CalPERS to SECRETLY Invest $20 BILLION in Private Companies—Hide it From Public

CalPERS has decided the best way to succeed is to be corrupt.  How else do you explain its intention of spending $20 billion—of BORROWED money—to invest in private companies—IN SECRET.  Imagine what could go wrong?  Political donors use it as a bank?  Scam artists that know staff or politicians get investors for scams.  And, based on a bill in the Democrat legislature, the public will not be allowed to know where the money went.  Remember, CalPERS, under its Chief Investment Director, Meng, a product of the Communist Chinese Party program Ten Thousands Talents, already illegally invested over $5 billion in Communist Party military firms—illegal under U.S. law.

“Before CalPERS can start writing checks like a bank, the staff at the pension fund is asking for a little bank-like confidentiality. 

Earlier this year, the pension fund sponsored legislation that would shield many of the documents and data related to its future private loans from California’s Public Records Act. The bill, authored by Elk Grove Democratic Assemblymember Jim Cooper, would make it impossible for journalists or anyone else to compel public pension funds to divulge any borrower’s personal identifying information, their financial statements, details about the collateral backing a loan and anything that might be considered a “trade secret.”

If the public pension fund is going to get into the business of making loans, CalPERS staff argued, it has to be able to assure borrowers that their closely guarded financial information remains secret.

This is public money being laundered into the private sector.  Corruption?  You bet.  Another reason to Recall Gavin Newsom.

SACRAMENTO, CA – JULY 21: A sign stands in front of California Public Employees’ Retirement System building July 21, 2009 in Sacramento, California. CalPERS, the state’s public employees retirement fund, reported a loss of 23.4%, its largest annual loss. (Photo by Max Whittaker/Getty Images)

Riskier bet: Why CalPERS, the country’s largest pension fund, is getting into banking

by Ben Christopher, California Globe,   7/9/20   

In summary

How does the nation’s biggest public pension system pay down its debts amid a global economic collapse? One idea: Become a banker.

Retired DMV clerks, former firefighters and aging government bean-counters across California, put on your three piece suits: You might be getting into the banking business.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which manages a nearly $400 billion basket of nest eggs for retired public workers across the state, is wading into the rollicking market for private debt.

It used to be that lending directly to small and medium-sized companies not traded on public stock exchanges was the business of big banks. But after the financial crisis of 2008, those traditional lenders were forced to park their money into less risky ventures. And that left behind a financial vacuum into which “shadow bankers” such as private equity financiers have been rushing ever since. 

Now CalPERS, the nation’s largest pension fund, wants in on the action.

The pension fund staff calls it a “prudent” calculated risk. Critics call it a desperation move. Both agree that the fund — which faces hundreds of billions in unfunded future pension debt, persistently basement-scraping interest rates and now a pandemic-ravaged economy — is under pressure to perform. 

“We need every arrow in the quiver we can get, and private debt is one of the critical ones,” said Dan Bienvenue, CalPERS’ deputy chief investment officer. “There isn’t a no-risk choice.”

Rather than simply invest the money with Wall Street firms that then dole it out to borrowers — something CalPERS has already started doing — CalPERS managers want to cut out the middlemen and begin making and holding those loans themselves.

The board-approved policy allows CalPERS to put up to 5% of its total value into “opportunistic” investments, which includes private debt. That works out to about $20 billion, though Bienvenue said he doesn’t “expect to grow this to anything like that anytime soon.” 

CalPERS’ turn to direct lending is part of a broader rethinking of the pension fund’s money-making strategy, approved by the organization’s board last month. The plan also allows the fund to borrow up to $80 billion to goose potential profits — an 11-figure sum has generated skepticism from some financial experts and howls of protest from some corners of the political and financial commentariat.

“Hopefully it works and they’re lucky and the taxpayers of California will be lucky,” said Matt Gelfand, a managing director of the investment advising firm Moreland Associate. “But there’s a greater risk.”

Susan Webber, a longtime critic of CalPERS management who writes under the pen name Yves Smith on her widely read finance blog Naked Capitalism, summed up her point in the title of her post: “CalPERS Plans to Blow Its Brains Out.”

Bienvenue said the new leverage policy just consolidates how much individual departments across the fund were already allowed to borrow into one total, which is actually lower than the prior policy. 

“What we’re doing is in fact far more boring than the headlines,” he said. 

But both CalPERS’ money managers and its sharpest critics agree that the fund faces a daunting task: trying to earn sufficiently high returns to meet its future obligations without putting too much at risk. 

A veil of secrecy?

Before CalPERS can start writing checks like a bank, the staff at the pension fund is asking for a little bank-like confidentiality. 

Earlier this year, the pension fund sponsored legislation that would shield many of the documents and data related to its future private loans from California’s Public Records Act. The bill, authored by Elk Grove Democratic Assemblymember Jim Cooper, would make it impossible for journalists or anyone else to compel public pension funds to divulge any borrower’s personal identifying information, their financial statements, details about the collateral backing a loan and anything that might be considered a “trade secret.”

If the public pension fund is going to get into the business of making loans, CalPERS staff argued, it has to be able to assure borrowers that their closely guarded financial information remains secret.

“If we have to disclose it,” pension fund lobbyist Danny Brown told a February board meeting, “then they’re likely going to go to someone that doesn’t have to disclose it. So in order to make sure that we’re competitive in this market and getting the best opportunities, we need to (have) these similar rules that other folks will be playing by.” 

Under the pending bill, the Public Records Act could still be invoked to learn who a borrower is, what the basic terms of a loan are, and whether a borrower has been in default for at least six months. 

A central part of the pension fund’s new plan is to venture further from the well-trafficked coves of traditional stock and bond markets into the open, lightly-regulated waters of private investments. These include both private debt and private equity — in which the board purchases a direct ownership stake in a business.

These financial arrangements are unavailable to your average investor and are trickier to get out of. That makes them riskier, and as a result, investors can demand a higher return.

William Wang, emeritus professor of corporate finance at the University of California Hastings College of Law, warned that setting up a private loan-making operation inside the pension fund will require “hiring away the masters of the universe” who currently work at private equity and venture capital firms. “Those people make a lot of money.”

Margaret Brown, one of CalPERS’ 13 board members and one of six who is elected, said she worries the pension fund staff does not have enough experience in making and managing loans. And this is not the right time to be learning on the job, she said.

“CalPERS has a habit of jumping in the market at the wrong time,” said Brown. “It’s one thing if we do private debt and we take small steps, right? You don’t give your new puppy the big 32-ounce can of food. You don’t do it. He’ll choke on it.”

Brown, a regular contrary voice on the board, cast the lone dissenting vote on the idea last month. Earlier this year she also voted against sponsoring the Public Records Act exclusion bill. 

(No love lost: Brown recently sued the organization and the rest of the board after it penalized her for her use of the CalPERS name on her social media accounts.) 

Bienvenue, the deputy chief investment officer, insisted that although the pension fund’s investment team does not have direct experience extending loans, the “experience and expertise” of those who have worked with other debt-related investments “are very similar and analogous to what would be required for this.” 

“Sense of desperation”

CalPERS, like most public pension funds in the country, does face a tricky math problem: The board expects the fund’s investments to grow at an average rate of 7% each year. That number is more than an aspirational target; it’s also a vision of the future with major financial and political consequences. 

The less that CalPERS makes in from its investments, the more it has to draw from employers — that is, taxpayers via their state and local governments — and public sector employees to pay for current and future retirement benefits. Few in state government are eager to ask cities or workers to cough up high contributions. Especially not now.

