peace with the immigrant community. Pleas for help from the parents of raped children were rejected. Labour members of Parliament called anyone who mentioned the scandal racists and Islamophobes.
Starmer insists that "Musk's publicizing of the issue threatens our democracy. Voters just resoundingly gave our Party a super-majority in the House of Commons. Any attempt to impose Western or Christian values on people of another faith risks open civil war, an event which would do far more damage to far more people than the relatively tiny group of teen girls that has gotten the worst of it during the past few decades. If you look at the known victims you will see that almost all of them are from the lower classes. Their lives would've been bleak even without the sexual exploitation and abuse. The Labour Party has agreed to pass legislation to award a modicum of reasonable payments for damages to those who can conclusively prove they've been harmed."
Despite Starmer's efforts to molify his critics, the Labour Party voted against making any further inquiry into the rape-gang accusations after the Prime Minister threatened to expel any Labour Party member who voted in favor of an inquiry. The measure failed on a vote of 111 yeas to 364 nays.
Laken Riley Bill Passes House
The US House of Representatives passed the Laken Riley Bill. The 216 Republicans present were joined by 48 Democrats in voting for the bill. All the opposing 159 votes were cast by Democrats. The legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal immigrants who have committed crimes other than illegally entering the country.
Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn) argued for the bill, saying "the tragic and preventable murder of Laken Riley serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of failed leadership. The Laken Riley Act is a direct step toward ensuring that criminal illegal aliens are swiftly and permanently removed from our communities and our country."
Several Democrats attempted to explain their opposition to the bill. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md) voted against the measure, saying "it is a radical departure from the policies of the Biden Administration. It will spoil the plans of thousands of immigrants who have adapted to those policies." Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif) also voted against the bill "because it singles out brown criminals for detention. Whites or persons who have not committed crimes get off scot-free."
Over in the Senate, an attempt by several Democrats to filibuster against the bill was thwarted when dozens of mostly sane Democrats joined Republicans in exercising cloture so a vote can be taken on the bill. Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala), one of the bill's main sponsors, said "Laken Riley's murder was the direct consequence of the willfully open border policies of the Biden administration. The American people did not just deliver a mandate on November 5th, they delivered a verdict. They made it clear they want to remove criminal illegal aliens and protect American families."
Sen. John Fetterman, (D-Pa) contended that "the attitudes of the Democrats who voted against the Laken Riley Bill are why our Party lost the last election. Voters want us to be responsible guardians of the general welfare, not the enablers of rapists and murderers. We need to differentiate between the majority seeking a better life in America through honest work and the evil minority who seek to prey upon the weak and unarmed."
"Unrealistic for NATO Countries to Defend Themselves"
German Vice Chancellor and Economy Minister Robert Habeck called "incoming President Donald Trump's expectation that we will devote 5% of our GDP to our own national defense is unrealistic. Look, prior to 1945 we spent far more than 5% on our defense, but were still battered into submission by the combined might of Russia and the US. For the next 45 years Germany was occupied by foreign troops--Russia because it hoped to eventually dominate us and the Americans because they didn't want Germany to be absorbed into a communist empire."
"So, why should we spend anything on our own defense?" Habeck asked. "America will have to continue to defend us lest all of Europe be absorbed by a resurgent Russia. Even if America won't defend us French President Macron has offered to guarantee our security from foreign invaders. Why pay for something we can get for free?"
"Well, I wish them luck," Trump said. "We saw how effective France's guarantee of the sovereignty of Poland was in 1939. Seeing how difficult Russia's attempted conquest of Ukraine has been maybe they won't need protection from invasion by Russia. On the other hand, it seems like most of the flabby NATO member nations will be converted into hellholes in the not too distant future by the swarms of terrorists they've been allowing into their countries. How can they expect us to defend them if they won't make a decent effort to defend themselves? At least in World War II they fought for their own liberation. I guess times have changed."
