Monday, November 12, 2018

California fires

California fires claim lives property and cars
Firefighters saved this Shelby Mustang GT 350 PHOTO BY AP

CALIFORNIA FIRES CLAIM LIVES, PROPERTY... AND CARS

Many are spared, however, as flames continue with more winds expected

NOVEMBER 11, 2018

SHARE

  • Pinterest
As winds dropped for at least 24 hours, a few details have emerged from California’s latest round of wildfires. The first priority for crews, of course, has been saving lives and saving homes, and firefighters have done a heroic job at both, given all that they are up against. In addition to that, so far, it seems that many collector cars have been spared, at least in the Malibu blazes.  
Collector Andy Cohen, original founder of Beverly Hills Motoring Accessories and past owner of the Concours on Rodeo car show, lives directly above Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. The flames roared all the way to the beach along much of PCH Friday night. Saturday morning as the flames seemed to have moved on from Cohen’s stretch of neighborhood, we asked how things were.
“We are all fine,” he replied, sending along a photo of flames nearly in his backyard. “Almost lost the house but everything is perfect now.”
Jim Hull's Delahaye
Jim Hull's Delahaye was spared PHOTO BY PEBBLE BEACH CONCOURS
Up the road in Malibu is collector and Pebble Beach entrant and judge Jim Hull, whose green Delahaye 135 MS Chapron Vedette and Bugatti Type 57 SC you may have seen at car shows. When Hull moved to Malibu nearly 20 years ago he wanted to build a house that could not only accommodate his cars, but could also withstand the inevitable fires that seem to sweep through the ‘Bu.
“"I did some research and found the first house ever built in Malibu -- a stone building that dates back to 1865,” Hull told journalist Wallace Wyss in The Malibu Times in 2000. “It's survived a lot of fires so that's the starting point for my design -- a stone house of the same general shape."
And it worked.
“No cell svc 2 days & no electricity,” Hull texted Saturday. “We’re okay and house still here but lower half of property looks like war zone. We just snuck past cops & fireman to get to our house to find it still here!  Tell all that we are alive with dogs horses and even most cars, except Ranchero, tractor, barn etc are toasted!”
Little miracles seemed to happen here and there. Associated Press photographer Ringo H.W. Chiu photographed two firefighters pushing a Shelby GT 350 Mustang out of a garage as the house to which it was attached began to burn. We tracked down Chiu and asked him about the shot.
“The Mustang is the only property the firefighters saved from the house,” Chiu said.
The motorcycle destination restaurant and weekend biker hangout The Rock Store on Mulholland Highway survived unscathed.
"To all Rock Store friends: we are still here, thank God," read a message on the store's Facebok page.
An earlier posting showed an LA County Sheriff;s officer on The Store's cement steps, arms raised. "Thanks to our firefighters, responders and Sheriff John for your efforts," that post read.
Art Center grad, TV host and founder of the events Malibu Cars & Coffee and Wheels and Waves at Gladstones Fireball Tim Lawrence rode out the fires and survived with home, spouse Kathie and two dogs unscathed.
The Mike Malamut collection north of Malibu, which consists of over 200 cars in concrete warehouses in Newberry Park, sits almost directly in between the starting points of both the Woolsey and Hill fires, the two big fires that started north of Malibu. Both fires burned away from the collection.
“Last I heard all good,” said the collection’s concierge Robert Dietz.
Former racer – Daytona, Sebring, etc. – Caitlyn Jenner lost her hilltop house above Malibu to the fire.
“We’re out of the fire zone and are safe,” Jenner posted on Instagram. “Thinking about all those that are affected and hope you all are safe too.”
Farther north, in the so-called Camp Fire burning above Chico north of Sacramento, things were worse. That fire swept through with such speed and destruction that there was little that residents could do except flee. So far 23 deaths have been confirmed in that blaze. The area is still unsafe to enter so the extent of damage is as yet unknown.
“I’ve had a few folks chime in on my Billetproof Facebook page that they have had to leave hot rods behind, but no major collections that I know of,” said Billetproof hot rod show owner (and Concours d’Lemons founder) Alan Galbraith. Galbraith lives not too far away from the blaze.
Numerous cars were lost when the entire town of Paradise was wiped out. Photos showed at least one five-window Ford, an early model Thunderbird, and a classic Studebaker burned to the ground. It’ll be days at least before the extent of damage is clear.
“No one knows for sure as areas are still closed off,” said exotic car dealer Bernie Knauss, who knows much of the collector car community in the area. ”There is a Tucker from Paradise as well as some special Astons that I know were up there. A couple of my employees lost their homes and are very involved in the car culture.”
More hot dry winds are forecast for Sunday and are predicted to last through Tuesday, so the danger is far from over. More details to come.
Mark Vaughn
MARK VAUGHN  - West Coast Editor Mark Vaughn covers all car things west of the Mississippi from his Autoweek lair high above the LA metropolis. 