But in a period of prolonged low interest rates, it’s tough to earn that 7% without parking your money in some chancy investments, said Matt Gelfand, a managing director of the investment advising firm Moreland Associates. That puts pension fund managers in a bind.

“Either they generate a (lower rate of) return and it’s not enough to fund benefits, so somebody’s got to cover the cost of those benefits,” he said. “Or they do what CalPERS is aiming to do now…taking on a risk that might or might not work out.”

The story of public pension officers scrambling for increasingly scant financial opportunities is four decades in the making.

According to an analysis by the Pew Charitable Trust, beginning in the 1980s pension fund managers began to diversify away from the safe, steady and thoroughly boring world of highly rated bonds, choosing to ride the stock market’s roller coaster. After the turn of the century, with ever-lower interest rates making it even harder for investors to make money from traditional bonds, pensions ventured further into the Wild West of “alternative investments” — private equity, one-off infrastructure projects and real estate. Each step took the funds into potentially more profitable, but also more perilous, terrain.

“It’s completely driven by the accounting rules and the accounting rules themselves are driving people to these choices,” said Tom Sgouros, a policy advisor who has argued that the fiscal threat of unfunded pension liabilities is overstated. “The sense of desperation makes people make policy decisions that are unwise.”

Private credit appears to be the latest target for high-return seekers. According to the London-based financial data company Preqin, the total value of the global private credit market has ballooned from roughly $263 billion at the end of 2009 to $854 billion by the end of last year.

Too much money chasing too little opportunity?

Following the global financial crisis, “a lot of banks began to stop offering loans to middle-market firms and that created a large kind of chasm in that space,” said Ash Chauhan, a Preqin analyst. “When you’re looking at institutional investors like CalPERS, it was only a matter of time before they started investing.”

In fact, CalPERS may be a little late to the party. 

The Arizona State Retirement System has been investing in private debt since 2013. Alabama’s state pension fund followed suit and has since emerged as a kind of cautionary tale. The Retirement Systems of Alabama lent directly to iPic, a perk-ified theater chain known for its reclining chairs and menu of sweet potato fries and sliders. When iPic went bust last summer, Alabama’s state retirees ended up owning the chain outright. These are hardly boom times for movie theaters.

Given the amount of interest in private lending, “the question now is whether there is too much money there chasing too few opportunities,” said Wang of UC Hastings.

Before CalPERS can find out, the pension fund’s staff is counting on state legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign off on its transparency exemption bill. It passed the Assembly with Marin County Democrat Marc Levine casting the lone “no” vote.

“It’s hypocritical for Democrats in the Legislature to allow CalPERS to hide the critical information about investments and investors while seeking disclosure from the president on his investments,” Levine told CalMatters. “Can you look more dopey than that?” 

Nonetheless, the California Newspaper Publishers Association has moved from opposed to neutral on the bill. 

“We recognize that when dealing with information in this area there is going to be a concern about the privacy of borrowers, notwithstanding that this is a government agency involved in a lending program,” said Jim Ewert, the association’s general counsel. “To the extent that there is questionable decision-making that’s going on, we may revisit this issue and attempt to tighten things up a bit more.”

San Fran Mandates Hotel Cleanings in Bid to Revive Economy

How do you further price a town out of tourists and conventions?  You make the highest room rates to go even higher, with fewer amenities.

The “Healthy Buildings” ordinance will require hotels and large office buildings clean and disinfect “high-contact” areas and surfaces multiple times per day, keep logs of every cleaning cycle, provide employees with protective gear and prohibit retaliation against workers who complain about health risks.

Areas that must be cleaned include lobbies, lounges, hallways, restrooms, elevators, escalators, stairways and meeting rooms. The law also requires enhanced cleaning for “multiuse instruments,” such as keyboards, touch screens, credit card readers, telephones, light switches, restaurant menus, and ice and vending machines.”

Before the virus, a single issue, hotels were clean.  Now, using the virus as an excuse, San Fran government is making sure only the very, very rich visit their town—a recipe for economic disaster.  The new requirements are very expensive, added to your hotel bill.  I visit San Fran last year.  Glad I had a chance to say goodbye, before it died—by suicide.

San Francisco Mandates Hotel Cleanings in Bid to Revive Economy

NICHOLAS IOVINO, Courthousenews,  7/7/20 

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Aiming to recharge a faltering tourism economy hit hard by the Covid-19 pandemic, San Francisco city officials on Tuesday unanimously approved a set of aggressive new cleaning standards for hotels and large office buildings.

“This is part of the revitalization and recovery package to send a message to the country and our world that San Francisco is at the forefront of having the safest, cleanest Covid-19-free hotel rooms in the United States of America,” said Supervisor Aaron Peskin, lead sponsor of the ordinance, during a virtual Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday.

The “Healthy Buildings” ordinance will require hotels and large office buildings clean and disinfect “high-contact” areas and surfaces multiple times per day, keep logs of every cleaning cycle, provide employees with protective gear and prohibit retaliation against workers who complain about health risks.

Areas that must be cleaned include lobbies, lounges, hallways, restrooms, elevators, escalators, stairways and meeting rooms. The law also requires enhanced cleaning for “multiuse instruments,” such as keyboards, touch screens, credit card readers, telephones, light switches, restaurant menus, and ice and vending machines.

The legislation initially sought to require cleaning every 30 minutes. The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco opposed that mandate, arguing it would be “impracticable and likely impossible to accomplish” given that proper cleaning is a slow, laborious process that often requires letting disinfectant sit on surfaces for several minutes at a time.

“To actually do this would require an army of employees disinfecting continuously,” the two groups wrote in a letter to supervisors on June 24.

The industry groups further complained that San Francisco had exempted its own municipal buildings from the law’s requirements, which they described as a tacit acknowledgement that “compliance with this ordinance will be burdensome and expensive so the city does not want to impose those burdens on itself.”

Facing intense pushback from the industry, supervisors who introduced the legislation agreed to replace the every-30-minutes cleaning mandate with “multiples times per day.”

The ordinance also includes additional requirements for hotels, mandating that guest rooms be cleaned daily unless guests specifically ask that their rooms not be cleaned. Light switches, door handles and other surfaces must be sanitized as part of the daily cleaning ritual. Bed linens and towels must also be changed daily.

That requirement comes after a recent Inside Edition investigation found several New York City hotels did not change bed sheets and bath towels between guests, despite the ongoing public health emergency.

The law further requires hotels to install hand sanitizer dispensers at entrances and exits of high-traffic areas, including fitness centers, pools, elevators, lobbies and check-in counters.

Additionally, the law requires companies that manage hotels and large office buildings provide protective gear, such as masks, gloves and hand sanitizer, at no cost to employees. It further requires that any clothing or equipment used by one worker be cleaned and disinfected before another worker uses it.

The ordinance forbids hotels and building managers from retaliating against workers who complain about health risks or refuse to do work that they feel poses a risk to their health or safety. It empowers workers to sue their employers for $1,000 per violation or actual damages for lost wages and benefits, whichever is higher. 

“We’re elevating workers in office buildings and the hotel industry — workers and janitors — so we can ensure the survival of this industry,” said Supervisor Ahsha Safai, who co-sponsored the ordinance. “When people feel safe in an environment, they’re going to come back to that environment.”

With attractions like the Golden Gate Bridge and vintage cable-car trolley rides, tourism is a major driver of San Francisco’s $500 billion economy. The city welcomed more than 26 million tourists in 2019 who spent more than $10 billion, according to San Francisco Travel, the city’s tourism bureau.

