Spotlight on Excellence in Rhetoric - Tulsi Gabbard's "Aloha" Speech at Charlie Kirk Prayer Vigil

Tulsi Gabbard:  "Living aloha, living that love and respect, it doesn’t mean being a pacifist or rolling over when our ideas are challenged or when our freedoms are under attack, actually it’s the exact opposite" 

 

As an appellate advocate I like to highlight good rhetoric, and I was very much impressed by the speech given by our Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, a veteran and former member of the Democrat Party, at the Prayer Vigil for Free Speech martyr Charlie Kirk.  

 

Most moving was her explanation of the true meaning of "Aloha:"

 

Aloha. In the book of Corinthians, Paul said, “Therefore we are always of good courage and know that while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.” We are of good courage, I say, and prefer to rather be absent from the body and be home with the Lord.

Ultimately, for every one of us, the time that we have in this world is temporary. Our time will come, sooner or later, and so the critical question that we have for ourselves is whatever time we have, what are we doing with it? How are we making the most of every day that we have? And Charlie Kirk, every single day, carried out his mission. Motivated by his faith in Jesus Christ, and his unwavering dedication to defending our God-given freedoms enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Because of his commitments and dedication, his impact, here and around the world is profound. And it is a beautiful thing to see it playing out now.

Probably like many of you, I had the privilege of joining Charlie at some of his different campus visits and, it was truly something to behold. Because he did things that no one else would do. As I sat with him in the very first time, huge crowd, thousands and thousands of, yes students, but faculty members and people of all different ages, and the first two or three people who had stood in line, waiting to say something to Charlie were very kind and they thanked him for his work. They praised him. They talked about how he positively impacted their lives. It was powerful to witness and to see, but Charlie wasn’t there for praise. He would call to the crowd and say, “Hey, who here disagrees with me? Come to the front of the line.” He listened, carefully, to everyone. Even when others in the crowd booed, whoever was speaking he told them to be quiet and to let this person speak, to show them respect. And he engaged in that lively debate, he encouraged it, he welcomed it, and he inspired it in others. Not belittling them, not arguing just to argue, but to have a real, sincere dialogue.

You know, I’ve said many times and, every soldier lives this fact, this truth: I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death for your right to say it. Charlie lived by this principle.

Charlie lived by the principle that no matter how horrible another person’s speech may be, their ideas must be defeated by better ideas. Not by resorting to violence.

You know, Charlie, was killed on September 10. On September 11, we observed the twenty-fourth anniversary of the Islamist terrorist attack on our country twenty-four years ago. Now these events have something in common. They were both carried out by those who hold onto ideologies that cannot stand up to scrutiny and challenge, so they feel that their only recourse is to commit an act of violence to silence those who oppose them, and to intimidate and terrorize others into silence. This is the definition of terrorism. We cannot allow ourselves to be terrorized into silence. We need to live Charlie Kirk’s example. The example that he set. That are captured by the words of Reverend Martin Luther King: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” This was more than a quote from an icon in our past. To Charlie, he lived this every day, and he inspired countless people around the world to do the same.

And in the wake of this tragedy, this has been, to me, has been beautiful to see how today and, you know, Sunday football games all across the country, these teams were leading moments of silence, putting pictures of Charlie up on the big screen, having a flyover with the flags flying at half-staff to honor the impact of Charlie’s life, how he positively inspired countless people, and how it’s up to us to continue Charlie’s legacy. It’s time for us, every day in we engage with others, to choose to live aloha. Love, respect.

You know, from my home state of Hawaii the reason why we greet each other with the word ‘aloha’ is because of its deeply spiritual meaning. It doesn’t actually mean hello or goodbye. We greet each other with aloha because what we are really saying when we say aloha is I see you as a child of God and I respect you as such. It is to recognize that God is all-powerful, and God’s love is all-powerful. Love is not weak. Respect for others is not weak. There is nothing more powerful than love. Living aloha, living that love and respect, it doesn’t mean being a pacifist or rolling over when our ideas are challenged or when our freedoms are under attack, actually it’s the exact opposite. It means standing up, fueled by love to defeat hate, to defeat that evil and that darkness, and to speak the truth and defend our fundamental freedoms that are granted to us by God. Charlie lived this.