Read more: https://autoweek.com/article/car-news/california-fires-claim-lives-property-and-cars#ixzz5Wf75cXY7

Democrats seem to lack all forms of impulse control! Gutter manners.

State senator slammed for profane Facebook post after election win

Sunday Talks: Democrat Representative David Cicilline Discusses Marxist Economic Priorities – Siege Agenda to Eliminate Trump…

Sunday Talks: Democrat Representative David Cicilline Discusses Marxist Economic Priorities – Siege Agenda to Eliminate Trump…

Success in the midterm election secured power for House Democrats.  The discussion then moves to how are the democrats going to use that power?  Representative David Cicilline, co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, indicates their intended set of priorities in a series of Sunday talking points.
Democrats in the House intend to raise taxes on individuals and corporations; roll back the MAGAnomic policy for corporate tax incentives (investment, jobs, and manufacturing) and create a bigger gap between low and top income earners through their spending controls.  In essence, Democrats take control over income earnings (via tax policy) and distribute it to their constituents based on need. [Historic Fabian approach]
Simultaneously, the House committees (Oversight, Judiciary, Intel, Finance) will begin immediate investigations of the Trump administration, writ large, and -using those investigations- secure the pathway to the 2020 election cycle.
.
Cecilline admits OUR CTH PROJECTION is entirely accurate.
Unfortunately, we have solid references to base these predictions on – because there’s a solid frame of reference from the 2006 midterm and the subsequent consequences we saw in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.
If we take the empirical 2006 example as the starting point and overlay the 2018 landscape to modernize the predictive model, what results is a most likely scenario.
First, any intellectually honest review must overlay the current political environment.  In 2018 the scale of unchecked lawless behavior is a significant influence toward the differences we can expect from the last time Democrat/Marxists held congressional power. The term “Democrat-socialism”, in essence a Marxist approach, is now the dominant fuel within the professional DNC  political operations.
When the Democrats last held power in 2006, their actionable objective was toward a far-left, Saul Alinsky-type aggressive tone and influence; however, there was a need to couch that intention as they positioned Senator Barack Obama for the 2008 presidential election.
In 2006 the radicals, needed to downplay their radicalism.  In 2018 the severity and aggression of the left, as assisted by the dropping of all media pretense, no longer needs to hide the intention.  When Democrat-Marxists take control in January of 2019 they no longer need to couch the extremism, the American electorate have been prepped.
Secondly, it cannot be overstated how violent and confrontational the House of Representatives will be as soon as they are sworn in.  They will work with an immediate purposeful intention. All political violence will be approved to attain their objectives.  The recent behavior of Jim Acosta (CNN media), and ANTIFA toward Tucker Carlson, is now, and will be going forward, the new normal.
There will be extreme political violence.
In 2006 it was the SEIU and AFSCME union foot-soldiers who smashed windows, advanced upon polling places and engaged in the most severe examples of voter fraud and intimidation.  In 2018, with the help of uber-Alinsky DNC Chairman Tom Perez, that corrupt sentiment is now institutionalized within democrat-socialist political apparatus.  ANTIFA is now the DNC grassroots activist approach.
Failing to accept the severity of this shift in the past decade is intellectually dishonest.  As Nancy Pelosi said of the Occupy Wall Street violent anarchists: “God bless these people.”  Indeed the OWS precursor to ANTIFA were laying the groundwork for the new severity of power in Democrat leadership.  Nothing is out-of-bounds; no level of corrupt behavior will be avoided; everything will happen openly and without any backlash from a compliant media apparatus; the social fabric will be shredded.
The Democrat mantra: “never let a crisis go to waste” is the modern version of the Fabian-Socialist: “remould it nearer to the heart’s desire“.
[Fabian Window  –>]
Both approaches rely upon the destruction of acceptable norms in order to advance the political objective.
Specifics: When Democrats last took power in January 2007, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer took control in the final two years of George Bush second term.  Immediately they set about a process laying the groundwork for the 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama.  This was a priority objective.