During a June 29 committee meeting on the proposed ordinance, Supervisor Peskin said tens of thousands of jobs depend on San Francisco’s ability to attract visitors.

He insisted San Francisco “has really set the standard” for mitigating the impact of Covid-19 by being one of the first cities to order residents to shelter in place on March 16.

“As we move into the recovery phases, it’s critical we set the standard once again particularly for other Bay Area jurisdictions and environments around the country that will be looking to San Francisco for our leadership,” Peskin said.

Also on Tuesday, the board unanimously approved extending a ban on rent increases by two months.  The ban was first enacted on April 21 and set to expire after 60 days.

Seattle held ‘segregated’ training session on ‘undoing whiteness,’ encouraged staffers to forfeit ‘guaranteed physical safety’

Seattle has made segregation a policy of the city.  This Havana of the West is the modern day Selma, Alabama of 1960—it is racist and proud of it.

The City of Seattle held a racially segregated employee training session aimed at White staffers and instructing them on “undoing your own whiteness” in order to be held accountable by people of color, according to documents obtained by a public records request.

The session took place on June 12, as protesters took part in the so-called “Capitol Hill Organized Protest” in the Capitol Hill district.

One handout distributed in the session reportedly declared how “racism is not our fault but we are responsible.” Another said White staffers must give up “the land” and their “guaranteed physical safety” in order to be an “accomplice” for racial justice.

Like blacks could not own property in the Old South, Seattle is on its way to disallow white people to own property in this former free city.  No different than Havana, Seattle is a racist, anti-religious, hateful city.  Castro hated Americans and Seattle hates white people.  The Mayor, though white hates herself and approved the bigoted efforts of her government.  Racism is the new radicalism of the BLM Marxist Movement.

Photo courtesy [email protected], flickr

Seattle held ‘segregated’ training session on ‘undoing whiteness,’ encouraged staffers to forfeit ‘guaranteed physical safety’

‘Racism is not our fault but we are responsible,’ one handout declared 

By Danielle Wallace | Fox News, 7/8/20 

The City of Seattle held a racially segregated employee training session aimed at White staffers and instructing them on “undoing your own whiteness” in order to be held accountable by people of color, according to documents obtained by a public records request.

The session took place on June 12, as protesters took part in the so-called “Capitol Hill Organized Protest” in the Capitol Hill district.

One handout distributed in the session reportedly declared how “racism is not our fault but we are responsible.” Another said White staffers must give up “the land” and their “guaranteed physical safety” in order to be an “accomplice” for racial justice.

Christopher F. Rufo, an editor for City Journal and director of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Wealth and Poverty, said he filed a public records request regarding the training session. On Monday, he published copies of the materials distributed to employees in the session on his Twitter account.

According to his screenshots, the Office of Civil Rights hosted a two-and-a-half-hour “Training on Internalized Racial Superiority for White People.”

In the email invitation to the event, the office asked “city employees who identify as white to join this training to learn, reflect, challenge ourselves, and build skills and relationships that help us show up more fully as allies and accomplices for racial justice.”

“We’ll examine our complicity in the system of white supremacy – how we internalize and reinforce it – and begin to cultivate practices that enable us to interrupt racism in ways to be accountable to Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) folks within our community,” the email invitation said.

The name of the initial sender was redacted. Rufo claimed, “the City of Seattle has refused to provide the names of the diversity trainers, the budget for the program, or the video of the session.”

“I’m going to keep pushing—because this is exactly the kind of thought-policing they want to implement everywhere,” Rufo tweeted. “The new cultural revolution is being fought via corporate HR, city diversity training, and public school curriculums. When you find something like this in your community, expose it, criticize it, mock it, and reject it.”

Those who attended the session were shown handouts, including one that encouraged them to cultivate “networks with other white people who are practicing antiracist accomplicehood so you can talk through your struggles in the work of undoing your own whiteness.”

Diversity trainers instructed White employees in “practicing self-talk that affirms our complicity in racism.”

“Racism is not our fault but we are responsible,” one bullet point declared.

In order to be considered “accomplices,” White employees must give up “comfort,” “guaranteed physical safety,” “expectations or presumptions of emotional safety,” “control over other people and over the land,” and “relationships with some other white people.”

White employees were also urged to give up “niceties from neighbors and colleagues,” “the certainty of your job,” and “accepting jobs and promotions when we are not qualified, including racial equity jobs.”

Employees were presented with a flowchart that demonstrated how “white people keep the system going” by being socialized “to cause harm to POC,” “justify why we are superior and have been wronged by POC,” “use anger, self-righteousness and defensiveness [to] mask fear, shame, or guilt,” “show up small and inauthentic,” and finally are “unable to imagine a way forward that comes from a place of humanity,” thus reinforcing the status quo.

Those who attended the session were also shown a datasheet titled “Assimilation into Whiteness,” which claimed to document how those of Arab, Jewish, Finnish, German, Italian, Armenian or Irish descent still classify as White.

Employees were taught how to “interrupt” their whiteness by being “honest and implicate yourself either in the moment or in past experiences in which you acted or thought similarly.”

“Don’t blame others. Don’t distance. Don’t make yourself seem ‘better.’ None of us is,” a handout said. “You are also white and what someone else did today you may do tomorrow.”

A two-column chart also listed characteristics that defined “Internalized Racial Oppression.”

“Internalized Racial Superiority,” was defined by perfectionism, individualism, imposition, arrogance, paternalism, silence, intellectualization, control, violence, comfort, appropriation, cognitive dissonance, objectivity and “anti-blackness.”

Meanwhile, “Internalized Racial Inferiority” was defined by colorism, isolation, protectionism, addiction, self-doubt, self-hate, rage, shame, denial, assimilation, ethnocentrisms, distancing, exaggerated visibility, hopelessness, apathy, erasure, invisibility, “anti-blackness.”

Fox News has reached out to the City of Seattle and the Discovery Institute separately for information about the session.

Kaepernick Cashes In: Bashing America Is Now a Lucrative American Business Model

Colin Kaepernick is a fraud, a total fraud.  Claiming to be a revolutionary, a socialist/Marxist, a destroyer of capitalism and the United States, all of that is a fraud.  He is scamming the Left pretending to hate America and money, while taking in tens of millions of dollars each year from the capitalists he claims to hate.

“It’s all developed into an extremely lucrative racket for the ex-player, whose political “awakening” coincided with his performance-based professional shortcomings. Prior to his failure on the field, Kaepernick tweeted innocuous Independence Day greetings to fans. Now that he’s got a new gig, it’s all about “white supremacy” and slavery. And big corporations are lining up to pay out indulgences. At least we can finally bury the lie that this has always represented a principled, focused stand against police brutality, as opposed to a broad indictment of America itself. Many of us acknowledge our nation’s past sins and current flaws, while also supporting police reform. But that’s not what this is about. Fervently anti-Trump conservative Quin Hillyer (who recently wrote in praise of the president’s Mount Rushmore speech, which has provoked dishonest and unhinged responses in American newsrooms) notes how the record is clear:

“We reject your celebration of white supremacy and look forward to liberation for all,” tweeted Kaepernick about the Fourth of July, because, he said, “black people have been dehumanized, brutalized, criminalized and terrorized by America for centuries and are expected to join your commemoration of independence, while you enslaved our ancestors.”

He wants to be among the privileged in the New American Society—the few who are rich and the rest who are enslaved.  He is a General for the Confederates in the modern Civil War—and he is a war profiteer.

