Federal Judge Again Strikes Down California law Banning Gun Magazines of More Than 10 rounds

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez won’t take effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has already filed a notice to appeal the ruling. The ban is likely to remain in effect while the case is still pending.

This is the second time Benitez has struck down California’s law banning certain types of magazines. The first time he struck it down — way back in 2017 — an appeals court ended up reversing his decision.

But last year, the U.S. Supreme Court set a new standard for how to interpret the nation’s gun laws. The new standard relies more on the historical tradition of gun regulation rather than public interests, including safety.

The Supreme Court ordered the case to be heard again in light of the new standards. It’s one of three high-profile challenges to California gun laws that are getting new hearings in court. The other two cases challenge California laws banning assault-style weapons and limiting purchases of ammunition.

Benitez ruled that “there is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity.” He said detachable magazines “solved a problem with historic firearms: running out of ammunition and having to slowly reload a gun.”

“There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.’”

Bonta said larger capacity magazines are also important to mass shooters, allowing them to fire quickly into crowds of people without reloading. He said the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear the new standard for reviewing gun laws “did not create a regulatory straitjacket for states.”

“We believe that the district court got this wrong,” Bonta said. “We will move quickly to correct this incredibly dangerous mistake.”

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, praised Benitez for a “thoughtful and in-depth approach.”

“Sure, the state will appeal, but the clock is ticking on laws that violate the Constitution,” Michel said.

California has been at the forefront of gun restrictions in the United States. Last week, California became the first state to call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban assault weapons and gun sales to people under 21, among other changes.

Gov. Gavin Newsom called Benitez’s ruling “a radical decision.”

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Teamsters Union March Shuts Down Sacramento Streets; Demanding Gov. Newsom Sign AB 316

‘F**k Gavin Newsom’ was the Teamsters chant of the day

Tuesday in downtown Sacramento, police blocked off North/South streets near the Capitol all the way from 16th Street down to 3rd Street for a Teamsters Union Protest, causing a massive backup and forcing drivers trying to head south on the numbered streets onto northbound Interstate 5. I was stuck in it following a press conference with the Sacramento District Attorney just a few blocks away. What should have taken 5 minutes ended up taking 30 minutes after being forced onto the freeway. (I’m still irate…)

This was a debacle of epic proportions. But I want to know, who authorized the closure of all of these streets? The Mayor? The Capitol? Assembly Speaker or Senate President? Both?  And why do the Teamsters get to shut down Capitol City streets for a march?

The teamsters want Newsom to sign AB 316 to require a human driver in the cab of all autonomous trucks over 10,000 pounds. This could make the new driverless car technology obsolete in California, according to some business groups. Many tech companies in the industry have said if the bill passes they will leave the state as 22 others have already started implementing regulations to begin testing on roads. With no pathway for autonomy in California they don’t see why they would stay here, one business association representative told me.

The Teamsters’ concern is for their jobs, which is understandable. As the Globe reported:

While AB 316 was authored by Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry, it was introduced with a bipartisan group of legislators, including Assemblymen Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) and Ash Kalra (D-San Jose). Both parties have also had a few members each oppose the legislation throughout the year, leading to strange non-party coalitions. Democrats have largely been in favor of the bill because due to alleged safety benefits of the bill as well as massive support of the bill coming from unions such as the Teamsters. Republicans, meanwhile, have been mostly for AB 316 because of many rural areas wanting to keep trucking jobs.

“Lawmakers aren’t against technology, but we see the bill as a safer way for companies to test self-driving trucks,” said Lackey. “We want balance because we believe in people, and we believe in public safety. When surprises happen, physics is not your friend.”

Former Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, now with the California Labor Federation, was a prominent figure at the rally/protest, but she was overshadowed by Lindsay Dougherty, Western Regional VP Teamsters Local 399 who warned, “The governor should know he is in big trouble. We had to bring the General President out here to make him do the right thing.” She goes on: “Gavin Newsom would not take a meeting with our General President.” The crowd booed.

Dougherty lathered up the crowd as she called out Gov. Newsom for his “Bullshit.”

“You’re about to see some fucking rage if you don’t sign the bill,” Dougherty said.

“So, I’m going to end this with a chant,” Dougherty said. But it wasn’t the old leftist trope “Hey Hey Ho Ho, Gavin Newsom’s got to go…”  Lindsay yelled “Fuck Gavin Newsom” repeatedly. Some in the crowd joined her.

The rally/protest was video recorded and posted to Facebook – At the 27.30 minute mark you can hear Lindsay’s lovely chant – HERE ahead of introducing Lorena Gonzalez who commented, “I love having Lindsay around because nobody can complain about me saying ‘Fuck’ anymore.”