One of the techniques was the removal of the budget process. By eliminating the federal budget process in 2007 (fiscal year ’08) the Democrats paved the way for the next democrat president to demand massive open-ended spending.
By the time the year of the general election came around (2008), the lengthy budget process was replaced with Omnibus spending bills (fiscal year 2009).  Obviously when Obama was successfully installed in November of 2008, the useful crisis was financial. The subsequent TARP bailout, auto bailout, ARRA ($1 trillion stimulus) and QE1 were all accomplished with massive omnibus spending packages.
[NOTE: These are important references because from that moment forward, despite the GOP taking back control in January 2011, the constraining budgetary process was forever destroyed. There was never regular-order budgetary spending again.]
It is also critical to emphasize the difference between Democrats taking control in the last two years of Bush’s second term, and Democrats taking control in the last two years of Trump’s first term.  Within this difference you will predictably see a shift in strategic operations from the Marxists.
George W Bush was exiting, and unlimited spending was used to empower the entry of Obama; however, now the Marxists need to knee-cap President Trump by weaponizing the power of the purse – the biggest weapon of the House of Representatives.
After a ten year UniParty hiatus the Marxists will now go back to using budgets in the structural defunding and dismantling of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the Southern Border Wall, and any program, initiative, policy or institution the Marxists want to see removed.   This is a strategy of the Democrat crisis-makers; and they are exceptionally better at achieving their desired results than Republicans.
When it comes to political weaponization and political power constructs the Marxists have exceptional work ethics; they will outwork anyone on the other side who opposes them.  They are far, far, better at political strategy and scheme than conservative politicians.  Part of the reason for their success is that crooks, cons and swindlers are far more cunning than honorable, virtuous and moral people.  It is unfortunate, but true; and the same truth applies beyond politics.
♦ Two other thoughts on this issue.  First, you might remember when this massive spending, and the government takeover of healthcare, led to the Marxists losing the 2010 midterm election in a massive defeat.   But do you remember what the democrats did in the lame-duck congress between November 2010 and January 2011?
Does the term “Porkulous” ring a bell?
While 63 democrat seats were lost in the November 2010 election (and six democrat senate seats), those exiting Marxists, despite just having suffered the worst defeat in almost 100 years, audaciously –and apologetically– voted in the December 2010 lame-duck session, to fully fund President Obama’s next two years in office.  This was done by Speaker Nancy Pelosi specifically to block the incoming GOP wave from upending the priorities of the Obama administration in 2011.  That was called the “Porkulous” spending bill; and the democrat-marxists didn’t give a snit about how it looked.
Now, do you think Speaker Paul Ryan will do anything as bold to fund and secure the budgetary priorities of President Donald Trump in this lame-duck?
Secondly, about the overall unilateral commitment and cunning historically displayed by the Marxists.  They are so committed to the long-term view they are willing to sacrifice anything for the biggest, most consequential, advances toward their objectives.  In 2010 the democrats killed their own “blue-dog” coalition to advance their ideological goals.
Within the 63 House seats the Marxists lost in that 2010 midterm election; they killed off the entire 40 member Bart Stupak coalition; the blue-dog caucus.  Totally willing to sacrifice 40 seats to attain a generational ideological objective (ObamaCare); and they are about to step back into power a mere eight years later.  Stunning when you think about it.
In my opinion few Americans have any idea just how bad these next two years are going to be. It’s not our fault.
The majority of Americans are normal people who work earnestly to take care of their families and watch over the future for their children and grandchildren.  Most Americans don’t spend every moment of their day scheming, conniving, and developing plans to dismantle the lives of your freedom loving community and rebuild it as a collective society.
For these Democrat-Marxists who are about to take power that’s all they do.   Every moment of their existence they spend thinking about how to gain power and dominate, 24/7/365 ; it really is all they do.
This is their utopian model:

Democrats: ‘Cruel and Unscientific’ to Define Legal Sex by Biology

Democrats: ‘Cruel and Unscientific’ to Define Legal Sex by Biology


Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass., center, shakes hands with an 11-year-old boy who goes by the name Blue, whose parent is an airman at Ramstein Air Base, July 26, 2017, on Capitol Hill in Washington.
AP
11:29

It is “cruel and unscientific” to define a person’s legal sex by their biology, says a complaint signed by 98 Democratic House legislators.

The Democrats’ statement was sent to President Donald Trump’s administration after the New York Times reported that the administration will formally clarify that the sex of people involved in sex-discrimination legal fights will be based on their male or female body.
Trump’s biology-determines-sex policy “makes it clear that members of this administration are willing to … solidify an archaic, dogmatic, and alarming view of the world,” the Democrats complain their letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The Democrats instead want government agencies to let people define their legal sex by declaring their internal feeling of male or female “gender identity,” regardless of their male or female body and biology.
Yet there is no scientific or legal measure of “gender identity.” For example, one gay advocacy group defines gender identity as “One’s innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither.” So any person could claim to have an opposite-sex “gender identity” and become a member of the other sex at any time, for as long or short a time as they wish.
Model Andreja Pejic poses alongside Caitlyn Jenner at the Vanity Fair Oscar Party, February 26, 2017.
This identity-beats-biology change would erase any recognition of biological women and biological men from the law. For example, the transgender ideology says the idea of “women” would include men and women who say they have a female “gender identity.” Women who insist they are women would be redefined as “cis-gender women,” say transgender advocates.
If gender defines sex, the nation’s anti-discrimination laws will force agencies, civic organizations, and cultural groups to bar recognition of the partly-different and complementary preferences and attributes of males and females.
This revolutionary change would have profound consequences. For one minor example, a female theater director could face an anti-discrimination lawsuit if she repeatedly chooses women to play the female leads in Romeo and Juliet, even when the show is aimed at a female audience. In November, the company that sells Victoria’s Secret lingerie products was slammed because it does not use a mix of interchangeable men and women to model their clothing for women.
Already, women are being erased from women’s sporting competitions when supposedly “transgender” men muscle their way to the winners’ podium.
The 98 Democrats include Massachusetts Rep. Joe Kennedy, Kentucky Rep. John Yarmuth, Connecticut’s Reps. Elizabeth Esty and Joe Courtney, New Jersey Reps. Frank Pallone and Donald Norcross, Oregon Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, Maine Rep. Chellie Pingree, Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett, New York Reps. Sean Patrick Maloney and Brian Higgins, California Rep. Scott Peters, Pennsylvania Reps. Brendan Boyle and Robert Brady, Washington Rep. Derek Kilmer, Minnesota Rep. Rick Nolan, and Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley.
Rep. Kennedy is chairman of a Transgender Equality Task Force panel in Congress.
But Trump’s biology-determines-sex policy would preserve the nation’s existing law and culture that accepts the near-universal view that that women and men are legally equal but also different and complementary. For example, the Pentagon has dropped former President Barack Obama’s pro-transgender policies and is now using the “bright line” of biology to determine each soldiers’ male or female status.
“You know what I’m doing? I’m protecting everybody,” Trump said October 22. “We have a lot of different concepts right now. They have a lot of different things happening with respect to transgender, right now.”
This biology-based perspective is seen everywhere in society. For example, TV producers carefully design their shows to appeal to the different tastes of men or women, and TV advertisers tune their commercials to match their female or male targets. In politics, feminists complain about male-to-female pay gaps, discrimination in work, and women’s healthcare priorities.
The Democrats argue that the existence of a small percentage of people who have subtle genetic variations invalidates the long-standing and universal recognition that nearly all people have either male or female bodies and preferences.
Defining a person’s sex by biology is “cruel and unscientific,” says the 98 Democrats. The Democrats insist that basing sex on biology “counters the consensus of medical providers and scientists across the globe who have found no reliable evidence to support such a [biological] definition.”
The letter also gaslights Americans by pretending that the law already defines sex by “gender identity.” This pretense allows the Democrats to claim that Trump’s “re-defining [sex] raises countless practical, legal, and medical questions.”
For example, the 98 Democrats claim that men and women will lose protections against sexual discrimination if legal sex is gauged by biology:
This proposal intended to erase transgender people from federal civil rights protection and eviscerate enforcement of non-discrimination laws …  Under this proposal, it is possible for a transgender person to be denied access to medical care or health insurance or be refused access to emergency shelter or public housing, and transgender children could be denied access to public education … We demand a complete rejection of this shameless attempt to eliminate the rights of transgender people.
All people are now protected by anti-discrimination rules regardless of their personalities or sex.
But there is a growing number of legal disputes being created by progressives’ insistence that men are entitled to be women. In October, Breitbart News reported:
Nine women have filed a lawsuit against a Fresno homeless shelter, accusing the nonprofit of allowing a transgender biological man claiming to be a woman to sexually harass them.