Charlie embodied this, and Charlie changed hearts and minds of countless people around the world because he made a conscious choice every day to choose love. I had a friend of mine who sent me a text the day after Charlie was killed, really distraught, and she said, “What do we do now? I know the answer should be love, the answer should be peace, but Charlie tried that. And it didn’t work.” And my response to her was, “No, it did work. Powerfully.”

And that’s why they killed him. We look at the movement that Charlie inspired around the world. Love, truth, freedom, turning to God in good times and hard times, not asking what God what he will do for us, but as Charlie said, “I am far more interested in what God wants from me than what I want from God.” He said, “My prayer is very simple. God, use me for your will.”

If only ten of us committed ourselves to continuing Charlie’s mission, that alone would be incredible, to be that fertilizer and that water that will help spread this light that is inspired by God’s love. But there are far more than ten of us. There are countless people.Countless people around the world, speaking different languages, have different backgrounds, different views and opinions, who are eager to carry on Charlie’s mission. To spread this light inspired by God’s love, which will also expose those who are trying to shut down free speech, trying to silence us through violence, intimidation, and terrorism. It will expose them for who they are and the hollowness and emptiness and weakness of the ideas that they present.

So while we will miss Charlie dearly, our hearts should not be broken. Because we are confident that Charlie is at home with the Lord. Embraced in the loving arms of Jesus Christ to whom he dedicated his life. Those who are full of anger and hopelessness and hate right now, some of them protesting outside this hall today, unfortunately, they do not have the spiritual happiness that Charlie experienced. They’re empty, and this is where their anger is coming from: it is their rejection of God, their desire to be God and therefore they have made God their enemy.

I have hope today that every one of us will do our best to shine the light of God’s love in our lives and in our work, that we will treat each other with aloha, respect, and stand strong and unshakeable in the defense of our God-given rights and freedoms. May God bless you all and may God bless this great nation. Aloha. 

  

Follow me on LinkedIn  

 

 

Update re the War on Parody - Irish Comedian Arrested in the UK for Tweeting After Complaints by Trans Activists

As a follow-up to our previous post on the war on parody and comedy (see https://appellatespectator.blogspot.com/2025/08/update-war-on-parody-by-humorless-left.html), we note even more insidious threats to freedom off expression.  As we discussed before, there have been attempts to use the legal process to punish those making fun of any idea held near and dear to left-wing scolds.  It is therefore imperative to note that Irish comedian and co-creater of the BBC series "Father Flannigan" has been arrested for anti-trans tweets and, as a condition of bail, told he cannot tweet further because, well, the government of His Highness, King Charles, says so.  

Even CNN has had to admit there are real free speech issues involved:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/03/uk/uk-farage-free-speech-linehan-latam-intl

This arrest is part of a larger battle between the comedian and trans activists, who have used the legal process to harass the writer and comedian over the past few years.

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

 

Case Law Update: 1.1 Million Default Upheld Without Statement of Damages Being Served

 

 

In Atlas v. Davidyan (August 29, 2025) case no. BC335661, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight, upheld a default judgment of over $1,100,000.00.  The court upheld this judgment, and related orders of the Hon. Holly J. Fujie of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, from a challenge by the defendant, who was self-represented in the Superior Court.  Though an answer was filed and the case ostensibly litigated by the defense, a terminating sanction was granted in favor of plaintiff, thus striking the answer to the complaint, after the defendant failed to fully respond to discovery following many orders that he do so.

