Heard on the Tom/Toms

Stephen Frank, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  9/25/23     www.capoliticalreview.com

TRANSPARENT PLATFORM OR IS THIS A DEMOCRAT PLATFORM

Something very odd about an email sent to delegates on September 20 by a group called, “CRP Transparency Platform”. It was titled, “Platform Facts vs Myths”

1.  You will note it has no name associated with it—no delegate, or recognized organization, not even a legislator or celebrity—totally anonymous.
2. At the very bottom you will find this: “CRP Platform Transparency | 123 Main Street, Sacramento, CA 95814”.  That is not a real address.  I am told that Constant Contact has been notified.
3.  Whoever sent this included a warning:

Only CAGOP delegates can submit proposed amendments and planks to the platform.

The CAGOP Bylaws state that any person can submit a proposed platform amendment, including Democrats, convicted felons, non-citizens, and foreign governments. Some of the 100 proposed amendments do not appear to come from Republicans.

So, did some of those amendments that appear to be from Democrats come from the proponents of CRP Platform Transparency?  Is that why they seem to know the amendments did not come from Republicans?

Some would say this email and the proposed GOP Platform sounds more like the Democrat Party than the GOP.  Is it possible that the email senders are laughing in our face and saying that the Platform and amendments are Democrat generated?

•  That opens another question—who is actually financing the creation and promotion of a Platform that the Democrats would love us to have?  Remember, under the Draft Platform we say nothing about election integrity, agriculture, barely mention Prop. 13, no real support for the Second Amendment and more.

So, if you are a candidate for Congress and oppose sanctuary cities, your Democrat opponent will say, “Your own Platform does not oppose sanctuary cities, you are an extremist even in your own Party.

As a candidate for Assembly or State Senate you want tough laws for criminals and the repeal of Prop. 47 and 57.  Your Democrat opponent will say, “Your own Platform does not call for the repeal of Prop. 47 or 57—you are an extremist inside your own Party.

The proposed Draft Platform is the perfect document to use against GOP officeholders and candidates.

(Periodically the California Political News and Views will publish tidbits of political news, to keep you in the loop of what the pooh bahs know.  The phrase “tom/tom’s” comes from my mentor, Lorelei Kinder who never passed a rumor, just called to tell me what she heard on the “TomTom’s”.  This column is named in her honor.)

It is sad to say, but all things must end.  Strom Thurmond served in the U.S. Senate till he was 100.  Clint Eastwood, at 92, is still making movies, but for how long.  Tom Brady played football till he was 45.  Now, Rupert Murdoch, at age 92, has decided to step aside.

Murdoch has a storied history in the media—running newspapers, TV studios and creating the most watched and talked about cable news network, Fox.  It is time to congratulate a person who has made a difference.

THE EXIT OF A TYCOON

By Richard Colman, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  9/25/23  www.capoliticalreview.com

So, Rupert Murdoch has decided to step down from running Fox News and other media enterprises.

The best Latin expression to describe Murdoch is:  “Sic transit Gloria mundi.”  The appropriate English translation is “Earthly matters shall pass.”  The literal translation is, “Thus passes the glory of the world.”

In his 70-year career, Murdoch has never produced a defining moment.  When and where did Murdoch ever do or say something that strengthened democracy?

Winston Churchill, in his writings and speeches, inspired the world with his warnings about the tyranny of Adolf Hitler and other tyrants.

All Murdoch did was make money.

On two occasions, CBS News stepped outside the boundaries of traditional journalism and warned the American people of danger.

The first occasion came on March 9, 1954, when Edward R. Murrow, an employee of CBS News, denounced the tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) who, in demagogic fashion, claimed that domestic communists were threatening the security of the United States. 

In a famous broadcast for the program, “See It Now,” Murrow said, “No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. 

“His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between internal and the external threats of Communism.  We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.  We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.  We will not walk in fear, one of another.  We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.”

The second occasion came on Feb. 27, 1968, when Walter Cronkite, the CBS News anchorman, made an on-air commentary after visiting Vietnam during the multi-year war that America waged against communist forces in that divided Southeast Asian nation.  Cronkite said, “For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.  This summer’s almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle.  And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

“To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.

“On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy’s intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations.  But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could.”

On June 13, 1971, The New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, a secret history of the Vietnam war.  The administration of President Richard Nixon tried to suppress publication of the Pentagon Papers.  Publication of the materials was halted.  A few weeks later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Times could resume publication.

In June 1972, burglars broke into the Watergate complex in Washington D.C.  The break-in specifically targeted the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee.  The intruders were arrested.  Reporters at the Washington Post began to examine the burglary.  Two reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, found connections between the burglars and the Nixon administration.  After a congressional investigation in 1973 and other actions, it became clear that the Nixon administration tried to cover up links between the Watergate break-in and the Nixon administration.  On Aug. 9, 1974, Nixon resigned his presidency after he was shown to have engaged in the cover-up.