Kaepernick Cashes In: Bashing America Is Now a Lucrative American Business Model

Guy Benson, Townhall,  7/8/20   

In case you missed it over the weekend, former NFL quarterback — who was benched for mediocre play in 2016, then saw his career screech to a halt after going (1-10) as a starter the following season — published the following two tweets, back-to-back. This juxtaposition is absolutely real, although it could easily be mistaken for satire:


He rejected July 4 as a “celebration of white supremacy” in this supposedly rotten country, then turned around the very next day and unveiled his lucrative new contract with one of the most iconic American corporations on the planet. Details, via ESPN:

His deal with The Walt Disney Co. will extend across all Disney platforms, including Walt Disney Television, ESPN, Hulu, Pixar and The Undefeated. “During this unprecedented time, The Walt Disney Company remains committed to creating diverse and inclusive content that resonates and matters,” said Bob Iger, Disney’s executive chairman. “Colin’s experience gives him a unique perspective on the intersection of sports, culture and race, which will undoubtedly create compelling stories that will educate, enlighten and entertain, and we look forward to working with him on this important collaboration.” The docuseries chronicling Kaepernick’s journey and his last five years is the first project in development.

This “important collaboration” includes a failed ESPN personality and hyper-woke, race-obsessed “journalist” as a featured producer. You’ll also recall that athletic shoe and sportswear behemoth Nike (which engages in virtue-signaling preening at home, while kowtowing to racist, abusive communists abroad) has also shoveled piles of cash at Kaepernick. They inked him to a rich sponsorship deal, built a “courage”-themed marketing blitz around him, and have gone so far as to give him effective veto power over their products (he personally intervened to nix America-themed shoes that offended his anti-American sensibilities). Being the face of racial grievance and performative wokeness has its advantages these, and one of those advantages entails many zeroes on your checks, which are best understood as corporate protection payments. The mob is running rampant, literally and figuratively, and major companies are desperate to keep them at bay. Part of their strategy for doing so involves showering money upon Kaepernick. The NFL is similarly groveling.

It’s all developed into an extremely lucrative racket for the ex-player, whose political “awakening” coincided with his performance-based professional shortcomings. Prior to his failure on the field, Kaepernick tweeted innocuous Independence Day greetings to fans. Now that he’s got a new gig, it’s all about “white supremacy” and slavery. And big corporations are lining up to pay out indulgences. At least we can finally bury the lie that this has always represented a principled, focused stand against police brutality, as opposed to a broad indictment of America itself. Many of us acknowledge our nation’s past sins and current flaws, while also supporting police reform. But that’s not what this is about. Fervently anti-Trump conservative Quin Hillyer (who recently wrote in praise of the president’s Mount Rushmore speech, which has provoked dishonest and unhinged responses in American newsrooms) notes how the record is clear:

“We reject your celebration of white supremacy and look forward to liberation for all,” tweeted Kaepernick about the Fourth of July, because, he said, “black people have been dehumanized, brutalized, criminalized and terrorized by America for centuries and are expected to join your commemoration of independence, while you enslaved our ancestors.” This precisely echoes the original reason he gave for beginning his protests at NFL games in 2016…“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he said then. This was not a protest against police violence and racism that just happened to occur during the anthem; it was specifically targeted at the anthem and flag so as to blame the country as such for the ills Kaepernick was protesting. The message was not that the nation per se had a flawed past and that vestiges remained in some people’s hearts and minds in a way that even well-intentioned laws and institutions had not yet eradicated. No, the message was that the institutions themselves were deliberately racist and oppressive and that the nation itself was unworthy of pride. So, yes, all of this “kneeling during the anthem” stuff was and is about “disrespecting the flag of the United States of America.”

At least that was how it was manifested by Kaepernick, who his now reaping the financial benefits of his anti-patriotism, enriched by companies and organizations that evidently have little-to-no problem with depicting police officers as pigs or blowing kisses at murderous Communist dictators. I’ll leave you with a Fourth of July tweet from someone who is profoundly thankful for the freedoms and opportunities afforded to her in this country — which has given so much to blinkered ingrates like Kaepernick, today’s poster child for American self-loathing:

Facts about Covid-19

This is the most important story exposing the canard of the COVID virus and governments response.  The response was NOT based on health concerns, it is based on policies used to enslaved free people.

  1. “The number of people suffering from unemployment, depressions and domestic violence as a result of the measures has reached historic record values. Several experts predict that the measures will claim far more lives than the virus itself. According to the UN 1.6 billion people around the world are at immediate risk of losing their livelihood.
  2. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the “corona crisis” will be used for the permanent expansion of global surveillance. Renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt spoke of a “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures”. Leading British virologist Professor John Oxford spoke of a “media epidemic”.
  3. More than 600 scientists have warned of an “unprecedented surveillance of society” through problematic apps for “contact tracing”. In some countries, such “contact tracing” is carried out directly by the secret service. In several parts of the world, the population is being monitored by drones and facing serious police overreach during lockdowns.

You need to forward this to your friends—and especially office holders on city councils.  Let them know they have been punk’d by radicals creating an issues to enslave the population.

Facts about Covid-19

Swiss Policy Research, 

Updated: June 2020; Share on: Twitter / Facebook
Lang.: CZ, DE, EN, EO, ES, FI, FR, GR, HBS, HE, HU, IT, JP, KO, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, RU, SE, SI, SK, TR

Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment. (Regular updates below)

“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)

