Crooks Steal 40 Firearms From Gun Shop As California Crime Wave Continues To Surge

Crooks made off with nearly 40 firearms during a smash-and-grab burglary at a California gun shop early Thursday morning, a report said.

The suspects shattered the front door glass at Whitten Sales just after midnight and stole the guns that were kept in a safe at the store, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing Garden Grove Police Lt. Mario Martinez.

The owner of the business tipped off police to the burglar after seeing a suspect on surveillance footage, the report said.

By the time police arrived, the thieves were gone. Police said they fled in two BMWs.

The burglar comes amid a rash of smash-and-grab robberies in Southern California that have targeted high-end retailers.

Click here to read the full post at New York Post

California Lawmakers, Abortion Proponents Unveil Plan To Create Abortion Sanctuary State

Recommendations include funding abortion groups, funding support infrastructure at abortion clinics, improving Medi-Cal abortion policies

Dozens of California abortion clinics, pro-abortion groups, and lawmakers in favor of abortion presented a plan Wednesday to make California a sanctuary state for those wanting abortions in case the landmark Roe v. Wade is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court next year.

Abortion has been legal in the United States since 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that women have the right to an abortion without state interference within the first trimester of a pregnancy. Despite a few challenges and alteration challenges in the last 48 years, the wording was only changed once. 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey changed the first trimester wording to fetal viability. Since then, it has been worded as “A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.”

However, in recent years, a number of states have passed restrictive abortion laws, such as the Texas Heartbeart Act, which virtually ends nearly all abortions in the state after six weeks due to a detected heartbeat. Another case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges a 2018 Mississippi law that banned abortions after 15 weeks.

The Supreme Court also reached a definitive conservative majority last year following Amy Coney Barrett being confirmed as the next Justice in place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had died in October 2020.

Now, with the Supreme Court giving indications that they would rule in favor of the state and ban abortions once again to some degree in the Dobbs case, with the most likely outcome kicking abortion laws back to the states, Californian abortion supporters are now putting a plan in place to welcome the influx of women seeking a legal abortion.

According to a report by the California Future of Abortion Council, 26 states would likely see abortion bans if Roe v. Wade is overturned, including Texas, Utah, Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Florida. As California has a large number of reproductive clinics and a mostly non-harassment environment from protestors, the number of women estimated to come to California for abortions will go from the current 46,000 a year to 1.4 million a year, with the largest number likely to come from Arizona.

However, California abortion and reproductive care currently has many barriers for women seeking treatment coming from outside the state, including the long drive times to the state, high costs for things such as co-pays and deductibles, and difficulty in finding more specialized providers. An influx of Texas patients this year in California due to the new Texas law highlighted highlighted the potential issues of a sudden influx, and showed the areas where California needs improvement. With demand likely to go up by astronomical numbers should Roe v. Wade falls, California abortion groups and lawmakers started coming up with a plan on Wednesday to address this issue.

California’s sanctuary state plans

The California Future of Abortion Council’s report specifically has 45 recommendations for the state in a sanctuary capacity, including funding many abortion groups to provide care, funding support infrastructure at abortion clinics, improving Medi-Cal abortion policies, give more protections to those seeking abortions, and even help fund travel, lodging, and procedure costs for those otherwise unable to afford the procedure. The recommendations, written largely by abortion provider experts and lawmakers, such as Senator Toni Atkins (D-San Diego),

“We’re looking at how to build capacity and build workforce,” noted Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California CEO Jodi Hicks on Wednesday. “It will take a partnership and investment with the state.”

However, those opposing abortion in California plan to push back against those recommendations should they be enacted.

“We know that we aren’t going to get California to ban abortion should Roe be overturned,” explained Kathy Weber, a San Bernardino County anti-abortion group leader who assists women who choose to give birth after previously wanting an abortion. “Not the way the state is now. But we can try and stop the state from outright paying people to come here or to loosen laws here even more.”

“But it has been hard recently, especially with the Texas surge of people coming into California for abortions. When neighboring states get bans and California getting this huge influx as sort as an abortion-vacation destination like how many Americans go to Mexico to get dental work, this will be a big problem.”

“We don’t want California’s new growth industry to be abortion clinics.”