What can we say about Murdoch?  He has been a rich and successful media tycoon.  But has his collection of media properties ever done anything comparable to what CBS News, The New York Times, and the Washington Post had done to enhance liberty?

Murdoch had a chance to produce a defining moment.  He failed.

#    #    #

For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer’s almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.

On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy’s intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honourable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could.

No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

While crime is rising due to Newsom’s policies, he is also trying to make it SAFER for criminals—by limiting the availability of gun to protect the innocent.

“Benitez cited the case in his decision because it clarified that gun control laws must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The judge claimed this magazine ban was not.

“The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen,” Benitez wrote in his 71-page decision.

While disarming honest citizens, they are doing nothing to stop criminals from having guns.

Federal court strikes down California ban on gun magazines for second time

by Jenny Goldsberry, Washington Examiner,  9/22/23    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/courts/federal-court-california-ban-magazines-second-time

A federal judge yet again declared California’s ban on gun magazines unconstitutional Friday.

The ban was first instituted in a 2000 measure signed into law by then-Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, and prohibited state residents from buying or selling magazines that hold 10 or more rounds. U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez struck it down after previously striking it in 2019.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Benitez’s ruling in 2021, arguing that the ban fell in line with the state’s efforts to reduce gun violence and is compatible with the Second Amendment. Then, the Supreme Court vacated the appeals court ruling and ordered new proceedings consistent with the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Benitez cited the case in his decision because it clarified that gun control laws must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The judge claimed this magazine ban was not.

“The history and tradition of the Second Amendment clearly supports state laws against the use or misuse of firearms with unlawful intent, but not the disarmament of the law-abiding citizen,” Benitez wrote in his 71-page decision.

“I am going to immediately appeal to correct this dangerous decision,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. “We vow to fight to keep Californians safe from weapon enhancements that cause mass casualties.”

In 2017, Benitez blocked the law before his first ruling. Benitez previously served on the California Superior Court and was appointed to the Southern District of California by then-President George W. Bush in 2004.

California saw a 37% lower gun death rate than the national average, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D-CA) office, with the children’s gun death rate being 58% lower than the national average. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the state’s gun death rate is the 44th lowest in the nation.

This article has 880 words.  It talks about removing four dams, at a cost of billions of dollars.  Now a single word about replacing the lost water.  In other words, the real goal is not the environment, it is to impoverish the people of California.

“The massive project does come with a cost for local communities: $500 million paid for by taxpayers and those who contract with PacifiCorps, the local electric power company. Some homeowners expressed concern about decreased property values, now that their homes will no longer be on the waterfront. The Siskiyou County Water Users Association, which has been fighting the project for about a decade, filed a federal lawsuit to no avail. 

The Renewal Corporation, environmentalists and the tribes argue that the cost is worth to restore nature to its roots and they point to the success of the Elwha Dam Removal project on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington state in 2011. That project restored the river’s natural flow, which enabled salmon to return almost immediately, and rebuilt a beach and lagoon that had been deprived of sediment for decades. 

This is how you make rural California poor.  Congrats to the National Socialist Newsom, he is killing off his State.

California is engaged in the world’s largest dam removal project in hopes of letting nature rebound

A national push to “rewild” looks to restore natural environments that might help mitigate the effects of climate change.

By Maura Barrett, Jackie Montalvo and Cate Waters, NBC News,  9/20/23  https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/california-engaged-worlds-largest-dam-removal-project-hopes-letting-na-rcna107962

HORNBROOK, Calif. — This time next year, a series of massive dams that block off the Klamath River will no longer exist. The soil and rocks originally dug and transported from a nearby mountain in the 1950s will be returned to their home and the river will run freely again. 

The Iron Gate Dam, which opened in 1964 as the last of four dams that, at nearly 200 feet tall each, regulated the flow of the river and time releases for the local water supply in Northern California, is now part of the world’s largest dam removal and river restoration project. Iron Gate is scheduled to be the final stop for decommissioning crews. 

One of the dams, Copco2, was removed earlier this year in just a handful of months. It was a relatively quick undertaking, considering the construction of the Iron Gate Dam took nearly a decade. 

Mark Bransom, the CEO of the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, said the river will be able to flow freely once the dam’s infrastructure is removed. He also said they have plans to help nature take back the area.

“As soon as the reservoir is drained, we’ll get out on the footprint there and begin some initial restoration activity,” Bransom said. “We want to stabilize the remaining sediments using native vegetation.”

NBC News correspondent Maura Barrett speaks with Mark Bransom, CEO of the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, overlooking the Iron Gate Dam.NBC News

In the age of extreme heat, record-setting drought and catastrophic flooding linked to climate change, there’s been a national push to “rewild,” a movement rooted in restoring nature to the state it was before human intervention, hoping this helps mitigate the effects of climate change.