Gov. Newsom and his administration oppose AB 316: “Our state is on the cusp of a new era and cannot risk stifling innovation,” said Office of Business and Economic Development Director Dee Dee Myers earlier this year.

Dougherty told the crowd Newsom said he won’t sign the bill.

As the Globe reported:

“However, the bill also saw increased opposition come from within Newsom’s office. The Department of Finance came out against AB 316 over the cost to the state of $1 million yearly to operate it. Transportation officials have said that regulations should be up to the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Safety advisors said that self-driving cars were not causing many accidents. And, perhaps most critically, the Office of Business and Economic Development said that the state would be hurt economically, with driverless vehicle makers being more inclined to move out of state to develop and test new technology.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

California Legislature Passes ‘Tyrannical’ Package of 12 Gun Control Bills

‘The California Legislature chose to follow other hostile regimes desperate to restrict the rights of the people’

In June 2022, U.S. Supreme Court issued a critical decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen striking down a New York gun law that put unconstitutional restrictions on concealed carry of a gun out in public. And because this is the law of the land, California with its extremely restrictive gun laws, was put on notice.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion in the 6-3 ruling: “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”

“This ‘special need’ standard is demanding,” Thomas wrote. “For example, living or working in an area ‘noted for criminal activity’ does not suffice.” In 43 other states, Thomas noted, authorities are required to issue licenses to applicants who meet certain requirements, and officials do not have discretion to say no due to what they believe is an insufficient need.”

Despite being rebuked by the highest court in the country over gun control attempts last year, California Democrats continue to tell the people through unconstitutional legislation that you can’t defend yourself with a firearm… or at least they will limit who can carry, and where you can carry.

Last year, Senator Anthony J. Portantino’s (D–Burbank) annual gun control legislation restricting CCW permit holders, Senate Bill 918, appeared to be dead as it was placed on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee – until he it moved out with 32 pages of 185 new amendments. However, SB 918 died in the Assembly.

Portantino came back in 2023 with Senate Bill 2, also sponsored by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta. SB 2 again illegally imposes restrictions on those seeking a California CCW permit.

Notably, Newsom, Bonta and Portantino know they are imposing to restrict those applying for CCWs, when virtually no crimes are committed by CCW holders, who are required to pass background checks by County Sheriffs.

Yet, CCW permit holders don’t commit mass shootings, they stop them. We’ve never had a positive comment from Gov. Newsom or Sen. Portantino on this statement.

Following the close of the 2023 California legislative session Friday, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released the entire list of the 12 gun control bills which were passed by state lawmakers.

Notably, SB-2 was passed this year, which clearly violates the Supreme Court Bruen decision, enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, and changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license.

The Globe spoke with gun advocate Craig DeLuz, host of Morning Coffee with Craig, publisher of 2A News, and candidate for California’s 6th Congressional District. DeLuz said pro gun groups now have to spend their money defending the U.S. Constitution.

DeLuz said considering the most notable mass shootings in California, as well as those shootings in the rest of the U.S., creating a “sensitive location” signals to anyone considering such an event, “that it’s a target rich environment and will be met with little resistance.” And DeLuz warned, “allowing local governments to decide on additional ‘sensitive areas,’ creates a different set of laws in one state, for when, where and how they can carry.”

De Luz reiterated Justice Thomas’ written decision in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case in which he clearly laid out what can and cannot be done, noting that there should never be a test to determine if someone is permitted to carry a gun, based on the 2nd Amendment.

And in the face of that decision, California lawmakers have shown they do not care about the Constitution, except when it protects their activities.

“The California Legislature chose to follow other hostile regimes desperate to restrict the rights of the people, flying in the face of the Second Amendment and recent Court decisions, by advancing multiple pieces of anti-rights legislation to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk,” FPC said.

“This tyrannical package shows the legislature’s utter disdain for peaceable People and their willingness to use state violence to squash their rights,” Richard Thomson, FPC’s Vice President of Communications said.

“FPC stands steadfast in opposition to the state’s destruction of fundamental rights. Threatening peaceable conduct with imprisonment, injury, and death is nothing new for the tyrants in Sacramento. FPC promises to continue to work behind enemy lines and be a voice for the People of the state.”