Overview

  1. According to the latest immunological and serological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) is about 0.1% and thus in the range of a strong seasonal influenza (flu).
  2. In countries like the US, the UK, and also Sweden (without a lockdown), overall mortality since the beginning of the year is in the range of a strong influenza season; in countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland, overall mortality is in the range of a mild influenza season.
  3. Even in global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.
  4. Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 95% of all persons develop at most moderate symptoms.
  5. Up to 60% of all persons may already have a certain cellular background immunity to Covid-19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses (i.e. common cold viruses). The initial assumption that there was no immunity against Covid-19 was not correct.
  6. The median age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years (e.g. 86 years in Sweden) and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.
  7. In many countries, up to two thirds of all extra deaths occurred in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. Moreover, in many cases it is not clear whether these people really died from Covid19 or from weeks of extreme stress and isolation.
  8. Up to 30% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by Covid19, but by the effects of the lockdown, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.
  9. Even in so-called “Covid19 deaths” it is often not clear whether they died from or with coronavirus (i.e. from underlying diseases) or if they were counted as “presumed cases” and not tested at all. However, official figures usually do not reflect this distinction.
  10. Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old. The claimed increase in Kawasaki disease in children also turned out to be false.
  11. Strong increases in regional mortality can occur if there is a collapse in the care of the elderly and sick as a result of infection or panic, or if there are additional risk factors such as severe air pollution. Questionable regulations for dealing with the deceased sometimes led to additional bottlenecks in funeral or cremation services.
  12. In countries such as Italy and Spain, and to some extent the UK and the US, hospital overloads due to strong flu waves are not unusual. Moreover, this year up to 15% of health care workers were put into quarantine, even if they developed no symptoms.
  13. The often shown exponential curves of “corona cases” are misleading, as the number of tests also increased exponentially. In most countries, the ratio of positive tests to tests overall (i.e. the positive rate) remained constant at 5% to 25% or increased only slightly. In many countries, the peak of the spread was already reached well before the lockdown.
  14. Countries without curfews and contact bans, such as Japan, South Korea, Belarus or Sweden, have not experienced a more negative course of events than other countries. Sweden was even praised by the WHO and now benefits from higher immunity compared to lockdown countries.
  15. The fear of a shortage of ventilators was unjustified. According to lung specialists, the invasive ventilation (intubation) of Covid19 patients, which is partly done out of fear of spreading the virus, is in fact often counterproductive and damaging to the lungs.
  16. Contrary to original assumptions, various studies have shown that there is no evidence of the virus spreading through aerosols (i.e. tiny particles floating in the air) or through smear infections (e.g. on door handles or smartphones). The main modes of transmission are direct contact and droplets produced when coughing or sneezing.
  17. There is also no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in healthy or asymptomatic individuals. On the contrary, experts warn that such masks interfere with normal breathing and may become “germ carriers”. Leading doctors called them a “media hype” and “ridiculous”.
  18. Many clinics in Europe and the US remained strongly underutilized or almost empty during the Covid19 peak and in some cases had to send staff home. Millions of surgeries and therapies were cancelled, including many cancer screenings and organ transplants.
  19. Several media were caught trying to dramatize the situation in hospitals, sometimes even with manipulative images and videos. In general, the unprofessional reporting of many media maximized fear and panic in the population.
  20. The virus test kits used internationally are prone to errors and can produce false positive and false negative results. Moreover, the official virus test was not clinically validated due to time pressure and may sometimes react positive to other coronaviruses.
  21. Numerous internationally renowned experts in the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology consider the measures taken to be counterproductive and recommend rapid natural immunisation of the general population and protection of risk groups.
  22. At no time was there a medical reason for the closure of schools, as the risk of disease and transmission in children is extremely low. There is also no medical reason for small classes, masks or ‘social distancing’ rules in schools.
  23. The claim that only (severe) Covid-19 but not influenza may cause venous thrombosis and pulmonary (lung) embolism is not true, as it has been known for 50 years that severe influenza greatly increases the risk of thrombosis and embolism, too.
  24. Several medical experts described express coronavirus vaccines as unnecessary or even dangerous. Indeed, the vaccine against the so-called swine flu of 2009, for example, led to sometimes severe neurological damage and lawsuits in the millions. In the testing of new coronavirus vaccines, too, serious complications and failures have already occurred.
  25. A global influenza or corona pandemic can indeed extend over several seasons, but many studies of a “second wave” are based on very unrealistic assumptions, such as a constant risk of illness and death across all age groups.
  26. Several nurses, e.g. in New York City, described an oftentimes fatal medical mis­manage­ment of Covid patients due to questionable financial incentives or inappropriate medical protocols.
  27. The number of people suffering from unemployment, depressions and domestic violence as a result of the measures has reached historic record values. Several experts predict that the measures will claim far more lives than the virus itself. According to the UN 1.6 billion people around the world are at immediate risk of losing their livelihood.
  28. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the “corona crisis” will be used for the permanent expansion of global surveillance. Renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt spoke of a “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures”. Leading British virologist Professor John Oxford spoke of a “media epidemic”.
  29. More than 600 scientists have warned of an “unprecedented surveillance of society” through problematic apps for “contact tracing”. In some countries, such “contact tracing” is carried out directly by the secret service. In several parts of the world, the population is being monitored by drones and facing serious police overreach during lockdowns.
  30. A 2019 WHO study on public health measures against pandemic influenza found that from a medical perspective, “contact tracing” is “not recommended in any circumstances”. Nevertheless, contact tracing apps have already become partially mandatory in several countries.

Churches, Which Account for 0.02% of COVID-19 Cases, Are a ‘Major Source’ of Infection, The New York Times Says

Gavin Newsom is as silly as a kid in kindergarten.  And, just as mature.  When he announced the BANNING of singing and chants in churches because they would cause people to come down with the coronavirus, it showed he is a desperate man trying to kill the California economy and will to live.

“”More than 650 coronavirus cases have been linked to nearly 40 churches and religious events across the United States since the beginning of the pandemic,” the Times says, “with many of them erupting over the last month as Americans resumed their pre-pandemic activities.”

The number of confirmed COVID-19 infections in the United States is now 3.1 million, meaning the church-related cases identified by the Times account for 0.02 percent of the total. On the face of it, that does not seem like “a major source of coronavirus infections.” And there are something like 385,000 churches in the U.S., so the ones tied to COVID-19 infections represent around 0.01 percent of Christian congregations.

His goal is not the health of people, to to keep folks apart and divided.  When people go to church they talk, compare notes and have common values.  Newsom is imitating Stalin, rather than someone that took an oath of office to protect religious freedom. 

Churches, Which Account for 0.02% of COVID-19 Cases, Are a ‘Major Source’ of Infection, The New York Times Says

The paper’s claim reflects the same arbitrary distinction between religious and secular activities that churches are challenging in court.

Jacob Sullum, Reason, 7/8/20   

“Churches Were Eager to Reopen,” says the headline over a story in today’s New York Times. “Now They Are a Major Source of Coronavirus Infections.”

The not-so-subtle subtext: Reopening churches was reckless, because they are more likely than other venues to be the sites of superspreading events, regardless of the precautions they take. But the evidence presented by the Times does not support that thesis.

“More than 650 coronavirus cases have been linked to nearly 40 churches and religious events across the United States since the beginning of the pandemic,” the Times says, “with many of them erupting over the last month as Americans resumed their pre-pandemic activities.”

The number of confirmed COVID-19 infections in the United States is now 3.1 million, meaning the church-related cases identified by the Times account for 0.02 percent of the total. On the face of it, that does not seem like “a major source of coronavirus infections.” And there are something like 385,000 churches in the U.S., so the ones tied to COVID-19 infections represent around 0.01 percent of Christian congregations.

Also note that the Times is talking about church-related infections “since the beginning of the pandemic,” so its tally of 650 does not even tell us what has happened since services resumed after lockdowns were lifted, which is ostensibly the story’s focus. The article says “many” of those infections happened during the last month, but it never says how many.

More to the point, the Times never says how churches compare to other settings—such as bars, restaurants, offices, factories, house parties, and Memorial Day or Independence Day gatherings—as a source of virus transmission. Even if half of the infections tallied by the Times happened recently, that would still mean other sources account for around 99.8 percent of newly confirmed cases since mid-May, when testing should have begun detecting post-lockdown infections.

ProPublica reports that “more than 24,000 coronavirus cases have been tied to meatpacking plants.” As of June 30, the Marshall Project says, “at least 52,649 people in prison had tested positive” for COVID-19. Yet the Times thinks 650 cases make “churches and religious events” a “major source” of infection.

Some church services have become superspreading events, and it is not hard to see why that could happen. “It’s an ideal setting for transmission,” Carlos del Rio, an infectious disease expert at Emory University, tells the Times. “You have a lot of people in a closed space. And they’re speaking loudly, they’re singing. All those things are exactly what you don’t want.”

But churches, like other venues, can take precautions that reduce the risk of virus transmission. Outdoor services are less risky than indoor services. Well-ventilated spaces are less risky than poorly ventilated spaces. Services where congregants wear masks and keep a distance from each other are less risky than services where people crowd together without masks. Services where people eschew singing, or keep the volume low, are less risky than services that don’t.

Astonishingly, the Times dismisses the value of such precautions, saying the virus “has struck churches that reopened cautiously with face masks and social distancing in the pews, as well as some that defied lockdowns and refused to heed new limits on numbers of worshipers.” But in each of the examples it describes in detail, precautions fell notably short.