A big part of that effort is centered around dams, many of which were originally constructed when infrastructural development took priority over environmental protection. 

“One of the fastest ways to heal a river is to remove a dam,” Ann Willis, the California regional director for American Rivers, a nonprofit focused on protecting clean water, said. “The good news is, when you have the opportunity to unjam a river, the river can start to restore itself almost from the moment that the water starts flowing again.”

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the governing body responsible for maintaining the National Inventory of Dams, has flagged 76% of existing U.S. dams as having “high hazard potential,” a FEMA designation “for any dam whose failure or mis-operation will cause loss of human life and significant property destruction.” In the case of the Iron Gate Dam, Willis pointed out the green growth floating on the stagnant reservoir’s surface: toxic algae in what is supposed to be a water supply source. And because of aged-out infrastructure, some dams can put people in danger of catastrophic flooding, as more extreme climate events become more common. 

Advocates, largely driven by tribal activists along the Klamath River, have been pushing for these dams to be decommissioned for more than 20 years and have pointed out the potential determinants from the start — notably, the near extinction of the salmon in the river has forced an elimination of the Karuk, Yurok and Hoopa tribes’ sacred practice of salmon ceremonies. 

“Tribal input wasn’t sought,” said Barry McCovey Jr., the director of the Yurok Tribe Fisheries Department. “If we had input, we would have said, ‘No, this isn’t a good idea, you can’t cut a river in half with the dam. You can’t stop fish from migrating. It’s going to throw the ecosystem out of balance. You’re going to see a cascade of effects that’s going to last for generations.’”

McCovey expressed excitement now that the removal has finally begun, calling it “the biggest single restorative action that we can take to start to bring balance back to the ecosystem.” He warned that it could take considerable time to see the impacts. 

“But that’s OK. We’re in this for the long run,” he said.

The massive project does come with a cost for local communities: $500 million paid for by taxpayers and those who contract with PacifiCorps, the local electric power company. Some homeowners expressed concern about decreased property values, now that their homes will no longer be on the waterfront. The Siskiyou County Water Users Association, which has been fighting the project for about a decade, filed a federal lawsuit to no avail. 

The Renewal Corporation, environmentalists and the tribes argue that the cost is worth to restore nature to its roots and they point to the success of the Elwha Dam Removal project on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington state in 2011. That project restored the river’s natural flow, which enabled salmon to return almost immediately, and rebuilt a beach and lagoon that had been deprived of sediment for decades. 

Advocates across the country hope to add the Klamath River as another success as they look ahead to even larger projects — like the current $33.5 billion federal proposal to breach four dams on the lower Snake River in eastern Washington.

Even the rich and elite realize that Guv Newsom is a National Socialist Democrat, a poster child for fascism, corruption and economic disaster.

“Music mogul David Foster’s daughters Erin and Sara said they “hate” California Governor Gavin Newsom (D), who they called “the worst,” and accused him of trying to turn the Golden State socialist.

“Newsom is the worst, like, actually the worst,” Sara said during Thursday’s episode of The World’s First Podcast with Erin & Sara Foster, to which Erin responded by saying, “Yeah, I hate him.”

“It’s really fucked up, what’s happening here,” Sara continued. “Is the goal to be Venezuela? Is the goal to be a socialist state? I don’t know.”

Erin reacted by saying, “Whatever the goal is, I am getting a place in Nashville,” to which Sara admitted that she is “jealous” of her sister for being able to leave California.”

I pray that Newsom is the National Socialist Democrat candidate for President.  This could be 1984 again for the GOP.

David Foster’s Daughters Slam California Gov. Gavin Newsom: ‘It’s Really F**ked Up What’s Happening Here … Is the Goal to Be Socialist?’

ALANA MASTRANGELO, Breitbart, 9/23/23   https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2023/09/23/david-fosters-daughters-slam-california-gov-gavin-newsom-its-really-fked-up-whats-happening-here-is-the-goal-to-be-socialist/

Music mogul David Foster’s daughters Erin and Sara said they “hate” California Governor Gavin Newsom (D), who they called “the worst,” and accused him of trying to turn the Golden State socialist.

“Newsom is the worst, like, actually the worst,” Sara said during Thursday’s episode of The World’s First Podcast with Erin & Sara Foster, to which Erin responded by saying, “Yeah, I hate him.”

“It’s really fucked up, what’s happening here,” Sara continued. “Is the goal to be Venezuela? Is the goal to be a socialist state? I don’t know.”

Erin reacted by saying, “Whatever the goal is, I am getting a place in Nashville,” to which Sara admitted that she is “jealous” of her sister for being able to leave California.