Proponents of the recommendations are currently eyeing multiple funding sources, including the state’s projected $31 billion surplus, for next year.

This article was originally published by the California Globe

Questions About Crime Ruin Soros-funded George Gascón’s One-Year Anniversary Party

Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón gathered “progressive” prosecutors from around the country to celebrate the one-year anniversary of his time in office, but the party was derailed by questions about rising violent crime.

Gascón, who ran against the first black woman to hold the job, and who received millions of dollars in donations from left-wing billionaire George Soros, has pursued an aggressive, radical agenda of “criminal justice reform” since taking office.

But crime has spiked, leaving the city in the throes of what the Los Angeles Times has called a spate of “brutal, brazen” crimes.

Last week, Jacqueline Avant, a prominent philanthropist in the black community who was married to legendary music producer Clarence Avant, was gunned down in her home, allegedly by a man recently freed from state prison.

In a statement touting his achievements after a year in office, Gascón was short on crime numbers, but heavy on “reforms.” For example, he touted ending the death penalty — a controversial policy that he has applied to cases like child murder:

Death sentences are no longer sought in Los Angeles County. Nor will the office seek execution dates for people sentenced to death. In addition, post-conviction death penalty cases currently are being reviewed to determine if thereis [sic] ameritorious [sic] legal reason to vacate the death sentence or resentence the individuals in the interest of justice. To date, five people, including four with cognitive or intellectual disabilities, have been resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Gascón had hoped to celebrate, as he did after 100 days in office, when he celebrated thousands of hours in reduced prison sentences. But as the Times reports, his party was crashed by reporters seeking answers to the public’s urgent questions:

One year and one day later, Gascón was flanked by progressive prosecutors from around the country as he stood before a room full of reporters during a 90-minute news conference meant to celebrate what he saw as his successes during his first 12 months on the job.

But on the heels of weeks of high-profile crimes, including the killing of a beloved Beverly Hills philanthropist, an explosion of gunfire that left one child dead in Wilmington and viral videos of smash-and-grab robberies at retail stores, Gascón instead spent much of his time sparring with reporters and trying to counter questions about criticism levied by those seeking to recall him.

Click here to read the full article at Breitbart

Top American Scientists Voice ‘Alarm’ at Woke California Math Curriculum

Hundreds of America’s top scientists and mathematicians have released an open letter in which they express “alarm” at the likely disastrous consequences of woke K-12 math curricula such as the “Equitable Math’ framework proposed in California.

To date, nearly 600 of the nation’s top quantitative scientists have signed onto the open letter that specifically voices “deep concern” about California’s “equitable math” framework, one that promotes the concept that working to figure out a correct answer is an example of racism and white supremacy invading the classroom.

The scientists write:

[W]e are deeply concerned about the unintended consequences of recent well-intentioned approaches to reform mathematics education, particularly the California Mathematics Framework (CMF). Such frameworks aim to reduce achievement gaps by limiting the availability of advanced mathematical courses to middle schoolers and beginning high schoolers. While such reforms superficially seem “successful” at reducing disparities at the high school level, they are merely “kicking the can” to college.

“Such a reform would disadvantage K-12 public school students in the United States compared with their international and private-school peers,” the scientists explain. “It may lead to a de facto privatization of advanced mathematics K-12 education and disproportionately harm students with fewer resources.”

The scientists who signed the open letter, many of whom are STEM professionals and math educators, assert they “wholeheartedly” reject another “deeply worrisome trend” of “devaluing essential mathematical tools such as calculus and algebra in favor of seemingly more modern ‘data science.’”

“The ability to gather and analyze massive amounts of data is indeed transforming our society,” they continue, adding:

But “data science” – computer science, statistics, and artificial intelligence- is built on the foundations of algebra, calculus, and logical thinking. While these mathematical fields are centuries old and sometimes more, they are arguably even more critical for today’s grand challenges than in the Sputnik era.

The U.S. scientists state they are calling upon “national, state, and local governments to involve college-level STEM educators and STEM professionals in the design of K-12 mathematics and science education curriculum.”

Among their goals is to ensure “all students, regardless of background, have access to a math curriculum with precision and rigor,” and eliminate a “one size fits all” approach to K-12 mathematical education.”