The FPC listed all of the bills that passed before the Friday 9/15/2023 legislative deadline:

  • SJR-7: Resolution for a federal constitutional convention to restrict firearms
  • AB-28: Enacts a gun and ammunition excise tax
  • AB-92: Makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm to purchase, own, or possess body armor
  • AB-301: Authorizes a court considering a red flag petition to consider evidence of acquisition of body armor when determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist
  • AB-725: Requires lost and stolen reporting for “precursor parts”
  • AB-1089: CNC and 3D-printing of arms ban, prohibits sharing digital firearm plans
  • AB-1406: Authorizes DOJ to request a delay of the delivery of a firearm for up to 30 days in an “emergency” that caused DOJ to be unable to review purchaser’s eligibility
  • AB-1483: Deletes the private party transaction exemption to the 30-day prohibition, which prohibits a person from making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period
  • AB-1587: Requires a merchant acquirer to assign to a firearms merchant a unique merchant category code
  • SB-2Bruen response bill, enacts numerous “sensitive locations” where guns are banned, changes requirements to obtain a concealed carry license.
  • SB-368: Prohibits gun dealers from offering an opportunity to win an item of inventory in a game dominated by chance, exempts nonprofit organizations under certain circumstances
  • SB-452: Postpones handgun microstamping requirement to at least January 1, 2028

In June, California Governor Gavin Newsom, who pretends he isn’t running for President, proposed a 28th Constitutional Amendment to restrict gun national rights, and had the chutzpah to claim it will “leave the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

“Firearms Policy Coalition will continue to restore the rights of the People in court, just as it has done in its lawsuits challenging California’s handgun roster and discriminatory fee-shifting regime, New Jersey’s Bruen response bill, and Illinois’ ‘assault weapon’ ban,” the the Firearms Policy Coalition said in a press statement. “And to all tyrants, like Gavin Newsom and his legislative co-conspirators, that push these immoral and unjust policies, we say simply this: ‘Fuck you. No.’”

In 2021, District Judge Roger T. Benitez threw out California’s 32-year ban on assault weapons, while also clarifying the deliberate and incorrect use of the label “assault weapon.”

Benitez noted that the California Legislature has not properly adjudicated their ban laws, and quotes former California Governor Pete Wilson’s 1998 priceless veto statement:

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Southern California Gas Prices Climb at Their Fastest Rate This Year

Gas prices in Southern California shot up at their fastest rate of the year last week, according to data released by AAA.

A gallon of regular self-serve gasoline cost an average of $5.62 in the Los Angeles-Long Beach metro area as of Thursday. That is up 18 cents from last week and 38 cents from last month.

The national average price is nearly $2 less — $3.86 — up 6 cents from a week ago.

AAA officials blamed both regional and global factors for high prices, including the floods in Libya.

“Our pump prices have been skyrocketing as a result of regional refinery outages, as well as from increasing crude oil prices following deadly flooding in Libya, which will temporarily disrupt oil exports from that OPEC nation,” Doug Shupe, a spokesperson for the Automobile Club of Southern California, said in a statement.

Other parts of Southern California have seen similar eye-popping price increases.

In the San Diego metro area, the average price for a gallon of gas is $5.60, and in Riverside, $5.50. Both of those figures are up 17 cents from last week and 39 cents from last month.

On the Central Coast, a gallon will cost drivers an average of $5.53, 14 cents higher than a week ago and 38 cents more than last month.

It remains unclear when drivers might feel relief, but AAA officials said last month that California has increased oil stockpiles and imports, which may drive down wholesale prices soon.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

How California Lawmakers Embraced Hot Labor Summer

The hot labor summer was scorching at California’s Capitol.

As the legislative session wrapped Thursday night, unions could point to an impressive string of wins this year, some of which only surfaced in the past few weeks: Bills to increase the number of guaranteed sick days, raise the minimum wage for health care and fast food workers, allow legislative staff to unionize and make striking employees eligible for unemployment insurance, a benefit long on labor’s wish list.

While Gov. Gavin Newsom could still veto some of the measures over the next month, organized labor’s overwhelming victories — notable even in a Legislature stacked with union-friendly Democrats — caught the attention of both allies and opponents. One Republican senator complained on the floor that “the fourth branch of government in this Capitol building has a little bit too much power this year.”

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, head of the California Labor Federation, said unions have worked over the past few years, as a large portion of the Legislature turned over, to elect new members with a strong track record of championing workers’ rights. That paid off this session, as major strikes across the country powered a surging public interest in the labor movement and helped unions push through a “really heavy agenda” in Sacramento.

“The legislators are representatives of the people, right, and they see what we see. And that’s that unions are exceptionally strong right now. They’re exceptionally popular among their constituents,” said Gonzalez Fletcher, a former Assemblymember. “I don’t think anyone wants to be on the opposite side of that right now.”

But it’s also a prelude to a looming electoral battle with the business community over taxation.

Several of the late-breaking measures pushed by organized labor, including a proposed constitutional amendment that would set new rules for changing tax law, were aimed at least in part at boosting their campaign to defeat a November 2024 ballot initiative that would make it more challenging to raise taxes.