“I’m jealous, because — if anyone follows me, you know that I have a lot of complaints about the city we live in, and the state we live in,” she said. “And people are always like, ‘Why don’t you just leave?’ Guys, it’s not that easy. I’m born and raised here. My entire family is here.”

Erin — who suggested that she herself is liberal by complaining about pro-life legislation and freedoms related to the Second Amendment in Tennessee — noted that she would love to pay Nashville taxes.

“The government in California are very aware that people are trying to not pay California taxes,” she said. “So you have to prove that your doctor is in Nashville, your therapist is in Nashville, you have to prove that your grocery bills are coming from Nashville. We would have to, like, properly move to pay those taxes.”

Sara responded by saying that she blames “everything on Newsom.”

“Yeah, and you know what Newsom is doing now? — I blame everything on Newsome — they’re trying to pass a bill where if you leave the state, because you’re like, ‘I’m unhappy here, crime is through the roof, the public education isn’t great’ they are trying to bass a bill where you have to pay [taxes] for ten years,” she said.

“That’s insane,” Erin reacted, to which Sara warned, “We could get to a point in California where they’re like, ‘Okay, you want to move to Texas? Well, you’re still going to pay California for ten years after you relocate.”

The sisters also discussed whether or not they would like the California governor if they were at “a dinner party” with him.

“Here’s the thing,” Sara said. “I’m sure he’s a perfectly nice person. I’m not talking to him as a friend. I’m sure if I sat across from him at a dinner table, I would love this guy,” to which Erin bluntly responded with, “I don’t know if you’d love him at a dinner party.”

“I’m just saying — he is who is running our state,” Sara said. “So, unfortunately, all that goes aside, I don’t care who you know, who you’re friends with, what mutual friends we have.”

“I don’t give a shit,” Sara affirmed. “You are running the state, and your policies are whack. Therefore, I’m coming for you.”

Erin and Sara are the daughters of legendary artist and music mogul David Foster, who has an estimated net worth of $150 million.

This is good news—the voice of the people has been heard.  A tax on every mile you drive has been eliminated.

“San Marcos Mayor Rebecca Jones led the charge to excise the tax, leading a protest outside SANDAG’s office Friday morning before the board met.

“This policy threatened the core principles of American freedom and imposed a disproportionate burden on the majority of our region’s residents,” said El Cajon Mayor Bills Wells, also a vocal opponent to the tax. “Today, we proudly announce a committed and unified stance to eliminate this regressive tax.”

This tax would have killed off the poor and middle class, killed tourism and put California into a permanent recession.  Though it is killed for now, expect it to be revived next year.

SANDAG Board Removes Controversial ‘Mileage Tax’ from 2025 Regional Plan

by Times of San Diego,  9/22/23   https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2023/09/22/sandag-board-removes-controversial-mileage-tax-from-2025-regional-plan/

The San Diego Association of Governments’ Board of Directors Friday voted 15-4 to remove any mention of a controversial Regional Road User Charge — sometimes referred to as a mileage tax — from its 2025 Regional Plan.

San Marcos Mayor Rebecca Jones led the charge to excise the tax, leading a protest outside SANDAG’s office Friday morning before the board met.

“This policy threatened the core principles of American freedom and imposed a disproportionate burden on the majority of our region’s residents,” said El Cajon Mayor Bills Wells, also a vocal opponent to the tax. “Today, we proudly announce a committed and unified stance to eliminate this regressive tax.

“The notion of being tracked and taxed for every mile one drives is fundamentally contrary to the values that define our great nation,” he said. “San Diego has long stood as a beacon of individual liberty and personal choice, and the mileage tax undermines these principles at their core.”

In December 2021, SANDAG approved the 2021 Regional Transportation Plan without the mileage tax, leaving some doubts as to how the agency would fund the $165 billion plan.

A four-cents-per-mile road usage tax proposal and two half-cent regional sales taxes proposed for 2022 and 2028 were some of the key funding strategies SANDAG leadership proposed. SANDAG estimated the road usage tax could raise more than $34 billion through 2050, but the agency’s chief economist, Ray Major, said the final figures would have changed once the scope was narrowed to implementation of the proposal in 2030.

However, San Diego County Supervisor Chairwoman Nora Vargas said much of the concern was coming from a place of misinformation.

“The previous SANDAG Board directed an amendment to remove the (Road User Charge) from the regional plan,” Vargas wrote in a statement. “SANDAG is working on this and will submit the amendment to the state. The state will make the final decision. To be clear, no government agency has the authority to implement a tax that would impact our region without voter approval.”

Last September, SANDAG’s Board of Directors voted to exclude it from SANDAG’s Regional Transportation plan, following several Democratic lawmakers making a last-minute turn against the proposal.