While the scientists urge students be offered “multiple pathways and timelines to explore mathematics,” they insist one such pathway “should be the option to obtain the fundamental preparation for college-level STEM, including algebra, calculus, and logical reasoning.”

“Students should have the opportunity to take those classes at varying grade levels of middle and high school when they are ready, so that they acquire the tools to explore other STEM options and can build their proficiency in a balanced pacing, avoiding irresponsible compression late in high school,” they assert.

The mathematicians and scientists stress that initiatives such as California’s “Equitable Math” “propose drastic changes based on scant and inconclusive evidence.”

“Reducing access to advanced mathematics and elevating trendy but shallow courses over foundational skills would cause lasting damage to STEM education in the country and exacerbate inequality by diminishing access to the skills needed for social mobility,” they observe, adding that “[s]ubjecting the children of our largest state to such an experiment is the height of irresponsibility.”

Click here to read the full article at Breitbart

California Considers $500 Fines for Water Wasters as Drought Worsens, Conservation Lags

As California descends deeper into drought, officials are growing increasingly troubled by dwindling water supplies and the public’s lackluster response to calls for conservation, with residents in recent months falling short of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s request for a voluntary 15% reduction in usage.

Now, as the West tips toward crisis, state water regulators are considering adopting emergency regulations that will prohibit certain actions in an attempt to curtail water waste and help conserve supplies.

If approved, the proposal could usher in a wave of water regulations that hearken back to previous droughts while underscoring the seriousness of the current one.

On Tuesday, Lake Mead — the nation’s largest reservoir and a lifeline for water in Los Angeles and the West — was at 1,065 feet, or about 34% of its capacity, a near-historic low. Much of California on the U.S. Drought Monitor map was painted in worrisome shades of red.

“These regulations are kind of no-brainers at this point,” said Doug Parker, director of the California Institute for Water Resources at UC Davis. “They probably should have been done a little while ago.”

Among the activities that may be prohibited are washing vehicles with hoses that do not have shut-off nozzles; hosing down sidewalks, driveways or patios “except in cases where health and safety are at risk”; watering landscapes in a manner that causes excessive runoff; and watering lawns within 48 hours after measurable rainfall.

For many, the measures feel like déjà vu as California again faces the prospect of dwindling water supplies.

Click here to read the full article at the LA Times

Nunes Resignation Sparks Massive Political Shakeup

It’s election season in California, and the resignations, announcements and endorsements are coming in fast and furious.

The state’s political scene got a major shakeup on Monday, when Rep. Devin Nunes, a high-profile, powerful and controversial Republican who’s represented the San Joaquin Valley in Congress since 2003, announced that he plans to give up his seat in January to lead former President Donald Trump’s new media company.

The surprise move will trigger numerous rounds of political musical chairs, starting with Gov. Gavin Newsom calling a special election to fill Nunes’ seat through the end of his term in January 2023. State Sen. Melissa Hurtado, a Democrat who also represents the San Joaquin Valley, tweeted a photo showing that she’d received nearly 600 text messages about the open seat. And Democrat Phil Arballo, who lost to Nunes in 2020 and planned to challenge him again in 2022, is apparently planning to run in the special election next spring.

Another factor that may have prompted Nunes’ resignation: Draft maps that California’s independent redistricting commission are expected to finalize later this month show his district shifting from majority Republican to majority Democratic for the next decade, starting with the 2022 elections. Whether that holds true in the final maps could influence who decides to run for the seat.

Another sign election season is heating up: the flurry of endorsements. Rep. Jackie Speier on Monday endorsed Assemblymember Kevin Mullin — a fellow San Mateo Democrat and her former staffer — for the seat she plans to vacate after 2022. And Assemblymember Jim Frazier, a Fairfield Democrat who’s resigning at the end of the year to take a job in the transportation industry, threw his weight behind Suisun Mayor Lori Wilson to replace him.

Also Monday, crime victims served Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón with papers of intent to recall him — a few months after another attempt to oust him from office fizzled. The news came the same day state lawmakers held a joint hearing to consider proposing a 2022 ballot measure to overhaul California’s recall process, such as by limiting recalls to cases of improper conduct.