One outbreak happened at a Texas church where the pastor said it was OK for congregants to hug each other. Another happened at a West Virginia church service where masks were “optional.” A third happened at a Christian youth party in Ft. Myers, Florida, that was attended by 100 teenagers who “did not stay at a distance.” A fourth happened at a Christian youth camp in Missouri where “camp leaders had asked campers to quarantine themselves for two weeks before arriving and to monitor their temperatures” and “campers were given masks to wear in group settings, although they were not required to wear them when they were in smaller groups of campers they were rooming with.”

Physical distancing and mask wearing do not eliminate the risk of virus transmission. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether churches can reopen with an acceptable level of risk by following the same guidelines that apply to other settings where people gather for extended periods of time. By implying that precautions don’t really matter, the Times is sending a dangerous message to Americans, many of whom are already weary of social distancing rules and disinclined to wear masks.

Whether you think resuming religious services is worth the risk obviously depends on the value you attach to them. “I am trying to do the right thing,” Dan Satterwhite, a pastor at a church in Pendleton, Oregon, tells the Times. “I know a lot of people don’t feel this way, but those that do, feel that church is essential. There’s more to be considered there than just the physical health; there’s also the spiritual health.”

I have not been to synagogue in months, but I was not very keen on going even before the pandemic. By contrast, my wife, a rabbi who faces a relatively high risk of dying from COVID-19 because she takes an immunosuppressive medication, has started attending services again. Everyone wears a mask, avoids touching anyone else, maintains a distance of at least six feet, and sings only at the volume of ordinary conversation. The prayer leader faces away from the congregation, and there is no reading from the Torah, since that would entail close proximity. When there is a sermon, the speaker stands at least eight feet from the congregation and avoids speaking loudly.

These precautions are not foolproof, but they are surely better than pre-pandemic practices, and my wife has decided that the benefits she gets from attending services outweigh the risks. That’s the sort of decision all of us have to make these days, and there is no rational reason to view religious activities differently in that respect or to treat them as so dangerous that they cannot be tolerated at a time when people are resuming secular activities that pose similar risks of virus transmission. That arbitrary distinction, the one the Times seems to be urging, is at the heart of the frequently successful First Amendment cases challenging pandemic-inspired legal restrictions on religious gatherings.

According to the Times, Satterwhite “said that scrutiny had fallen unfairly on churches, while businesses with outbreaks did not face the same backlash.” He adds, “I think that there is an effort on the part of some to use things like this to try to shut churches down.” Given reporting like this, that seems like a fair inference.

Labor Groups, San Fran Push Bogus Taxpayer-Funded Survey to Support Anti-Gig Law

What is worse than a lie?  It is lie financed by government for the purpose of killing jobs for a million people—then claiming it is for their own good.

“The San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission helped fund a survey conducted by Jobs with Justice, a left-wing advocacy group largely funded by labor powerhouse Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The survey reported that 71 percent of gig workers in the San Francisco area work more than 30 hours a week and receive “poverty level” wages. According to the group’s website, Jobs with Justice planned to use the survey to “make policy recommendations and support organizing” among gig workers. The survey’s summary page emphasizes the need to enforce anti-gig labor laws.”

San Fran politicians in a cabal with the extortionist unions want people on welfare—end their independence and become slaves to government. Tax dollars used to kill the future for Californians.

Labor Groups, San Francisco Push Bogus Taxpayer-Funded Survey to Support Anti-Gig Law

Researcher raised red flags about labor group’s survey tactics, methodology

Collin Anderson, Washington Free Beacon,  7/8/20   

A liberal advocacy group’s own researchers raised red flags about a taxpayer-funded study used to justify a union campaign against the California gig economy.

The San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission helped fund a survey conducted by Jobs with Justice, a left-wing advocacy group largely funded by labor powerhouse Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The survey reported that 71 percent of gig workers in the San Francisco area work more than 30 hours a week and receive “poverty level” wages. According to the group’s website, Jobs with Justice planned to use the survey to “make policy recommendations and support organizing” among gig workers. The survey’s summary page emphasizes the need to enforce anti-gig labor laws.

Left-wing labor group Gig Workers Rising has used the survey to rally in support of California Assembly Bill 5, a controversial law limiting companies’ ability to classify workers as independent contractors. The group called the study “the most comprehensive survey of actual work done” in the gig economy. Internal communications obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, however, reveal that the survey was pitched to potential financial backers as “not representative,” and an academic researcher involved in the study voiced concerns regarding Jobs with Justice’s recruitment tactics.

While the study initially called for 1,200 survey respondents, Jobs with Justice narrowed the scope following the spread of coronavirus, pivoting to an online survey focusing on the pandemic that aimed to reach just 500 respondents.

“The goal behind an online survey of 500 workers, while not representative, would be to turn around data quickly … in order to inform current policy discussions,” an internal description of the updated survey obtained by the Free Beacon said. It went on to reach just 219 respondents.

Pacific Research Institute senior fellow Wayne Winegarden criticized the study’s methodology, calling the survey’s results “meaningless.”

“The survey is not representative of the intended population with the original goal of 500 responses,” Winegarden told the Free Beacon. “The study did not reach this amount, having only 219 responses. So, in no uncertain terms do these results represent the view of gig workers.”

The study also downplayed Jobs with Justice’s involvement in an attempt to bolster its academic appeal. While the published survey lists UC Santa Cruz professor Chris Benner as the project’s lead, Jobs with Justice executive director Kung Feng is described as “leading” the project in internal emails obtained by the Free Beacon. The emails also show that the online survey was written by the group’s research director, Erin Johansson. Benner merely “edited the wording in a few questions,” according to the internal communications.

Benner, who did not return request for comment, also raised concerns regarding Jobs with Justice’s incentive plan to provide a gift card to all survey respondents.

“One, I’m not sure where the budget for that comes from, and two, with an online survey, it leaves open lots of opportunities for people to game it,” Benner wrote in a March 17 email to Johansson.

Following the academic’s objection, Gig Workers Rising continued to advertise the survey in an April tweet by saying respondents would “get a $10 gift card.” A Jobs with Justice invoice for the study listed $45,181 in “survey costs,” including “incentives and app payments.” While the published study lists the gig economy companies each of the survey’s 219 respondents work for, internal data obtained by the Free Beacon shows that 91 of the respondents did not report their company, suggesting some may have been non-gig workers who completed the survey for the incentive.

The invoice was sent to San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission executive officer Bryan Goebel, who solicited funding for the study on Jobs with Justice’s behalf, internal emails show. Reached for comment, Goebel said the coronavirus-related study “was never intended to be” representative and that $50,000 in taxpayer funds were used only for the “initial pilot survey” launched prior to coronavirus. The final study combined the results of both the pilot survey and coronavirus-related survey, a methodological red flag, according to Winegarden.

“In the midst of the survey being in the field, they stopped the survey, reworked it to account for the coronavirus, and then continued with the survey,” Winegarden told the Free Beacon. “These results from before and after cannot be compared to one another.”

Goebel also told the Free Beacon that Benner “was indeed the overall lead” on the study, adding that Jobs with Justice simply “led the outreach.” He did not address the fact that the coronavirus-related survey was drafted by Jobs with Justice.

Charlyce Bozzello, a spokeswoman for labor watchdog the Center for Union Facts, said activist front groups often misuse research to advance their ideological goals.

“For years, unions have used flawed ‘research’ to support their organizing campaigns, so it’s no surprise to see Jobs with Justice involved in this project,” she told the Free Beacon. “What is surprising is that the city of San Francisco and UC Santa Cruz would lend their names to this charade.”