“Everything that is taking place is to be able to shape the ballot,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, which sponsored the initiative. “We see it as a sign of desperation. They’re willing to say and do anything, including amend the constitution.”

Labor advocates stress that their success is not by chance, but the culmination of a decade of increased activism.

Wins elsewhere — such as the Fight for $15 minimum wage campaign that began in New York City in 2012 — encouraged California workers to take on more ambitious fights, said Mike Roth, spokesperson for the California chapter of the Service Employees International Union, one of the state’s biggest and most powerful labor organizations. 

“When workers see and feel the power they create by coming together, they are inspired to push higher and broader,” Roth said.

Those ambitious fights are backed up by serious muscle at the Capitol. SEIU California, for example, was among the top lobbyist employers in the first half of year — it spent nearly $2.3 million on advocacy, ranking sixth for the period — though it was surpassed by some of its industry opponents, including McDonald’s, which spent more than $4.2 million on lobbying, and the California Business Roundtable, which spent $2.3 million.

Major labor measures that passed the Legislature this session, and which Newsom now has until Oct. 14 to sign or veto, include:

Unions also negotiated two last-minute deals with industry groups to avert ballot fights that could have cost tens of millions of dollars or more. AB 1228 by Assemblymember Chris Holden, a Pasadena Democrat, would boost wages for fast food workers in exchange for backing off a proposal to hold corporations liable for their franchisees’ labor violations. The industry plans to withdraw a November 2024 referendum challenging a recent law that created a new regulatory council for fast food restaurants. SB 525 by Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, a Los Angeles Democrat, would hike the hourly wage for health workers to $25, but place a 10-year moratorium on local measures to increase compensation.

“I think we’re responding to the abnormal economic situations of Californians,” said Durazo, citing the pandemic turmoil, high inflation, expanding gig economy and growing wage inequality of recent years. “That’s all we’re trying to do, is help people catch up.”

Assemblymember Ash Kalra, a San Jose Democrat who leads the Assembly Labor Committee, credited the leadership of new Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and his team for making labor legislation a priority and helping position it to pass. Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, took over the speakership this summer.

“It matters that the infrastructure is in place to get these bills across the finish line,” Kalra said. “The tough work was done before they got to the floor.”

That was a source of frustration and disappointment for Lapsley of the California Business Roundtable, who is now counting on the governor to “do the right thing and create some checks and balances by vetoing some of these bills.” 

He said Rivas had signaled at the start of his tenure that he would seek more of an equilibrium between workers’ rights and job growth. But “he seemed to embrace giving the labor groups everything they want,” Lapsley said. “It raises questions about what the future looks like for the statewide business community.”

Rivas called the union victories “a sign of the times… some challenging times for our state, and they’re counting on us to get the work done and deliver results.”

Legislators on both sides of the aisle agreed that progressive gains in recent elections have lifted organized labor’s prospects at the Capitol, though some expect that momentum will eventually swing back to the middle.

“There’s an ebb and flow to all these issues, and all of our politics,” said Sen. Steve Glazer, a moderate Democrat from Orinda who voted against the unemployment insurance bill. “These things all shift through the decades, and I think that they’ll continue to shift.”  

Sen. Roger Niello, a Roseville Republican, described the volume of labor bills this session as a “natural existence” of the Legislature, given that the Democrats who make up a supermajority tend to align with unions.

“If you look at past years, it’ll fluctuate,” he said. “But you’ll always see a lot of pro-labor bills.”

Though the hot labor summer gave unions a boost in public support for their agenda, another animating force behind the spurt of dealmaking and victories at the end of session is their mounting campaign to defeat a tax measure that the California Business Roundtable qualified for the November 2024 ballot.

That initiative, dubbed the Taxpayer Protection Act, would introduce several changes that make it more challenging to raise taxes in California, including a requirement for the Legislature to put any new or higher tax before voters for approval and another increasing the margin to pass a voter-initiated special tax at the local level, to two-thirds from a simple majority. Organized labor worries this would undermine funding for public services and infrastructure projects that employ union members.

“It was certainly leverage to get people unified and working together,” said Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, a San Diego Democrat.

The deals on minimum wage increases for fast food workers and health care workers cleared the deck so that unions can focus their political resources next year. And the late push for ACA 13 by Assemblymember Chris Ward, a San Diego Democrat, which will now appear on the November ballot, was aimed directly at the California Business Roundtable measure. ACA 13 would require that any changes to the threshold for approving state and local taxes pass by the same margin; if it wins, the Taxpayer Protection Act would then need to secure two-thirds support from voters rather than a simple majority, a high hurdle for a statewide measure.

“There’s a reason why the unions are doing this — because they’re scared to death,” said Lapsley, who complained that the maneuvering stole focus from other issues that should have been the priority at the end of session, including a failed effort to fix California’s collapsing market for homeowners insurance.