Experts say that Newsom appears to be headed for easy reelection in 2022 after his overwhelming defeat of the Sept. 14 recall. But the governor is also facing scrutiny from critics for taking several out-of-state trips despite recently extending portions of California’s COVID state of emergency through March 2022. 

The governor’s office announced Monday that Newsom will be in New York until Wednesday to promote on “The Daily Show” and “The View” his new children’s book about a young boy’s struggle with dyslexia, which is scheduled to be released today. The trip comes after Newsom’s Dec. 3-5 visit to Nevada and a Nov. 22-28 stay in Mexico.

A Newsom spokesperson called the criticism of the travel “ridiculous political attacks.”

This article originally appeared at CalMatters.org

Poll: 24% of Renters ‘Seriously Consider’ Leaving California

Few economic gaps in California are wider than the monetary gulf between renters and homeowners.

I just unearthed another example: A poll gauging the impact of the state’s challenging job market found 24% of California renters would “seriously consider” leaving for elsewhere in the U.S. vs. just 19% of homeowners.

The Public Policy Institute of California’s survey of 2,292 California adults conducted in late October offers vivid illustrations of how hard life can be as a Golden State renter, especially compared with homeowners. Not only are tenants typically poorer than owners, but their hopes of getting ahead are also diminished.

That’s not a good financial formula in a state where a typical apartment runs $1,967 a month — the second-highest rent in the nation, according to Apartment List. California renters pay an average 32% of their income toward rent — a monetary burden topped by only three other states, Census stats show.

The poll details how the usually tenuous finances of renters have been further muddled by the pandemic era’s business limitations and economic twists. California remains 900,000 jobs short of pre-pandemic employment levels with many of these lost positions coming from lower-paying industries that typically employ tenants.

Such workplace difficulties translate to 24% of renters having someone in their household losing a job in the past year vs. 16% of homeowners. And 17% of renters worry almost daily or more about future job losses vs. 12% of owners.

Now, most renters aren’t enjoying dream jobs with just 35% surveyed saying they are very satisfied with work vs. 38% of owners. One annoyance: Unstable hours are a pain for 21% of renters vs. 17% of owners.

Plus, a shortage of good-paying jobs further clouds the picture with 26% of renters saying it’s a “big problem” vs. 20% of owners. And there’s not much hope for career advancement — 42% of renters’ current workplace offers no growth opportunities vs. 37% of owners.

Cashed out

Employment impediments translate to money problems, with 22% of renters reporting worsening personal finances vs. a year ago vs. 15% owners.

No surprise, the cost of housing is a major headache with 39% of renters worrying almost every day or more vs. 16% of owners.

That’s likely because 24% of renters admit their households had difficulty paying rent vs. 10% of owners who had mortgage troubles. That’s in line with 26% of renters with serious worries about bills vs. 14% of owners.

Consider other renter-vs.-owner financial complications of the past year.

Medical? 23% of renting households put off getting healthcare help because of finances vs. 4% of owners. Food stamps? 26% of renting households got them vs. 9% of owners. Unemployment benefits? 33% of renters got jobless aid vs. 23% of owners.

Click here to read the entire article at OC Register

SF Restaurant Apologizes for Denying Service to Armed, On-Duty Police Officers

The owners of a restaurant in San Francisco’s North Beach neighborhood apologized Sunday for asking police officers to leave their eatery because the officers’ guns made employees uncomfortable.

In a statement posted Sunday on social media, Hilda and Jesse owners Rachel Sillcocks and Kristina Liedags Compton said “these are stressful times and we handled this badly.”

Three officers were asked to leave the brunch spot on Friday and the restaurant posted an explanation on its Instagram channel Saturday that read: “The restaurant is a safe space. The presence of the officers’ weapons in the restaurant made us feel uncomfortable. We respect the San Francisco Police Department and are grateful for the work they do. We welcome them into the restaurant when they are off duty, out of uniform and without their weapons.”

Outcry soon followed on social media, including a response from San Francisco police chief William Scott, who said his department “stands for safety with respect, even when it means respecting wishes that our officers and I find discouraging and personally disappointing.”

The restaurant owners backtracked on Sunday with the apology on Instagram.

“We made a mistake and apologize for the unfortunate incident on Friday when we asked members of the San Francisco Police Department to leave our restaurant,” said Sillcocks and Liedags Compton. “We are grateful to all members of the force who work hard to keep us safe, especially during these challenging times.”

