The Democratic controlled corporate media and their politicians are pointing their fingers at West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin as the reason why their radical agenda of Build Back Better, District of Columbia statehood, federalization of elections, and court packing is stalled in Congress. Manchin has (thankfully) been thinking twice about supporting the progressives’ agenda. In the 2020 Presidential election, former President Trump beat Joe Biden by almost 30 points in West Virginia at 68.6% to 29.7%. That overwhelming rejection of Biden’s agenda should be evidence enough of why Manchin is reluctant to embrace Build Back Better, because his own resident voters did not embrace it, and by a lot.

But now the ire of West Virginians for Biden has only increased, and exponentially so. The most recent poll results published by Civiqs here find that in the Mountain State today, only 18% approve of Joe Biden’s policies and a whopping 77% disapprove. In one year as President, Biden has managed to lose close to half of his feeble electoral support in the state. A Biden supporter in West Virginia is getting to look like a Republican in San Francisco.

It should be no wonder why Manchin has given pause on Capitol Hill. Manchin was re-elected in 2018 with less than a majority, just 49.6% of the vote. He knows his state, and the honorable requirement to navigate through legislation to reflect its values, when acting as a United States Senator.

So don’t blame Joe Manchin for your policy failures Biden fans! Point your finger at yourselves.

With a DA that will not prosecute, when arrested you are let free without cash bail and no way for law enforcement to find you, when cops are watching thefts occur but refuse to stop them, when stores are told to hire their own security force because the police are worthless, you know San Fran will be criminal heaven.  I can see the freeways from the mid west and back east clogged with criminals wanting to live the high life in San Fran—without worry of cops, punishment or arrest.

“One shoplifter in San Francisco admitted to his crimes during a news interview regarding a grocery store in the city ramping up security measures due to theft.

“I think that they’re not very good because I’ve personally been able to shoplift from here with relative ease,” the shoplifter, who declined to provide his name, told KPIX 5 of a Safeway in San Francisco’s Castro District.

The previously 24-hour Safeway cut store hours in October over “off the charts” shoplifting at the time.

The security measures for the grocery stores are expensive—the smaller shops will not be able to afford them and will close.  The chain stores will add the cost of theft and security to the price of a loaf of bread—making those in poverty even poorer.  Want to be a crime victim? Go to San Fran.

Emboldened SF shoplifter say stealing is easy, cites lax security as store takes drastic action

Emma Colton, Fox News,   12/7/21 

One shoplifter in San Francisco admitted to his crimes during a news interview regarding a grocery store in the city ramping up security measures due to theft.

“I think that they’re not very good because I’ve personally been able to shoplift from here with relative ease,” the shoplifter, who declined to provide his name, told KPIX 5 of a Safeway in San Francisco’s Castro District.

The previously 24-hour Safeway cut store hours in October over “off the charts” shoplifting at the time.

Now, the store is ramping up its security measures even more with automatic gates that close behind each shopper at the entrance and placing security guards both inside and outside the store.

“This Safeway is getting weirder and weirder,” one shopper said as he walked through newly installed security gates, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

“Honestly, I think it’s probably good that they did that cause there was a really bad shoplifting problem almost every single time I came here, there was some type of ruckus happening,” another shopper, Chris Mejia, told KPIX 5.

The store also added barriers to its self-checkout areas and closed off a side exit with a wall of water bottles.

“Lots of times there was people running and security following or trying to stop them,” added Mejia.

Safeway said in a statement to the media that the news measures are intended to halt “escalating theft.”

“Like other local businesses, we are working on ways to curtail escalating theft to ensure the wellbeing of our employees and to foster a welcoming environment for our customers. Their safety remains our top priority. These long-planned security improvements were implemented with those goals in mind,” Safeway said in a statement to KPIX 5.

Another shopper added that the crime has become so commonplace in the city, residents are “sort of used to it.”

“It’s obviously a pretty terrible issue. I think that now we’re sort of used to it. I live in Hayes Valley and the Walgreens there is the perfect example of shuttering. It’s a shame. I feel like the city has definitely changed a lot in the last year and a half,” another person, identified only as Lee, told the outlet.

San Francisco has been plagued by retail theft for months, which has escalated in recent weeks to smash-and-grab mobs targeting high-end retail establishments.

In one of the most high-profile incidents, at least 80 people wearing ski masks stormed a Nordstrom in Walnut Creek, located about 25 miles outside of SF, resulting in about $125,000 in stolen merchandise and damage to the store.

California Governor Gavin Newsom makes an appearance after the polls close on the recall election, at the California Democratic Party headquarters in Sacramento, California, U.S., September 14, 2021. REUTERS/Fred Greaves Reuters

The smash-and-grab robberies have been concentrated in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas, and have led to increased security at malls and California Highway Patrol increasing its presence along highways near shopping destinations.

“If people are breaking in, people stealing your property, they need to be arrested. Police need to arrest them. Prosecutors need to prosecute them. Judges need to hold people accountable for breaking the law,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said last week. “These are not victimless crimes, and I have no empathy for these criminal elements.”

64% say “No!” to California Governor Gavin Newsom approving a parole recommendation to give freedom to Robert F. Kennedy’s assassin Sirhan Sirhan in a new scientific poll of California’s likely voters just released this afternoon. Sirhan has been granted parole by a California board and now the panel’s decision faces a review that will require the Governor’s approval to be official.  However, California voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the Governor approving the parole board’s recommendation, according to the new poll released today.  64% oppose freedom for Sirhan, and less than 20% of likely voters support the parole board’s decision to approve his release.  The complete poll results may be downloaded here.  The methodology of the poll meets peer standards and can be downloaded here. 