But Gonzalez Fletcher of the California Labor Federation argues that going through the Legislature is a more responsive process that results in better policy for workers.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

California Legislature Approves Plan Allowing the State to Buy Power

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Legislature voted Thursday to give Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration permission to buy massive amounts of electricity, a move aimed at avoiding blackouts by shoring up the state’s power supply while jumpstarting the West Coast’s fledgling offshore wind industry.

Five companies paid roughly $750 million last year to lease areas off the California coast to build wind turbines. Collectively, those projects could generate enough electricity to power 3.5 million homes, helping the state avoid blackouts during extreme heat waves that have routinely strained the electrical grid of the nation’s most populous state.

But so far, the state’s largest utility companies have not been willing to commit to buying power from projects like those because it would cost too much money and take too long to build. In addition to building the wind turbines, the projects will require improvements at the state’s ports and new power lines to transport the energy from the ocean to the land.

“This is a major, generational series of investments that need to happen, and there’s a real risk it won’t if we can’t provide more certainty,” said Alex Jackson, director of American Clean Power Association, which represents the companies trying to build the wind projects.

The bill would let the state buy the power. The money would come from a surcharge imposed on Californians’ electricity bills. State regulators would decide how much this charge would be. Consumers would not pay it until the wind projects are up and running, likely several years from now.

California already has among the highest electricity rates in the country.

“This legislation … means that every single ratepayer in California, no matter where you live, is going to pay for this,” said Republican state Sen. Brian Dahle, who opposes the bill.

Supporters argue the bill will save people money in the long run on their electric bills. California has a law requiring all of its electricity to come from renewable or non-carbon sources by 2045. To do that, supporters say the state will have to invest in offshore wind projects, which typically generate the most power at night when solar energy is not as abundant.

Supporters say it would be more efficient for these offshore wind projects to sell all of their electricity to the state instead of a selling pieces of it to multiple utility companies, helping to control costs and keep rates lower.

“The biggest threat to us meeting our climate goals between now and 2045 are rate impacts to rate payers,” Scott Wetch, a lobbyist representing various construction trade associations, told lawmakers in a recent public hearing. “(This bill) is the only way to bring down those costs on these large, complex, long lead time projects in order to minimize the rate impacts.”

The bill gives the Department of Water Resources the authority to purchase the power — but not forever. Their authority would expire in 2035. Lawmakers would have to vote again to extend it.

California has moved quickly to end its reliance on fossil fuels in recent years. State regulators have OK’d rules banning the sale of most new gas-powered cars by 2035. But the state has struggled maintaining its clean energy values amid that transition.

An extreme heat wave in 2020 overwhelmed the state’s power grid, leaving hundreds of thousands of homes in the dark for a few hours over two days. Similar heat waves in the following summers prompted regulators to ask consumers to use less energy when demand was at its peak in the early evenings.

Newsom and the state Legislature have since spent $3.3 billion to build a “strategic reliability reserve” that included purchasing diesel-powered generators and extending the life of some gas-fired power plants that were scheduled to retire.

“There are things happening right now in energy policy that give me some pause about the efficacy of our strategy,” Democratic state Sen. Henry Stern lamented during a public hearing on the bill last week.

State law requires utility companies to have enough energy to meet demand. If they don’t, the bill would require those companies to pay a penalty. The Newsom administration has said this will prevent utilities from relying too much on the strategic reliability reserve, which uses gas-powered generators that pollute the air.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Five Transgender Bills Targeting Concerned Parents Awaiting Gov. Newsom’s Signature or Veto

The sexualization of California school kids is escalating to an ugly place

A teacher friend recently shared with me curriculum required by the school district for use in the early elementary classroom on “gender expression.” It is a video called “Expressing Myself. My Way.” The tag line on the video gives a little hint of the content: “Gender expression is how we choose to show the world where on the gender spectrum we identify. We can do that through clothing, makeup, jewelry, tone of voice, taking hormones, and more.”

The video is in cartoon with cute, lovable animal characters who at first glance look alike, but when they sing about their gender differences, the movie is promoting acceptance of abandoning the gender he/she was born with, and assuming a new identity.

The teacher friend and I discussed at length LGBTQ law in California, and the more current teaching of gender, trans and LGBTQ identities in the classroom.

I harkened back to 2011 when SB 48 by then-Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) was passed and Gov. Brown signed it into law. It was very general in language, and required California schools to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans in social science instruction.

However, SB 48 also became the overarching catch-all for anything LGBTQ in education – and the left has been making the most of it, while simultaneously diminishing actual education, resulting in California students ranking 50th in literacy in the entire country.