According to the lawsuit, each of the nine homeless women were staying at Naomi’s House – part of the shelter’s main campus in Fresno – in November 2017.
The shelter’s rules require all women to shower daily. Though the shelter provides individual shower stalls, the women dress and undress in a common area.
A “male who identifies as female,” and identified in the complaint by his initials, was also residing at Naomi’s House at the time. During the times when the women were dressing and undressing in the common area, the lawsuit claims the biological man made lewd comments to them about their breasts and other body parts. Some of the women charged the man was peering at them in the showers between the cracks in the stalls.
These conflicts have been ignored by establishment media outlets.
In the United Kingdom, however, a spectrum of political advocates have begun debating the civic impact of redefining sex as “gender identity.” In October, the left-wing Guardiannewspaper published an editorial saying that women’s rights are threatened by the transgender ideology:
While campaigners for trans rights are entitled to push for laws that they believe advance equality, feminists are entitled to question whether such changes could adversely affect other women. Neither group is a homogeneous bloc and there are more than two points of view.
Women’s concerns about sharing dormitories or changing rooms with “male-bodied” people must be taken seriously. These are not just questions of safety but of dignity and fairness.
The public needs to be better informed, and safeguarding considered. The sex-based protections in the Equality Act, like case-by-case decision-making in the Prison Service, only work if service providers have adequate guidance and training. Where changes have been introduced or are proposed, including in prisons, women should be consulted.
In response, several U.S.-based reporters for the Guardian denounced their editors’ defense of women’s rights and insisted that feminism denies women the right to object when men reach for women’s legal status:
The editorial used a UK legal debate about IDs to argue that trans rights “collide” with cis women’s rights; that equality for trans women “could adversely affect other women”; and that allowing trans women to access public spaces threatens cis women’s “safety”. These arguments were met with particular dismay in the US as they echo the position of anti-trans legislators who have pushed overtly transphobic bathroom bills.
[W]omen’s intolerance should not be a legitimate reason for limiting the rights of trans women. The idea that all trans women should be denied civil rights … is the essence of bigotry and goes against feminist values.
The reporters described their mission as advocacy for minorities, not truth-telling or explaining the concerns of a democratic majority:
The Guardian has a proud history of fighting for the voiceless, the vulnerable and the disenfranchised. It was with that legacy in mind that our journalists who write and edit stories on LGBTQIA rights, women’s rights, politics, immigration, technology, business, criminal justice, gun policy and more decided to publicly voice our concern. Some of us have also seen first-hand the discrimination and violence trans women face.
The reporters also lamented that advocates for the transgender ideology are refusing to talk to them because of the editorial:
The Guardian in the US is committed to covering this important civil rights fight, but when the time came for us to report on Trump’s attacks, we encountered problems. Some trans people wouldn’t talk to us.
That’s because, days earlier, the Guardian published an editorial that we believe promoted transphobic viewpoints, including some of the same assertions about gender that US politicians are citing in their push to eliminate trans rights.
The transgender ideology is deeply unpopular, especially among women and parents. In 2017, Obama told NPR that his promotion of the transgender ideology made it easier for Donald Trump to win the presidency. Multiple polls show that most Americans wish to help and comfort people who think they are a member of the opposite sex, even as they also reject the transgender ideology’s claim that a person’s legal sex is determined by their feeling of “gender identity,” not by biology.
The transgender movement is diverse, so its different factions have different goals and priorities. It includes sexual liberationistsprogressives, feminists who wish to blurdistinctions between the two sexes, and people who glamorize the distinctions between the two sexes. It includes high-profile children, people who are trying to live as members of the opposite sex, and people trying to “detransition” back to their sex, men who demandsex from lesbians, masculine autogynephiles, wealthy donorspoliticians, political professionals, and medical service providers.
Very few people who describe themselves as transgender undergo cosmetic surgery of the genitals. Only about 4,118 Americans surgically altered their bodies in hospitals from 2000 to 2014 to appear like members of the opposite sex, according to a pro-transgender medical study.
Yet the gender ideology is rapidly gaining power, aided by huge donations from wealthy individuals and medical companies. In Ohio, for example, in February, a judge forced parents of a teenage girl to give up custody so she can begin a lifetime of drug treatments and surgery that will allow her to appear as a male.
The progressive push to bend Americans’ attitudes and their male and female civic society around the idea of “gender identity” has already attacked and cracked many of the popular social rules that help Americans manage the cooperation and competition among and between complementary, different, and equal men and women.
These pro-gender claims have an impact on different-sex bathrooms, shelters for battered women, sports leagues for girls, hiking groups for boys, K-12 curricula, university speech codesreligious freedoms, free speech, the social status of women, parents’ rights in childrearing, children’s safety, practices to help teenagers, health outcomes, women’s ideals of beauty, culture and civic society, scientific research, prison safety, civic ceremonies, school rules, men’s sense of masculinity, law enforcement, military culture, and children’s sexual privacy.