The poll was commissioned by James V. Lacy, President of the U.S. Justice Foundation, and conducted by the respected national polling firm of McLaughlin and Associates, whose survey research clients have included former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The survey research was conducted over August 30-31, in Spanish and English by live interviewers using phone, cell and text formats.  The margin of error is +/- 4%. Another significant finding of the poll is that support for California’s death penalty law has increased since a similar question was asked last June.  At that time a McLaughlin and Associates poll found 47.8% of Californians were against abolishing the death penalty.  See poll results: https://usjf.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CA-Statewide-Executive-Summary-6-8-21-1.pdf. However, according to the new poll released today using the same methodology and sample size, 52.7% of Californians support the death penalty law in California.  

Governor Newsom’s job performance approval stands at 52.7%, with 44.6% disapproving his job performance as Governor.

However, 51.7% of California’s likely voters think the state is headed in the wrong direction.

Commenting on the poll, James V. Lacy, a death penalty advocate said, “It would be political suicide for Gavin Newsom to free Sirhan Sirhan given these numbers.  Not approving the recommendation of the parole board would also be the right thing to do.”

Lacy added that McLaughlin and Associates has now conducted two reliable polls in a row this summer that make it clear there is significant, even majority support among California’s likely voters for the state’s death penalty laws, and this research “is solid and starkly contrasts with a seat-of-the-pants two question poll” released by U.C.Berkeley with the support of the Los Angeles Times last May.

A civil lawsuit I have filed against Gov. Gavin Newsom for overstepping his authority with a 2019 executive order that created a moratorium on the state’s death penalty, will now be heard by the Superior Court in Sacramento on August 31. The Judge will rule on mutual motions for summary adjudication filed by both myself and Newsom. I am represented in the case by litigator Chad Morgan. Newsom passed on being represented by the state Attorney General’s office and instead has hired the San Francisco-based national law firm of O’Melveny and Myers to represent him. The case has been ignored by almost all of the main-stream news media, including the Los Angeles Times which has written reports about the status of California’s death penalty law without mentioning the case, but the Orange County Register published a fair assessment of the lawsuit here: https://www.ocregister.com/2021/02/03/oc-man-files-lawsuit-against-gov-newsom-over-death-penalty-moratorium/https://www.ocregister.com/2021/02/03/oc-man-files-lawsuit-against-gov-newsom-over-death-penalty-moratorium/. After I filed the case, a retired former member of Ronald Reagan’s White House Counsel’s office sent me an email stating simply “Bravo – You are absolutely correct on the law.”

While the case is still pending, public disclosures and a news report now reveal that the Governor has accepted more than $700,000 from two major law firms to both create and defend his Executive Order.

Rather than relying on the Attorney General’s office, Newsom has received extensive free “behested” legal services, including $405,000 in legal services from the private law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner, to help him craft his “moratorium”, as well as an additional $305,385 from the law firm of O’Melveny and Myers to defend the alleged faulty Order in court, according to public disclosures.  While the Los Angeles-based O’Melveny and Myers has represented Newsom pro bono in the legal challenge to the Executive Order, it has also received at least $600,000 in state funds representing the Newsom Administration in other cases.

My lawsuit argues that Newsom did not have the power in 2019 to issue an Order to “across the board” halt the executions of the 700-plus inmates on California’s death row, or to withdraw the state’s lethal-injection protocol and dismantle the execution chamber at San Quentin State Prison. It requests a Declaratory Judgment that Newsom violated the law by exceeding his authority, that the lethal injection protocols be placed back in the Code of Regulations, and that the death chamber at San Quentin be restored to working condition.

As I told the Register, “The case is largely about violation of process, about violation of the constitutional separation of powers. (The governor) does not have the power to erase the death penalty, he does not have the power to dismantle the death chamber. He does have the power to grant reprieves, pardons or commutations,” Lacy said, “but he does not have the power to do that across the board.”

Instead, what he must do is examine each and every case he issuing a reprieve under, and take into consideration what happened to the victims, and the victims’ families, and be able to look at the survivors in the eye and justify in writing why their loved one’s murderer should be granted a reprieve from an impartial jury’s decision to sentence death.

When I think of the applicability of the death penalty in California, I think of 14 workers at the Department of Public Health in San Bernardino County who were murdered at a Christmas party in cold-blood by Farook and Malik, the terrorists. I also think of that little boy, Anthony Avalos, who was abused for years, tortured, and killed by his mother and her boyfriend. If Newsom is to have his way, the perpetrators of these crimes would never be sentenced to death, even after a fair trial and unanimous determination by an impartial jury that the death sentence under California law should be imposed. These sadnesses keep me focused on the real problem – Newsom imposing his own flawed value system to undermine and try to erase California’s long-standing and legal death penalty law. I am looking forward to a judicial resolution of my case late this summer.

Californian’s remain generally supportive of the death penalty law according to the most probative recent polling of the issue.  Early in June, the national polling firm of McLaughlin and Associates found 49% of Californians would vote No if a constitutional amendment to abolish the death penalty is placed on the ballot in 2022 by the Legislature, while 43.8% would vote Yes.  When voters are informed of issues that would be raised during a campaign to repeal the death penalty, opposition to repeal increases to a majority of 53.3% of voters saying No to abolishing California’s death penalty law, and support drops to just 40.5%.  See poll results: https://usjf.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CA-Statewide-Executive-Summary-6-8-21-1.pdf.