Flash forward to 2023: Now the Legislature has passed five new LGBTQ and trans-specific bills, playing legal catch-up, given how much LGBTQ and trans lesson plans have made it into Kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms:

  1. Assembly Bill 957 by Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) and co-authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a parent could lose custody for not “affirming” or agreeing to a child’s claims about gender identity, and be charged with child abuse. Perhaps even more disturbing, bizarre, and ironic, in the State of California where the policy of California public schools is to keep “gender” information hidden from parents, how could a divorcing parent even know if they are affirming their child’s “gender identity?”
  2. Assembly Bill 665 by Assemblywoman Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles) would allow children as young as 12 years to consent to mental health treatment or counseling without parental approval or involvement.In California it is already law to allow a minor who is 12 years of age to consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services, “if the minor is mature enough to participate intelligently in the outpatient services or residential shelter services, or if the minor is the alleged victim of incest or child abuse.”That law, Senate Bill 543 was authored by then-Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) in 2010, and sponsored by Equality California, the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, Mental Health America of Northern California, and the Gay Straight Alliance Network. SB 543, ostensibly to help LGBT and homeless youth, was signed into law in 2010 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.Carrillo’s bill will remove the additional requirement that the child must present a danger of serious physical or mental harm to themselves or to others, or be the alleged victim of incest or child abuse – in order to consent to mental health treatment or counseling on an outpatient basis, or to residential shelter services.
  3. AB 5would require LGBTQ+ training for teachers in all of California’s public schools – not just sensitivity training, but training to to be used to target parents who aren’t properly affirming the chosen gender of their child. It is sponsored by The California Federation of Teachers.
  4. SB 407  a bill by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), would ensure that unless all potential foster parents are willing to “affirm” LGBTQ gender and sexuality in foster youth, and any gender transitioning, they will be prohibited by the state from being foster parents. Sen. Wiener introduced his bill during the Senate Human Services Committee in April saying, “We want to make sure we aren’t placing these children in homes where there is hostility towards them.” The “hostile” homes the Senator refers to are religious families. Sen. Wiener said foster youth who identify as LGBTQ need protection from physical and psychological abuse coming from non-affirming foster parents.
  5. Assemblyman Corey Jackson (D-Perris) authored Assembly Bill 1078 ostensibly to make it harder to “ban” school textbooks in California – but the “school textbooks” Jackson refers to are highly sexualized, and in many cases, just plain porn. Assemblyman Jackson says “AB 1078 is a bill that intends to combat the national Christian white supremacist movement which aims to ban books, school curriculum, and even more in our schools.” Assemblyman Jackson is using the tortured “national Christian white supremacist movement” to give cover for grossly inappropriate books:  The Globe reported on “Gender Queer: A Memoir” last year, a book found in school libraries across the country which has cartoon drawings of oral sex, masturbation, and describes how to use sex toys.Lawn Boy: featured on MSNBC’s Ali Velshi  Banned Books Club, Lawn Boy is billed as a “coming-of-age story,” but is filled with graphic sex acts between children. The interview with Lawn Boy author is just bizarre. The author insists he uses “course language” throughout the book, and not “graphic language.”More than 35 school districts in 20 states temporarily removed “Lawn Boy” from library shelves.Since then, many states have passed legislation addressing pornographic, obscene school textbooks and library books.Trans+: Love, Sex, Romance, and Being You: Amazon describes Trans+ this way: “A groundbreaking all-inclusive, uncensored, must-have guide for teens who are living in this world, who identify as transgender, nonbinary, gender non-conforming, gender fluid, or are questioning their gender identity or how they express themselves, and for their cis-allies and advocates.”The book contains 75 QR codes, marked as “resources” which take children to unbelievably graphic obscene sex websites. CRI posted a short video on Instagram showing where the links take children. Warning: video it contains obscenity and pornographic images. England says Trans+ is available in school libraries across the country.

This California sexual education curriculum also includes:

  • Kindergarten books that introduce 5-year-olds to families with members who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.
  • First grade gender vocabulary lessons on words such as third gender, trans, queergender, non-binary, gender fluid, gender neutral, agender, bigender, and two-spirits.
  • Lessons for 1st graders that provide detailed descriptions of sex with these quotes such as: “The man’s penis goes inside the woman’s vagina,” and “sperm can swim out through the small opening in the man’s penis – and into the woman’s vagina.”
  • Pictures in a book for third graders showing a cartoon drawing of a penis ejaculating sperm while inserted into a vagina.
  • Lessons which teach third graders that sexual reproductive organs don’t always match a person’s gender.
  • Recommendations that fifth graders are taught sexual health lessons that must include examples of same-sex sexual activity. Students should not be separated by sex during these lessons to avoid “misgendering” students.
  • Books that introduce 10-year-olds to anal sex, and the slang for male and female genitals.
school books, teaching children as young as age 5, inappropriate slang for male and female body parts. (Photo: Katy Grimes for California Globe)
school books, teaching children as young as age 5, inappropriate slang for male and female body parts. (Photo: Katy Grimes for California Globe)

Assemblyman Jackson and other Democrat lawmakers continue to deceive when discussing textbook “book bans.” If the cartoon movie above about gender preferences is any indication of just how far the gender pushers will go to target very little children, lying about the books they are also pushing is a cakewalk.  Each of the books linked here also have cartoon drawings, clearly targeting kids, while illustrating various sex acts.