SANDAG’s Executive Director Hasan Ikhrata proceeded anyway with a plan that retained the charge. Ikhrata has since announced his departure from the regional planning agency, effective Dec. 29.

San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond is a frequent critic of SANDAG’s regional transportation plan, saying the organization “needs a plan we can all buy into regionally, instead of doom and gloom, and mileage taxes.”

The board is made up of representatives from the 18 municipalities in the county and from the county at large.

— City News Service

All over California we have drug addicts, alcoholics and the mentally ill taking over our streets and communities.  Tens of billions have been spent to end this problem—but the more we spend, the worse it gets—except for the Homeless Industrial Complex—they have become bigger and richer.

“The social and political angst in San Francisco over how to do something effective about homelessness is not confined to that city. There are at least 170,000 people living on the streets in California and every large city faces its version of the syndrome.

Karen Bass was elected mayor of Los Angeles on her pledge to clean up its streets but has only been able to tinker at the margins, while the numbers of the unhoused have continued to climb.

The sidewalks of Sacramento near the state Capitol are packed with encampments of homeless men and women, sparking a sharp clash between the city’s mayor, former state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, and Sacramento County’s newly elected district attorney, Thien Ho.”

Change government policies that created this crisis, force these sick people into treatment—end this disaster.

California politicians point fingers as tolerance of homelessness wears thin

BY DAN WALTERS, CalMattrs,  9/24/23   https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/09/californians-tolerance-homelessness-wears-thin/

IN SUMMARY

As California’s homelessness crisis continues, its politicians are carping over who should be held responsible for resolving it.

Many political promises have been made, many billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent and many programs have been launched, but the state’s homelessness crisis continues to worsen and Californians’ tolerance has worn thin.

A few months ago, the Public Policy Institute of California took the public’s temperature on the issue and found that overwhelming majorities of the state’s adults want something done, pronto. It’s one of the few major issues that bridges the state’s otherwise wide partisan divide.

“Things have shifted, and everybody’s jobs are on the damn line, and they should be,” Gov. Gavin Newsom told a Dreamforce conference in San Francisco last week. “We’re only interested in real results, and that’s our commitment to all of you.”

Underscoring the situation’s fraught politics, Newsom has denounced a federal magistrate who blocked San Francisco’s plans to clean up squalid encampments, pledged that the state will intervene in the case and expressed hope that a very conservative U.S. Supreme Court might lift the ban.

“That’s a hell of a statement coming from a progressive Democrat from California that says we need help from the Supreme Court,” Newsom said during his Dreamforce interview.

Newsom said that during an unannounced visit to San Francisco – a city he once governed as mayor – he saw a disgusting level of drug abuse near a city police station.

“People aren’t giving a damn that any of us are there,” he said. “They were dealing, were using, were abusing, and there was a police department substation, and it was all happening across the street. All I thought was, how damn demoralized everybody must be. There go all our tax dollars and who the hell is running this place?”

Who indeed?

The social and political angst in San Francisco over how to do something effective about homelessness is not confined to that city. There are at least 170,000 people living on the streets in California and every large city faces its version of the syndrome.

Karen Bass was elected mayor of Los Angeles on her pledge to clean up its streets but has only been able to tinker at the margins, while the numbers of the unhoused have continued to climb.

The sidewalks of Sacramento near the state Capitol are packed with encampments of homeless men and women, sparking a sharp clash between the city’s mayor, former state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, and Sacramento County’s newly elected district attorney, Thien Ho.

For weeks, Ho issued public denunciations of city officials for, he said, failing to enforce anti-camping laws and at one point even threatened to issue criminal charges against them.

Last week, Ho filed a civil lawsuit against the city, alleging its inaction is creating a public nuisance. A companion suit was filed by a coalition of city residents and business owners.

“Enough is enough,” Ho told The Sacramento Bee. “We need to address this public safety crisis for both the housed and the unhoused.”

The 36-page lawsuit describes Sacramento as a once-thriving city that faces “descent into decay and this utter collapse into chaos,” threatening both housed and unhoused residents.

“The frustration that members of our community feel is absolutely justified,” Steinberg said in a statement, defending steps the city has taken to deal with the issue, and criticizing Ho’s intervention.

“Frankly,” Steinberg said, “we have no time for the district attorney’s performative distraction from the hard work we all need to do together to solve this complex social problem plaguing urban centers throughout the state and nation.”

The carping among politicians – all from the same party – tells us that they know the public will exact retribution if the crisis continues to worsen.

When the Sacramento Bee writes about health issues are they doing it as journalists, or propagandists for those that pay the bills?

“To address this shortfall, many papers have taken to accepting grant funds from non-profits, foundations, and non-governmental organizations.  And not just from local general do-godderies, but from groups with very specific interests and opinions and desired outcomes.