 

The defense argued what was called a "doomsday" sanction was an "abuse of discretion."   This is because even though the responses were admittedly deficient, that there was in fact some sort of response to the discovery provided.  Writing for the Court, Justice Rubin dispatched this argument by noting the trial court took an "incremental and non-punitive" approach to discovery sanctions:

 

The trial court imposed terminating sanctions only after hearing eight previous motions for discovery non-compliance, and only after taking a patient and cautious approach to the discovery dispute. After plaintiff’s first motion to compel, the court gave defendant more time to respond. When defendant still did not provide complete or adequate written discovery responses, the court imposed moderate monetary sanctions and set new response deadlines in four more discovery hearings between December 2021 and January 2023. When these orders to compel and monetary sanctions proved insufficient to induce compliance, the court imposed issue sanctions. When even this severe penalty did not result in discovery compliance, the court imposed terminating sanctions. The court took exactly the incremental and non-punitive approach contemplated by the discovery statutes. (Id., p. 13.)

 

Of note is the argument by the defense there was no proper "notice" of the damages to be awarded because no Statement of Damages was filed and served per the procedure in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11.  However, the appellate court found the complaint itself gave sufficient notice: of the amount of damages the defendant might have to pay:

 

But his argument fails for the simple
reason that plaintiff’s complaint states that she is seeking general damages [for] mental injuries and economic loss”; she sought “general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but no less than $1,000,000,” as well as attorney fees pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, subdivision (a). Thus, there was no need for a section 425.11 statement and defendant was properly “apprised of [his] exposure” before the default was taken. (Id., p. 14.)

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

Case law update - in Calfornia, employer and employee may prospectively waive 30-minute lunch break

 

 

Sanity prevails, as employer and employee may prospectively waive 30-minute lunch break after five hours

The Second District of the Court of Appeal for the State of California has decided the rule that employees are entitled to a 30-minute lunch break after five hours may be waived, in writing and in advance of the actual work day, as long as the waiver is not coerced. (Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating Inc. (April 21, 2025) case no. B322799.) The appellate court put the question succinctly, noting that the issue involved a written waiver of the statutory right of an employee working but less than six hours or more to have a 30-minute rest period to occur after five hours of work.  While the statute provides that employees working more than five but less than six hours may “waive” their meal period, the statute is silent as to whether this waiver may occur in advance and in writing, as opposed to being waived orally on an ad hoc basis, thus creating the ambiguity that the Court of Appeal addressed:

The Legislature and the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) have determined a meal period for work shifts between five and six hours may be waived. The question before us is narrow and of first impression: whether the mutual waiver of that meal period by an employer and employee can occur prospectively and in writing. Labor Code section 512 guarantees a 30-minute, off-duty meal period for employees after five work hours and a second meal period after 10 work hours. Section 512 also provides that, for shifts between five and six hours, the first meal period “may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee.”
(Id., p. 1.)

The Court found against the employee's argument that the waiver the employee signed violated California law:

We conclude the revocable, prospective waivers Plaintiffs signed are enforceable in the absence of any evidence the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive. The prospective written waiver of a 30-minute meal period for shifts between five and six hours accords with the text and purpose of section 512 and Wage Order Nos. 4 and 5. (Id., p. 2.)

Key to this conclusion was the Court’s analysis as to legislative intent, noting that the legislative history did not suggest an intent to prohibit prospective waivers of meal periods:

Our fundamental task is to ascertain the purpose of section 512 and the wage orders, with an eye to promoting “‘“the protection and benefit of employees.”’” (McLean v. State of California (2016) 1 Cal.5th 615, 622; accord, Stone, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 1052; Brinker, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 1026-1027.) We conclude the text of section 512 and Wage Order Nos. 4 and 5, as well as the legislative and administrative history, indicate the Legislature and IWC did not intend to prohibit prospective written meal period waivers.
 (Id., p. 21.)

This decision is important because not only do certain employers encourage these written waivers, but other employers force their employees to take a 30-minute meal period after five hours even if the employee is strongly against doing so, fearing the employee will later claim they were denied their lunch or dinner break.