Schools have jumped way ahead of the law, which appears to be catching up this legislative session – out of legal need. And that is because parents are on to the very well-coordinated effort to include pornographic material in K-12 public schools.

Click here to read the full article in California Globe

Gov. Gavin Newsom May Regret Pledges to Black Californians

William Congreve, an English playwright, coined the adage “Married in haste, we may repent at leisure,” in his 1693 comedy “The Old Batchelour,” but it quickly evolved into sage advice for other human behaviors.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom could regret hasty political promises to California’s Black population — to appoint a Black woman to the U.S. Senate if a seat becomes vacant, and provide meaningful reparations for the state’s woeful history of racial discrimination — that he probably cannot honor.

Newsom made the Senate pledge in early 2021 after appointing Alex Padilla to the Senate, replacing Kamala Harris once she became vice president. The appointment drew criticism from Black political leaders and women’s groups because he was replacing a woman with Black and South Asian ethnic heritage with a Latino man.

Weeks later, Newsom was asked by MSNBC host Joy Reid whether he would appoint another Black woman to the Senate should Sen. Dianne Feinstein, suffering from physical and apparently neurological ailments, resign.

“I have multiple names in mind. We have multiple names in mind – and the answer is yes,” Newsom replied, obviously trying to dampen the criticism.

As Feinstein’s situation continued to deteriorate, she announced earlier this year that she would not seek re-election in 2024. That touched off a contest among three Democratic members of Congress – Katie Porter, Adam Schiff and Barbara Lee with the latter, a Black woman, badly trailing the other two.

Newsom’s pledge to appoint a Black woman became a political trap of his own making. If Feinstein resigned, he would be pressed by Black leaders to appoint Lee, but if he did, he would be interfering with the election, causing no end of political grief.

Over the weekend, while pressed again by Chuck Todd of Meet the Press, Newsom said he would name a Black woman to fill a vacant Senate seat — but only as a caretaker to fill out Feinstein’s term, meaning it would not be Lee.

If Newsom thought he had resolved the matter, he was mistaken because Lee denounced it, saying, “The idea a Black woman should be appointed only as a caretaker to simply check a box is insulting to countless Black women across this country who have carried the Democratic Party to victory election after election.”

When he signed 2020 legislation to create a commission to recommend reparations for Black Californians, Newsom declared, “Our painful history of slavery has evolved into structural racism and bias built into and permeating throughout our democratic and economic institutions” and promised, “we won’t turn away from this moment to make right the discrimination and disadvantages that Black Californians and people of color still face.”

However, as the commission completed its work this year and declared that some very hefty financial payments to descendants of slaves would be justified, Newsom became noncommittal.

While praising the commission’s work as “a milestone in our bipartisan effort to advance justice and promote healing,” he said, “Dealing with that legacy is about much more than cash payments.”

Newsom’s cool response is where matters lie. Members of the commission still expect reparations to include some hard cash but with the state experiencing multi-billion-dollar budget deficits that are likely to persist, anything more than token payments are unlikely.

Meanwhile, a new poll by UC-Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies has found scant support among Californians for cash reparations, even as they recognize the lingering impacts of slavery. Such payments are opposed by 59% of the registered voters surveyed, with Republicans and independents overwhelmingly opposed and Democrats evenly divided.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

COVID Hysterics Hype ‘Positive Patients’ …and Cancel High School Football Game

‘Sacramento County’s COVID-19 hospital patient total jumps 48% in a week as uptick continues’

“The number of hospital patients with COVID-19 in Sacramento County jumped nearly 50% in one week, reaching its highest level in five months, as the gradual increase in spread of the virus has yet to wane in California,” The Sacramento Bee breathlessly reported.

Oh holy @#$! We’re all going to die… (eventually).

Wait. How many COVID patients are we talking about in Sacramento County? Am I reading this correctly – 89 total? Sacramento County has 1.5 million total population.