Other gig economy studies dispute Jobs with Justice’s findings. A Cornell University study published Monday found that 96 percent of Uber and Lyft drivers in Seattle drove less than 40 hours a week. It further found that 92 percent made more than Seattle’s minimum wage of $16.39, with the media driver earning $23.25 per hour after deducting expenses.

Jobs with Justice and Gig Workers Rising did not respond to requests for comment.

In a first, California poised to lose House seats

California currently has 53 congressional seats.  Even with the flood of illegal aliens, we will lose two congressional seats.  In other words, over one million people have left the State—in almost all cases, the middle class, the productive, the law abiding.  Sacramento policies are killing the State.  I will make a prediction.  In 2031, California will lose 3-4 more congressional seats.

“Southern California could lose two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and a few state legislative seats when voting districts are redrawn next year, according to a new analysis by the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College.

With population growing slower in the San Gabriel Valley and Orange County than in other parts of the state, both areas are flagged by the institute as communities that might lose representation. The region’s House seats could shift out of state to, say, a fast-growing part of Arizona, while our state representation would be picked up by fast growing Northern California.”

This also means California will lose Federal dollars, with fewer people, though the highest poverty rate in the nation.  Watch the political blood flow when the new redistricting is released.

In a first, California poised to lose House seats

Districts that touch Orange County and San Gabriel Valley are vulnerable when voting districts are redrawn next year. Political battles could turn brutal.

By Brooke Staggs, OC Register,   7/8/20  . 

Southern California could lose two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and a few state legislative seats when voting districts are redrawn next year, according to a new analysis by the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College.

With population growing slower in the San Gabriel Valley and Orange County than in other parts of the state, both areas are flagged by the institute as communities that might lose representation. The region’s House seats could shift out of state to, say, a fast-growing part of Arizona, while our state representation would be picked up by fast growing Northern California.

The loss of local seats also could trigger a political blood bath if the current number of incumbents wind up competing for fewer, newly drawn districts, according to Douglas Johnson, a research affiliate with the Rose Institute.

One wildcard is participation in the 2020 Census. If more local residents answer the census — something that’s complicated right now because of the coronavirus epidemic and fear of the Trump administration within immigrant communities — the region could save at least one House seat.

But any loss in the House could drain the state’s power in Washington, D.C., while fewer state seats would reduce Southern California’s clout in Sacramento.

“Even if California loses just one seat, it’s going to be a shock to the system,” said Justin Levitt, a political science professor at Cal State Long Beach who worked on the Rose Institute analysis.

Legislative seats are redrawn in every state once a decade, after census data is compiled. To date, California has not lost a congressional district in its 170-year history, though the state hasn’t added to its current 53-seat delegation in nearly 20 years. A 54th seat was widely expected for California following the 2010 census, but a long-term drop in immigration and the rising cost of living helped keep the state’s population — and its House delegation — flat.

In recent years, growth has stalled in communities like suburban Los Angeles County and Orange County, where home prices and rents have grown faster than wages, forcing people to move away or settle elsewhere.

That’s why Johnson said the 27th District in the San Gabriel Valley and perhaps the 49th District, which straddles south Orange County and north San Diego County, are potentially ripe to be eliminated and have their residents redistributed among neighboring districts. Another area that could lose a seat is the Central Valley, Johnson and Levitt said — or really almost anywhere else in California outside the Bay Area, which has seen the most growth over the past decade.

If districts were drawn based on population estimates, the data firm ESRI shows California would hold on to a second congressional district by tiny numbers; just 1,324 people over Arizona and 3,248 people over Minnesota.

But census counts never match population estimates, with just 68.2% of California’s projected residents participating in the 2010 census. And despite California dedicating $187 million to a campaign to encourage census participation this year, experts fear response could be even lower this cycle, since the coronavirus pandemic has forced census workers to pivot to phone and online outreach.

So far, 63.1% of Californians have responded to the census.

The importance of the census isn’t lost on Rep. Mike Levin, a Democrat who represents the flagged 49th District.

“Although COVID-19 has made some types of outreach more difficult, he has been promoting participation through social media,” said Parke Skelton, a consultant for Levin’s campaign. “On July 18 he will be participating in a Census Car Caravan to encourage involvement in low response rate neighborhoods in Oceanside.”

If California does lose one or two congressional seats to another state, Johnson noted it would mean fewer votes in the Electoral College. It also could mean less influence when it comes to electing representatives who compete over commissions and debate where the federal government should spend on everything from transportation projects and military bases to judges and education. And since Washington, D.C. tends to have an anti-California bias, Johnson said “We need every vote we can get.”

Even if Southern California doesn’t lose a district, experts believe the region will see major changes to district boundaries next year. But Paul Mitchell, a Sacramento-based data consultant who heads up the firm Redistricting Partners, said so many factors are still unknown that, for now, it’s tough to make predictions about changes to specific districts.

While Texas, for example, is poised to gain three districts based on projected population growth, Mitchell noted that the Lone Star state’s census participation is lagging even behind California. If the response rate stays low, he said, Texas might gain just two seats and California might lose just one. And, within California, the census response rate in Los Angeles County is lower than in Orange County, meaning the Los Angeles region could lose some political power to O.C.

If local districts do dissolve or change significantly, experts believe the political battles that follow could be messier than in past cycles.

When districts were redrawn following the 2010 census, Mitchell said, as many as a dozen House members were ready to retire, while some 25 state Assembly members and 10 state senators were termed out. That eased the process of shifting power as districts were reconfigured based on new population information.

This time around, Mitchell said, only a few California congress members are nearing retirement and almost no local state legislators are terming out.

“There could be some fireworks,” Mitchell said.

Another complication is that the coronavirus pandemic is pushing back several key redistricting deadlines. Mitchell said that could translate into California shifting its 2022 primary date back to its traditional slot in June, following a March primary date in this year’s election cycle.

The U.S. Census Bureau delayed its deadline for collecting responses from July 31 to Oct. 31. And the bureau has asked congress to move the cutoff for getting final counts to states from the end of March to the end of July 2021.

That’s a problem for the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which is required to complete new maps by Aug. 15, 2021. If current deadlines hold, the commission would be tasked with processing the data, collecting public input and drawing new maps for 177 voting districts in just two weeks.

Last month, the state asked the California Supreme Court to delay the deadline to redraw the maps, Johnson said, but they haven’t yet received a response.

California could also ask voters to change the date through a ballot measure, or the state could ask congress to prioritize getting counts to California. But if the state can’t make one of those changes happen and hit its redistricting deadline, the courts would get to redraw California’s district maps for the first time in 30 years.

San Fran to Pay Illegal Aliens/Parolee’s $1200 a Month for “Living” in City

San Fran has policies to end jobs and make it too expensive for the middle class.  The question, is who will they replace the fleeing masses?  Now we know.  San Fran wants to be the U.S. capitol for illegal aliens.

“As COVID-19 cases spike in California, San Francisco has begun offering more than $1,200 in aid to undocumented and other low-income residents who would otherwise be unable to recover at home from the virus.

The Right to Recover program, which launched last week, has several goals: to reduce transmission, boost testing and promote the city’s recovery from the pandemic, according to San Francisco Mayor London Breed.

“We created a program that provides the financial security people need to safely isolate if they test positive,” Breed said in a statement. “We hope the Right to Recover program will encourage people to get tested for COVID-19, with the peace of mind that if they do test positive, they can stay home without worrying about how they’ll afford their basic needs.”