 

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

Breaking: California Supreme Court Permits Bill to Advance Despite lack of 30 days Notice, Advancing Governor Newsom’s Gerrymandering Plan

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-supreme-court-clears-way-newsom-s-20826777.php), the As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-supreme-court-clears-way-newsom-s-20826777.php), the California Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to Democrat Governor Newsom‘s hasty plan for a ballot initiative on tap for the November election.  The idea is to further "gerrymander" California’s elections so as to make certain fewer, if any, dissenting parties may be elected, this being the plan even though the Democrats already possess a super majority in their legislature and have no real opposition to any tax increases, new regulations limiting the freedom of individuals, etc.
 
California law requires, of course, that bills have a 30–day "notice" period, ostensibly to give notice to the populace about Sacramento's latest scheme.  However, in order to rush the ballot initiative, the Democrats refused to give this notice, correctly predicting the California Supreme Court would, so to speak, turn the other cheek. They did what is called "gut and amend,” and took an existing bill and changed almost every word under the bizarre and illogical rubric that this gives “notice“ for a 30-day period because the original (and different) bill was promulgated earlier in time. Which, of course, it does not. 
The Supreme Court of California has rejected a challenge to this procedure, ruling by way of an order that provides no explanation of its rationale. While such summary orders rejecting challenges in this manner are common, in this case, it would’ve been useful to know something about the reasoning.  Is it that the  Supreme Court does not wish to wade into the political arena of redistricting by giving a legal opinion as to what constitutes "30-day notice," or does the Court, in fact, give its blessing to the gut-and-amend strategy?t has rejected a challenge to Democrat Governor Newsom‘s hasty plan for a ballot initiative on tap for the November election.  The idea is to further "gerrymander" California’s elections so as to make certain fewer, if any, dissenting parties may be elected, this being the plan even though the Democrats already possess a super majority in their legislature and have no real opposition to any tax increases, new regulations limiting the freedom of individuals, etc.
 
California law requires, of course, that bills have a 30–day "notice" period, ostensibly to give notice to the populace about Sacramento's latest scheme.  However, in order to rush the ballot initiative, the Democrats refused to give this notice, correctly predicting the California Supreme Court would, so to speak, turn the other cheek. They did what is called "gut and amend,” and took an existing bill and changed almost every word under the bizarre and illogical rubric that this gives “notice“ for a 30-day period because the original (and different) bill was promulgated earlier in time. Which, of course, it does not. 
As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-supreme-court-clears-way-newsom-s-20826777.php), the As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle (https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-supreme-court-clears-way-newsom-s-20826777.php), the California Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to Democrat Governor Newsom‘s hasty plan for a ballot initiative on tap for the November election.  The idea is to further "gerrymander" California’s elections so as to make certain fewer, if any, dissenting parties may be elected, this being the plan even though the Democrats already possess a super majority in their legislature and have no real opposition to any tax increases, new regulations limiting the freedom of individuals, etc.
 
California law requires, of course, that bills have a 30–day "notice" period, ostensibly to give notice to the populace about Sacramento's latest scheme.  However, in order to rush the ballot initiative, the Democrats refused to give this notice, correctly predicting the California Supreme Court would, so to speak, turn the other cheek. They did what is called "gut and amend,” and took an existing bill and changed almost every word under the bizarre and illogical rubric that this gives “notice“ for a 30-day period because the original (and different) bill was promulgated earlier in time. Which, of course, it does not. 
The Supreme Court of California has rejected a challenge to this procedure, ruling by way of an order that provides no explanation of its rationale. While such summary orders rejecting challenges in this manner are common, in this case, it would’ve been useful to know something about the reasoning.  Is it that the  Supreme Court does not wish to wade into the political arena of redistricting by giving a legal opinion as to what constitutes "30-day notice," or does the Court, in fact, give its blessing to the gut-and-amend strategy?t has rejected a challenge to Democrat Governor Newsom‘s hasty plan for a ballot initiative on tap for the November election.  The idea is to further "gerrymander" California’s elections so as to make certain fewer, if any, dissenting parties may be elected, this being the plan even though the Democrats already possess a super majority in their legislature and have no real opposition to any tax increases, new regulations limiting the freedom of individuals, etc.
 