Last year at this time, there were 168 “positive patients” in Sacramento County, and 25 in the ICU, according to the California Department of Public Health. I don’t recall any headlines last year like this one from the Bee today:

Sacramento County’s COVID-19 hospital patient total jumps 48% in a week as uptick continues

“There were 1,722 total hospital patients with COVID-19 in California as of Sept. 2, according to the most recent state data. That’s the same number of patients statewide as one week earlier, according to a weekly update Friday from the California Department of Public Health.”

1,722 total hospital patients with COVID out of 40 million people in California? Even with more people dying from Heart Disease and Cancer, it’s telling that public health officials are trying to increase fear in COVID again. The entire country can’t be locked down for heart disease or cancer, but they succeeded with COVID once already.

The CDC reports:

In 2022, approximately 3,273,705 deaths occurred in the United States. The estimated 2022 age-adjusted death rate decreased by 5.3%, from 879.7 per 100,000 persons in 2021 to 832.8. COVID-19 was reported as the underlying cause or a contributing cause in an estimated 244,986 (7.5%) of those deaths (61.3 deaths per 100,000).

During 2022, the three leading causes of death were heart disease (699,659 deaths), cancer (607,790), and unintentional injury (218,064).

CDC graphic top leading causes of death.

According to the CDC, “COVID-19 was the underlying cause for 5.7% of all deaths in 2022, decreasing from 12.0% (416,893 deaths) in 2021. Heart disease and cancer deaths increased in 2022 compared with 2021 (accounting for 695,547 and 605,213, deaths respectively), while deaths associated with COVID-19 decreased.”

Locally, Esparto High School in Yolo County cancelled a football game Friday night because 6 players tested positive for COVID-19 — and 7 players were out with injuries. I assume the players are required to test for COVID? The school district said the game cancellation was necessary because the players could pass COVID to the other team.

I’m willing to bet the players weren’t sick – they just tested positive.

Here are all of Yolo County’s COVID stats: 3 COVID positive patients and 1 in the ICU – out of 222,000 total population.

Oh – Sacramento County still hasn’t updated its COVID dashboard since February 2023 – they must really be concerned about it:

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

California Kids Could Become ‘Wards of the State’ Under New Gender Affirmation Rule, Mom Warns: ‘Dangerous’

A California mom concerned about a new state measure requiring judges to consider whether a parent has affirmed their child’s belief that they are transgender during custody battles warned Sunday that the policy could have disastrous implications.

“This is the steady assault on family and children that we’ve been seeing this legislative session and throughout the past couple of years in California,” Nicole Pearson, a mom of three and a member of the newly-formed “Protect Kids California” group, told Fox News.

“If both parents are conservative, and they are not comfortable affirming their child, what does that mean? The way that we read the law is that both will be jeopardizing the child’s health, safety and welfare… does that mean that the state will find that both are endangering or neglecting or even abusing their child and remove custody from both parents? And if no one is available to step up and take custody of the child, that child becomes a ward of the state. 

“People need to be paying attention to what’s happening here in California,” she continued.

The California State Assembly passed AB 957 on Friday, dealing a blow to parental rights advocates like Pearson who warned the policy could jeopardize parental custody rights because they disagree with the child’s decision to identify with a gender that does not correspond with their biological sex.

Jonathan Zachreson, also a “Protect Kids California” activist, told Fox News the measure could be indicative of things to come across the U.S. at some point.

“What happens in California will not stay in California,” he said. “There’s efforts that we’re trying to do to help mitigate some of these efforts through some initiatives and, in particular, to protect children from reproductive harm.”

Zachreson joined “Fox & Friends” last Tuesday where, alongside “Protect Kids California activist Erin Friday, a Democrat, where he discussed these measures, particularly three proposed 2024 ballot initiatives to help “protect kids.” One would prevent minors from receiving gender-affirming care procedures or puberty blockers. Another would require schools to inform parents if their child elects to adopt a different gender identity other than the one corresponding with their biological sex.

The third bars biological males from competing in women’s sports.

Democratic California state Rep. Lori Wilson, who introduced the bill along with state Sen. Scott Wiener, said on the assembly floor, “Parents affirm their children, they have since the dawn of time. Typically it happens when their gender identity matches their biological gender.” She continued, later adding that it is parents’ “duty” to affirm kids’ gender identities.

Pearson called the measure “dangerous” and “unconstitutional” during her sound-off on Sunday, saying the policy might lead parents to ignore other options that could help their children suffering from gender dysphoria.

“There are over 9 million children in the state of California. What AB 957 says is that every single one of them who’s going through a divorce, whose parents are fighting over them, whose entire world is crumbling, their entire identity – not their gender identity – their entire identity is crumbling, that we as parents have to affirm that confusion… gender confusion, especially in this context, is a cry for help,” she said.

Click here to read the full article at Fox 11