Take the Sacramento Bee…please (sorry, couldn’t resist.)  Their health care coverage is/was directly funded to the tune of about $175,000 a year (more than enough to rent a reporter) by the California Endowment, an uber-woke, highly political “non-profit” that was set up by the state to help provide access to affordable health insurance but instead plows almost all of its money into advocacy, outreach, and political groups.

CalMatters has a similar arrangement with the California Health Care Foundation, getting about $600,000 per year to pay for its health care beat.”

Trust the media?  They are bought and paid for.  No wonder we were lied to about COVID, the vaccines and masks.

Ending Pay for Play in California Newspapers

Only occasionally can you find out who is paying for the stories you read

By Thomas Buckley, California Globe,  9/23/23    https://californiaglobe.com/fl/ending-pay-for-play-in-california-newspapers/

Newspapers are broke. Broke broke. I’ll smoke just half this cigarette tonight so I’ll have half left for the morning broke.

The internet evaporated classified ad sales – once about half of a newspaper’s income – and it turns out that giving away the product for free on-line was not a terribly good business model.

Responding by gutting local news coverage – the only thing readers couldn’t get anywhere else – and alienating more than half (at least) of their readers with woker-than-thou pseudo-news were also not good ideas.

Just 15 or so years ago, a typical paper reaped a net – very very net – profit each year of between 10 and 17% (that’s why people paid a lot of money for them then in the late 1990s – oops.)  Now they are valued more for their property than the paper itself.

Some papers have responded by becoming a toy a mega-rich person can use to yell progressive things at people, but even they can sometimes reach their financial limit (take the Los Angeles Times, which not only already sold its valuable downtown property and moved to El Segundo but seems to have been purchased based on the following business plan: “Honey, I’m giving you a billion dollars for graduation – have fun lighting it in fire!”)

Newspapers are broke and it’s their fault.

Not all, of course.  The Wall Street Journal was highly criticized when, at the dawn of the internet, it said “to hell with that – you pay” and the New York Times panders exclusively to its high-income subscribers and never tells them something they might disagree with so they don’t cancel their subscription. They’re both dong just fine.

For most of the rest, though, it’s become a cold winter out there.

To address this shortfall, many papers have taken to accepting grant funds from non-profits, foundations, and non-governmental organizations.  And not just from local general do-godderies, but from groups with very specific interests and opinions and desired outcomes.

Take the Sacramento Bee…please (sorry, couldn’t resist.)  Their health care coverage is/was directly funded to the tune of about $175,000 a year (more than enough to rent a reporter) by the California Endowment, an uber-woke, highly political “non-profit” that was set up by the state to help provide access to affordable health insurance but instead plows almost all of its money into advocacy, outreach, and political groups.

CalMatters has a similar arrangement with the California Health Care Foundation, getting about $600,000 per year to pay for its health care beat.

These are just two examples of hundreds of such arrangements across the country – arrangements that are typically not at all mentioned by the newspaper.  For example, George Soros dropped about $130 million on newspapers and media outlets  – even some directly on high-profile media personalities – between 2016 and 2020.

That’s why if anyone ever says that maybe it’s not great that Soros is funding the election of horrible, dangerous, disastrous district attorney’s like LA’s George Gascon they are immediately called an anti-semite in the press.

In the long, long ago, newspapers got money from advertisers but they were kept at very arm’s length from the newsroom.  That may sound suspicious, but it was actually true – papers told irked advertisers to pound sand, in part because of something called ethics, in part because they could afford to, and in part because if they were the only newspaper in town, where was the advertiser going to go to, anyway?

While CalMatters usually – they admit they miss at times – actually lets the reader know who is paying for coverage of a topic with a paragraph at the bottom of the story, the Bee does no such thing and did not respond to numerous previous attempts to comment on such clearly unethical behavior.

Occasionally, you can find out who is paying for the stories you read, somewhere, maybe, on the website but that’s not made easy.  In fact, the quest can be similar to Arthur Dent’s travails in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” when he asked to see the permits for the road that was about to be put through his house:

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

In other words, it’s an industry dirty secret – but there could be a way to at least bring the practice to light.

There are things called newspapers of public record, or adjudicated newspapers.  These are the papers where you can go to print your public notices, name change, lien, etc.  Not every publication is adjudicated and adjudication lists are created county-by-county or town by town or even at the state level (in California, it’s county-based; for example there are 10 adjudicated papers in Orange County, 5 in San Francisco, etc.)

Being adjudicated is important for a newspaper as the public notice fees are easy money.

So how about this – to retain adjudicated status, a newspaper must disclose somewhere in each article exactly who paid for it. In other words, a health care story in the Bee would have to end with “This was made possible by The California Endowment, a horribly leftist political nightmare that oozes woke in its sleep and is paying us to control our coverage of the health care.” 

Or something like that.