The incident drew comments supporting both sides. Some commenters were clearly upset at the incident, calling it discriminatory and pointing out that if there were to be an emergency the officers would be there to help.

“How disrespectful and entitled of the business to treat people who risk their lives to protect us,” wrote one poster. “It’s a bit heartbreaking actually.”

Local resident John Perri agreed.

Click here to read the full article at CBS SF Bay Area

Court Approves Lying to Voters to Pass Bonds

If ever voters needed a reason to vote no on every single bond measure that appears on the ballot, here it is: The Court of Appeal for Third Appellate District just ruled that, despite all the lies voters were told about California’s infamous High-Speed Rail project, taxpayers have no remedy, even though the project as it exists today bears no relation to what voters were told when they approved the $9.9 billion bond in 2008.

Californians were promised a super-fast train that would travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco in about two and a half hours; the ticket price would be about $50; the total cost of the high-speed rail would be about $40 billion; and there would be significant private-sector support –money from investors — to build the project.

Even before the 2008 vote, transportation experts were warning that the project would become a massive black hole into which California taxpayers would be committed to pouring hundreds of billions of dollars. In fact, a 2008 study sponsored by the Reason Foundation and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation predicted that the promised total cost of $45 billion would quickly turn into $100 billion or more, stating that “There are no genuine financial projections that indicate there will be sufficient funds.” The only error in the study now appears that the dollar amount was too low.

The HSR project has been the target of multiple lawsuits, including a few that challenged the legality of the entire enterprise. But it now appears that the last legal roadblock to this continued wasting of taxpayer dollars has been removed. In Tos v. State of California, the court ruled that even though nothing the voters were promised in 2008 could possibly become true, the bonds could now be sold to finance the project.

There is a disturbing message here for all California voters and taxpayers. When it comes to bond measures, nothing that is promised in the law authorizing the bond is worth the paper it is written on. If a bond act states that voter approval will authorize the construction of a high school, don’t be surprised if the revenue is later used for a prison. While that may be an extreme example, it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

Even more disappointing is the fact that whenever a state or local government spends bond funds for a project that deviates in substantive ways from what was described in the ballot material presented to the voters, there will be no legal remedy. The voters’ only option to prevent this bait-and-switch is to adopt a policy of blanket rejection of all bond measures.

Click here to read the full article at the OC Register

Eastman Takes the Fifth With Jan. 6 Committee

The attorney, who helped former President Donald Trump contest the 2020 election, asserted his right against self-incrimination in a Dec. 1 letter to the Capitol riot panel.

John Eastman, the attorney who helped former President Donald Trump pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election, has asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to a letter he delivered to the Jan. 6 committee explaining his decision not to testify.

“Dr. Eastman hereby asserts his Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against himself in response to your subpoena,” his attorney, Charles Burnham, wrote in a letter to Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) dated Dec. 1.

“Members of this very Committee have openly spoken of making criminal referrals to the Department of Justice and described the Committee’s work in terms of determining “guilt or innocence,” Burnham continues. “Dr. Eastman has a more than reasonable fear that any statements he makes pursuant to this subpoena will be used in an attempt to mount a criminal investigation against him.”

Eastman’s decision is an extraordinary assertion by someone who worked closely with Trump to attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. He met with Trump and pushed state legislative leaders to reject Biden’s victory in a handful of swing states and appoint alternate electors to the Electoral College, effectively denying Biden’s victory.

The former Chapman University law professor also pressured Pence, who is constitutionally required to preside over the Electoral College certification on Jan. 6, to unilterally refuse to count some of Biden’s electors and send the election to the full House for a vote — or delay long enough to give states a chance to submit new electors.

Eastman also spoke at Trump’s Jan. 6 rally alongside Rudy Giuliani.

Most of Burnham’s letter makes procedural objections to the structure of the Jan. 6 committee, focused on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to reject Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s appointees to the panel.

“The lack of a ranking minority member makes it impossible for this Committee to comply with clearly applicable House rules on subpoenas and depositions,” he writes.

Burnham also complains that the Capitol riot committee conducts its depositions in secret.

Click here to read the full article at Politico.com

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com