While raising taxes to get rid of the middle class, the politicians are paying illegal; aliens to stay.  This will be a great place for ICE to start its next raids—easy to find law violators.

San Francisco Program Now Replaces Wages for Low-Income Residents Suffering From COVID-19

Farida Jhabvala Romero, KQED,  7/8/20 

As COVID-19 cases spike in California, San Francisco has begun offering more than $1,200 in aid to undocumented and other low-income residents who would otherwise be unable to recover at home from the virus.

The Right to Recover program, which launched last week, has several goals: to reduce transmission, boost testing and promote the city’s recovery from the pandemic, according to San Francisco Mayor London Breed.

“We created a program that provides the financial security people need to safely isolate if they test positive,” Breed said in a statement. “We hope the Right to Recover program will encourage people to get tested for COVID-19, with the peace of mind that if they do test positive, they can stay home without worrying about how they’ll afford their basic needs.”

City officials said they will channel $2 million in private donations from Give2SF to help more than 1,300 San Franciscans who are diagnosed with COVID-19, but who don’t qualify for unemployment insurance or other benefits because of immigration status or other reasons.

The program guarantees beneficiaries at least two weeks of minimum wage.

A recent UCSF COVID-19 study in the city’s Mission District found most of those who tested positive were Latinos who made less than $50,000 per year and couldn’t work from home. About half did not report any symptoms.

Susana Rojas, who worked with UCSF researchers to conduct the study, said many people they encountered were afraid to get tested because they couldn’t afford to miss work and lose income.

“As the sole providers for their families, living paycheck to paycheck and being ineligible for most if not all public benefits, they had no other way of providing food or paying rent than to continue working, whether healthy or sick,” Rojas said, with the city’s Latino Task Force on COVID-19.

Undocumented immigrants contribute an estimated $3 billion per year in local and state taxes in California, but they are not eligible for unemployment insurance, food stamps or federal coronavirus stimulus checks.

Sup. Hillary Ronen, whose district includes the Mission, proposed the Right to Recover program and worked with the city’s Department of Public Health, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development and other agencies to get it off the ground.

This comes as confirmed cases of the coronavirus among Latinos in California surged to nearly 100,000 — representing more than half of all cases where race or ethnicity was identified, according to the California Department of Public Health.

Staff with the city’s public health department will interview people who test positive for COVID-19, and direct those eligible to the program and other resources such as food delivery and free hotel rooms to quarantine, said Cristina Padilla, a spokeswoman with the agency.

She added that individuals will not be not asked about their immigration, probation or parole status during those interviews.

Newsom “Celebrates “Small Business Month” by Closing Down Small Businesses

Gavin Newsom is a hypocrite.  As Governor he closes down businesses, jobs, schools and churches.  Then, also as Governor, he declares July as “Small Business Month”.  How did he celebrate small business in California?  By trying to bankrupt it.

“California Governor Gavin Newsom just issued a proclamation declaring July 2020, as “California for All Small Business Month.” Yet just last week, ahead of weekend Independence Day celebrations, he ordered beaches closed, ordered the closures of restaurants, wineries, tasting rooms, movie theaters, family entertainment centers, zoos, museums, cardrooms and bars in 19 counties. Newsom also issued an order declaring there would be “no singing or chanting in churches” in the state, and no 4th of July parties or fireworks, and he promised enforcement in the form of his appointed “strike teams,” California Globe reported.”

He will claim he is a friend of jobs and small business trying to stop his Recall.  What a liar—he is cheating California of a future.

After Locking Down CA Biz Again, Gov. Newsom Issues Proclamation Declaring July ‘Small Business Month’

Newsom’s ‘strike team’ of enforcement officers to go after people ‘who are thumbing their noses, being aggressive, being reticent’

By Katy Grimes, California Globe,  7/8/20  

California Governor Gavin Newsom just issued a proclamation declaring July 2020, as “California for All Small Business Month.” Yet just last week, ahead of weekend Independence Day celebrations, he ordered beaches closed, ordered the closures of restaurants, wineries, tasting rooms, movie theaters, family entertainment centers, zoos, museums, cardrooms and bars in 19 counties. Newsom also issued an order declaring there would be “no singing or chanting in churches” in the state, and no 4th of July parties or fireworks, and he promised enforcement in the form of his appointed “strike teams,” California Globe reported.

“Enforcement is a difficult one, and I am not naive about that … not Pollyannish about it,” Newsom said. “We have I think a responsibility … to go after people who are thumbing their noses, being aggressive, being reticent.”

How do you celebrate small businesses while at the same time locking them down and sending enforcement officers to cite and fine them?

The Governor’s Task Force on Business and Jobs Recovery, co-chaired by Ann O’Leary, Newsom’s Chief of Staff, and Tom Steyer, Chief Advisor to the Governor on Business & Jobs Recovery, is apparently launching a new campaign encouraging Californians to help small businesses in their communities operate safely during the pandemic. But the irony is rich as most restaurants and small businesses cannot function, much less function cost effectively, under the governor’s on-again-off-again, lockdown restrictions and mask-wearing mandates.

“The state’s new campaign, Calling All Californians: #ShopSafeShopLocal, partners with industry-leading companies, such as Nextdoor, Google, and UPS, to connect California’s small business owners with critical tools and resources to help them adapt to new consumer and market demands and create safer shopping experiences by improving their online presence,” Newsom’s press statement said.

Is this Gov. Newsom’s “new normal,” where businesses must “adapt” to the random shut down orders and loss of business revenue?

Many restaurants throughout the state have announced their closures are permanent because of Newsom’s shutdown orders.

The text of the Governor’s proclamation includes this bizarre message, with no acknowledgment of the latest business closure order, or his enforcement “strike team:”

“During California for All Small Business Month, we are proud to launch the Calling All Californians: Shop Safe Shop Local campaign to lift up our small businesses, their employees and the neighborhoods they serve. Together, we can help our local small businesses succeed in this new marketplace – rallying Californians to safely spend locally and online, while amplifying resources to support small businesses and help all of our diverse neighborhoods thrive.”

The “Shop Safe Shop Local campaign” does not explain how Californians can shop locally when only big box stores, and those businesses which Newsom deemed “essential,” like pot shops, liquor stores and dog groomers, have been open throughout the governor’s statewide lockdowns, while the majority of small business owners have been prohibited from operating, or operating with severe restrictions.

Is this a proclamation to make it appear as if Gov. Newsom cares about small businesses, while he actually encourages county officials to threaten businesses with hefty fines if they don’t willingly comply?

Yesterday, Yolo County passed an urgency ordinance authorizing county code officers fine businesses up to $10,000 for refusing to comply with Newsom’s “safety measures,” including not requiring patrons to wear masks and allowing indoor dining.

Newsom’s ‘Strike Team’ Strikes Fear in Businesses

Over the July 4th weekend, Newsom’s “strike team” of plain clothes enforcement officers “contacted” 483,000 businesses, but issued only 52 citations. Did they visit the businesses in person

Newsom’s “strike team” is made up of agencies that license hair stylists, barbers and bars, the California Highway Patrol, CalOSHA and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, Business Oversight, Consumer Affairs, Food and Agriculture, the Labor Commissioner’s Office, and the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development.

In his daily briefings, Newsom is relying only on the increasing number of positive test results for coronavirus as justification for his lockdown orders. However, what the governor is not admitting is the state is doing over twice as much testing, which means more people are testing positive, but a lot more people are testing negative, and deaths continue to go down significantly, even with the increased testing.