True, the idea wouldn’t necessarily apply to news websites and it would involve legislation (essentially modifying various business codes) but it is legal, doesn’t take the paper’s money away, doesn’t impinge on free speech, and would at least be a tiny tiny step to help rebuild even a modicum of trust in a battered, bloodied, banal, bullshit –  but undeniably necessary –  industry.

Newspapers being honest with their readers – maybe the time has come.

Our nation has a full scale invasion, and the President is supporting it.  He is more concerned about the borders of Ukraine than the United States.  Our economy is collapsing due to his anti-energy, anti-American polices and he claims we are doing well.  This, as gas goes over $6 a gallon in California and other places.  He just agreed to buying one billion worth of “new” vaccines, though refusing to see if they work.

Homeless, gangs and illegal aliens have taken over our streets and communities—and Biden blames GOP’ers for the results if HIS policies.

Yes, it is past time to get hysterical.  We are watching the collapse of a great nation.  We have a $33 trillion deficit and worried about a government shut down.  Seriously, we can not afford to keep it open!

It is Time for Hysteria

Posted by Bruce Bialosky, Flashreport,  9/24/23   https://www.flashreport.org/blog/2023/09/24/it-is-time-for-hysteria/

There is a battle brewing in Washington over our annual national budget which is supposed to be in place for the new fiscal year, beginning October 1st. The entire discussion is about whether the House Republicans will have the budget’s twelve elements ready by the deadline. The alternative is to once again invoke those favorite letters of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi – “CR” — meaning operate the government based on the old budget via Continuing Resolution.

Speaker McCarthy has had a problem meeting his own goal of getting those twelve bills out of committees and to the floor so a budget can be sent to the U.S. Senate and then to the President for signature. All month the talk of the Legacy Press has been speculation as to whether we will have a government shutdown as if that is the worse catastrophe in the world.

A shutdown is never good for two reasons. The Republicans get blamed even when Democrats’ fingerprints are all over the lack of a deal. The other aspect is that Washington’s weaklings always seem to make it into free vacation days for our federal employees by giving them their back pay. This pay is for doing what most of them do on a regular basis – – nothing but annoy hardworking Americans.

Recently it has been pointed out during the pandemic our national leaders sent home almost all workers without pay. They were told they are “nonessential” even though they were their family’s only visible means of support. However, somehow our federal workforce (which pretends to operate our bloated government) cannot be sent home even for a week or two without pay.

All this misses the point. The entire discussion misses the point. Our President lately argues how well the country is running vis-à-vis low unemployment, the absence of any wars and supposedly our fiscal house is in order. Yet, he does not speak to our TWO TRILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL BUDGET DEFICIT. How about that elephant in the room? In fact, our President is so oblivious to this, he and his buddy, the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, tried to stuff another $40 billion of emergency spending into the fiscal year ending soon. How careless can you be?

The discussion amongst our fake betters is that we must continue forging ahead. Oblivious to it all. Their biggest discussion point is how we have negligently ignored the needs “of the people” and supposedly exploded the child poverty rate. Of course, there is no discussion of the fact that the poverty rate does not include transfer payments as receipts by the people supposedly suffering poverty. This supposed jump happened with low unemployment and yet flowing government handouts.

There is a campaign to reup the “child tax credit,” which name is another manipulative misnomer. It is just another welfare system, government handout, which runs through tax returns. The expanded program is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion over the coming ten-year period. What is another $160 billion a year when you are running $2 trillion in deficits?

There is no discussion of where the money went from all those special funding bills. Trillions of dollars. There is little to no discussion of the estimated $130 billion in fraudulent unemployment claims that were handed out. Our President has made a myriad of attempt to erase legitimate debts incurred by college students which just burdens our budget with billions and billions of more added to our national debt.

Billion Dollar Joe just swats that away. Have you noticed that our President is constantly running (or should I say shuffling) to a microphone to tell us how he is handing out another billion here, a billion there. Biden totally disregards his predecessor in the United States Senate, Everett Dirksen, who apparently envisioned Biden as President and said, “a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money.”

Can we get just a smidgeon of recognition of this budget debacle? Can someone suggest just one agency that we don’t really need? Can someone suggest maybe we don’t need all those employees sitting at home on their couches and those now empty buildings in DC?

The conservative wing of the Republican party is being branded as “crazies” for even suggesting a modicum of sanity on this issue. Some members of that group are not my favorite folks. But as the old saying goes, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” At this point, they are the only ones who are directing us toward real fiscal sanity. Maybe they ain’t as crazy as the Legacy Press brands them.

What happens if we have a recession? What happens if China attacks Taiwan, and we jump in to protect them? Can we focus just a bit on the elephant in the room rather than what the federal government regularly focuses on? We need to get the government’s finances in order, or we are all soon to be doomed.