California law requires, of course, that bills have a 30–day "notice" period, ostensibly to give notice to the populace about Sacramento's latest scheme.  However, in order to rush the ballot initiative, the Democrats refused to give this notice, correctly predicting the California Supreme Court would, so to speak, turn the other cheek. They did what is called "gut and amend,” and took an existing bill and changed almost every word under the bizarre and illogical rubric that this gives “notice“ for a 30-day period because the original (and different) bill was promulgated earlier in time. Which, of course, it does not.

 
The Supreme Court of California has just rejected a challenge to this procedure, ruling by way of an order that provides no explanation as to its rationale. While such summary orders rejecting challenges in this manner are common, in this case, it would’ve been useful to know something about the reasoning.  Is it that the  Supreme Court does not wish to wade into the political arena of redistricting by giving a legal opinion as to what constitutes "30-day notice," or does the Court, in fact, give its blessing to the gut-and-amend strategy? 

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

Is the ability of so-called “artificial intelligence” and, indeed, mathematics in general, to predict how economic systems behave ultimately flawed?

How high school student Hannah Cairo has shown the limits in predicting systemic behavior

There is no doubt that artificial intelligence or “AI” has been touted as enabling systems to run more efficiently and particularly for software to monitor and project (and even ultimately control) the behavior of systems.  But as a slew of recent articles point out (see Slacker at https://stacker.news/items/1080616 and Breitbart at https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/08/14/breitbart-business-digest-what-a-new-math-breakthrough-means-for-economics/), mathematical assumptions that underlie the idea that data from part of the system may predict outcomes in another part of the system can be just that:  a mere assumption.  This is because a high school student named Hannah Cairo has apparently disproven the Mizohata–Takeuchi conjecture, which is, in a nutshell, that the lack of movement or “amplitude” in one part of a system could be used to presume quietness in the rest of the system.  

As Slacker explains:

In February, a high school student from California who goes by the name Hannah Cairo accomplished what top mathematicians had failed to do for more than 40 years: disprove the Mizohata–Takeuchi conjecture. The breakthrough arrived in a 14-page preprint posted online, and its consequences stretch far beyond the realm of pure mathematics. Economists, policymakers, and risk managers would be wise to take note.
The Mizohata–Takeuchi conjecture had long been a comforting idea in mathematical analysis. It proposed that for certain kinds of ideal systems—linear partial differential equations with real analytic coefficients—local quietude implied global stillness. In other words, if the solution to one of these equations vanished on some open patch of space, then it had to vanish everywhere. That elegant rule served as a foundation for intuition about how waves, signals, and other smooth systems behave.
The new work destroys that foundation. Cairo constructed a counterexample: a solution that is identically zero in some open region—perfectly flat, no signal at all—but distinctly nonzero elsewhere. All the required conditions are met. The equation behaves according to the supposed rules. And yet the rule fails.
This disproof doesn’t just matter to analysts of the abstract. It should unsettle anyone who builds models or draws conclusions from partial observations—especially in macroeconomics, finance, and policy.

This may mean, for example, that the blatantly flawed predictions about economics may result, at least in part, from the fact that our assumptions about the system based upon part of the system are flawed.  Perhaps this also explains why “climate change“ predictions, based upon incomplete data of what climate systems are doing today, have been so wrong when making predictions about the near and medium-term future.

Put in a broader context, this mathematical breakthrough may indicate that predictions an AI agent and/or other autonomous software can predict how a system, including economic systems and computer networks, will behave based upon data from one part of the system, simply does not follow.  For those who believe we can predict the climate based upon our incomplete data, this has broad implications.  Again, a quote from Slacker:

For those of us that thought that mathematical models of economy or weather or lots of other complex systems would not work well all the time, this is one of the reasons that they do not work.
 

Follow me on LinkedIn