If you won’t ask for the death penalty for a cop killer, what good are you as a DA?  By refusing to go for the death penalty you are telling criminals cops are open game.  You are telling the cops their lives are worthless.  Could this be why, with Gascon as DA, Los Angeles is a war zone—with criminals owning the streets?

“Gascón was asked why his office declined to seek the death penalty against Salazar, despite the fact that California law prescribes it as an option under the special circumstances he had cited earlier. His response:

Look, if I thought that seeking the death penalty was going to bring Ryan back to us, I would seek it without any reservation. But it won’t. If I thought the death penalty was going to stop people from committing brutal murders, I would seek it. But we know that it won’t. The reality is that the death penalty doesn’t serve as a deterrent, and the death penalty does not bring people back. What I can assure you is that we’re going to do everything within our legal power to make sure that this defendant never gets out of prison.”

It is obvious that the Soros owned DA, Gascon, is the DA to protect criminals.  This is why L.A. is a war zone.

George Gascón, Moral Pygmy

BY JACK DUNPHY, PJ Media,  9/23/23   https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/jack-dunphy/2023/09/23/george-gascon-moral-pygmy-n1729336

It was a morally obtuse, colossally stupid thing to say. In other words, it was everything one has come to expect from Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón.

Speaking at a Wednesday press conference to announce the charges against Cataneo Salazar, who is accused of killing L.A. County sheriff’s deputy Ryan Clinkunbroomer, Gascón stepped to the microphone with the slain deputy’s family at his shoulder, including the woman to whom Clinkunbroomer had recently become engaged. What followed was at once shocking and yet sadly predictable.

Gascón proceeded to borrow a page from President Biden’s “Make It About Me” playbook. “You know,” he began, “as someone who was a police officer for over thirty years, this hits home in many ways.” He then recited the charges against Salazar, which include murder, with the special circumstances of murder of a police officer, lying in wait, and firing from a vehicle.

Then, after Brittany Lindsey, Clinkunbroomer’s fiancée, spoke tearfully and movingly about the man she was to marry but must now bury, Gascón returned to the podium and stepped on the rake in an even more tone-deaf fashion. When a reporter asked about specifics of the charges against Salazar, Gascón once again turned the spotlight on himself. With the slain deputy’s parents and weeping fiancée still at his shoulder, Gascón had this to say:

My family and I have been around policing since I left the Army many years ago. I have been to way too many funerals. I have talked to way too many families, both as a police officer, assistant chief, and chief of police, and I can tell you there is nothing more difficult for me than what I’ve gone through in the last few days.

And it got even worse. Gascón was asked why his office declined to seek the death penalty against Salazar, despite the fact that California law prescribes it as an option under the special circumstances he had cited earlier. His response:

Look, if I thought that seeking the death penalty was going to bring Ryan back to us, I would seek it without any reservation. But it won’t. If I thought the death penalty was going to stop people from committing brutal murders, I would seek it. But we know that it won’t. The reality is that the death penalty doesn’t serve as a deterrent, and the death penalty does not bring people back. What I can assure you is that we’re going to do everything within our legal power to make sure that this defendant never gets out of prison.

Again, morally obtuse and colossally stupid. The argument that the death penalty won’t bring the victim back is the most fatuous and juvenile of them all, and to invoke it in this setting was an insult, not only to Clinkunbroomer’s loved ones standing nearby but to the sheriff’s deputies and police officers with whom Gascón professes such solidarity.

Second, though Gascón refuses to acknowledge it, there is debate among scholars about the deterrent value of the death penalty. A 2003 study by Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Paul H. Rubin of Emory University and Joanna M. Shepherd of Clemson University concluded that the death penalty has a “strong deterrent effect,” with each execution resulting in an average of 18 fewer murders.

Advertisement

But even if we accept Gascón’s assertion that the death penalty has no deterrent effect, there is still an argument to be made that seeking and imposing it in cases as heinous as Deputy Clinkunbroomer’s murder conveys the message to the public in general and its criminal element in particular that such crimes cannot and will not be tolerated in an ordered society. It also conveys to the guardians of that ordered society, i.e., its police officers, that their lives are valued and will be protected by means of the most severe punishment available under the law.

Gascón’s expressed desire that Deputy Clinkunbroomer’s killer “never gets out of prison” rings especially hollow in light of the fact that since taking office he has busied himself reducing the punishment for people already convicted of murder and sentenced to long prison terms. His naïve, almost childlike belief in lenience in these cases has had predictable results.

Related: Is Los Angeles Serious About Cracking Down on Smash-and-Grab Robberies?

I would be less strident in my criticism of Gascón if he could point to any success in making Los Angeles safer since he took office. He cannot. He survived two recall attempts but stands for re-election next year. May the people of Los Angeles be clear-eyed when casting their votes.