San Diego Democratic Party — Again — Accuses Sara Jacobs Of ‘Misleading’ Statements

Sara Jacobs, the granddaughter of Irwin Jacobs, the billionaire founder of Qualcomm, must be really bad if the Democrat Party denounces her for lying.  This is the Party of the Russian Collusion Delusion, the Ukrainian hoax—the corruption was on the part of th BIDEN family, not Trump—and the bigots/hatemongers of the Left.  Jacobs is a candidate for Congress—and is buying her seat.  She claims the support of “California Democrats”—though it is her opponent that has the officially endorsement of the Democrat Party.

The San Diego County Democratic Party is accusing candidate Sara Jacobs of again misleading voters in the 53rd Congressional District.

“She can do this — but it’s wrong to do it,” said Will Rodriguez Kennedy, chair of the San Diego Democratic Party. “And San Diegans need to know there is only one Democratic candidate who has been endorsed by the party and that is Georgette Gomez, the council president of the city of San Diego.”

Once again, Democrat is harming a person of color.  Is Jacobs a bigot or jus a snively rich, “entitled” person who thinks she should be able to a buy a Rools Royce or a congressional seat?  If the Democrats were serious they would censure her and Pelosi would announce Jacobs will not be allowed in the Democrat congressional caucus.  But, I bet Irwin Jacobs has given Pelosi and she Democrats lots of money.

San Diego Democratic Party — Again — Accuses Sara Jacobs Of ‘Misleading’ Statements

By Matt Hoffman, KPBS,  9/25/20 

Mail-in ballots are heading to voters soon and a local party is calling out one of its own, whom it didn’t endorse, ahead of early voting.

The San Diego County Democratic Party is accusing candidate Sara Jacobs of again misleading voters in the 53rd Congressional District.

“She can do this — but it’s wrong to do it,” said Will Rodriguez Kennedy, chair of the San Diego Democratic Party. “And San Diegans need to know there is only one Democratic candidate who has been endorsed by the party and that is Georgette Gomez, the council president of the city of San Diego.”

In February, Rodriguez Kennedy called out Jacobs for putting the phrase “endorsed by California Democrats” on campaign mailers. Now he said she is doubling down by having it in her ballot statement for the general election.

“We often refer to ourselves as either San Diego Dems, or San Diego Democrats or California Dems and California — so it’s specifically meant to mislead voters in this election and it’s sort of a pattern,” he said.

Jacobs and Gomez are both Democrats. Jacobs finished ahead of Gomez in the March primary, but has not been endorsed by the state party. A California Democratic Party official said endorsements are taken seriously and for a candidate to imply they have one is deceptive and frustrating.

“Sara Jacobs is going to be spending a lot more money and designing a lot more ads and signing off on a lot more messaging and we want to make sure we nip this in the bud,” said Daraka Larimore-Hall, vice chair of the state party.

Jacobs’ campaign said “endorsed by California Democrats” is taken out of the context of the full ballot statement, which goes on to list supporters.

A spokesperson says the language was approved by state election officials and the Gomez campaign never made a legal challenge when they could have. The spokesperson also points out the party’s complaint comes just days after a poll showed Jacobs with a double-digit lead over Gomez.

“Our campaign ballot statement was approved by the California Secretary of State, with no challenges from the local party or the Gómez campaign, both of which had ample time to do so through formal channels,” a spokesperson for Jacobs campaign said via email.

“It’s hardly surprising that just two days after an independent poll found Gómez trailing by double digits, their campaign has suddenly decided to create something out of nothing.”

UC San Diego Political Science Professor Thad Kousser said it is fair to ask why the party is challenging this now.

“I think it’s a fair point to say, ‘This has been in the public domain — this ballot description has been in the public domain,'” Kousser said. “I think the poll that I saw this week showed that this is a race that is very up for grabs.”

Kousser said research shows voters look for party endorsements, and they are something candidates vie for. He said this a preview of what is to come in November.

“The fights within a party are often as ferocious as others, especially when there is so much is at stake here and getting this seat could be a generation of political power for whoever wins this,” he said.

The 53rd congressional seat is currently held by Democratic Congresswoman Susan Davis, who is retiring after nearly 20 years. The district has nearly twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans.

State With No Electricity Orders Everyone To Drive Cars That Run On Electricity

The headline says it all.  Gavin Newsom is a Luddite.  He thinks that as Governor he can, by Executive Order create electricity.  This man is ignorant, a fool or corrupt.  I choose to think he is corrupt.  We do not have enough electricity now—how does he plan to get ti with more people in the State and 15 million cars plugged in every night to non existent electrical supplies.  Why non exists ant?  Because he and he Democrats refuse o upgrade the power grid and provide the energy, which could be available to the public.

While this article is supposed to be satire—it is real.  When will the people of California wake up?

State With No Electricity Orders Everyone To Drive Cars That Run On Electricity

Baybylon Bee,  9/24/20 

SACRAMENTO, CA—Gavin Newsom, governor of the state with the highest people-to-electricity ratio in the nation, banned gasoline cars yesterday via executive order. The order takes effect in 2035, meaning by that time, everyone in the state with no electricity will only be able to plug in their cars to the power grid that does not work.

“Everyone, plug in those cars!” Newsom said proudly in a room lit only by candlelight, since, you know, the whole electricity thing. “Other states run on backward, outdated fossil fuels. We are the state of the future, so we will run solely on electricity. Which, you know, we’re working on. We could have power by 2035. You never know.”

There was an awkward silence.

“SCIENCE!” Newsom said, regaining his momentum and drawing applause from the reporters gathered.

By the year 2035, the move is expected to completely eliminate all gasoline car carbon emissions, smog, and California residents.

These Parents Are Suing Los Angeles Unified Over Its Approach To Distance Learning

Why does it take a lawsuit by parents to expose the corruption and failure of LAUSD in educating 600,000 students?  Why does the State pay for something that is not delivered?  If a private firm charged you for a service, but did not deliver, the DA or Attorney General would shut you down, sue you and take over your business.  When will government close down the pretenders of LAUSD—and other districts failing to provide the constitutionally required public education?

“Since then, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 98, which set a minimum number of instructional minutes, ranging from three hours a day for kindergarteners, to four hours a day for fourth graders and older. It also called for “daily live interaction” with teachers and classmates.

So this school year, LAUSD teachers are required to provide at least an hour and a half of “synchronous” instruction – meaning they’re interacting live with students – each day. The rest of the “asynchronous” time is supposed to be spent doing independent work or watching pre-recorded lessons.

But Shaw said in her experience, the fall has been inconsistent, too. She said her son’s teacher sometimes experiences internet connectivity problems. At times, her son logs onto Zoom at 9 a.m. and is done by 10 a.m.

She said she’s resorted to printing out math, science, and vocabulary worksheets to keep her son engaged with learning, and she worries for his future – in seventh grade and beyond – if things continue as they are.

You read that right—one hour a day of “education”.  This is fraud and an abuse of the students and taxpayers.  I is a sad day when parents have to sue in order to get an education for their children.  Heads should roll for this, instead pockets are being lined.  Shame on us for allowing it.  Time for Education POD’s and home schooling.

These Parents Are Suing Los Angeles Unified Over Its Approach To Distance Learning

by Carla Javier, LA1st,   9/24/20 

Some parents of Los Angeles Unified students are filing a class action lawsuit against the state’s largest school district over how it handles distance learning, arguing the district’s online offerings fall short and violate their children’s right to an education.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Black and Latino parents, parents of students with special needs, and parents of students learning English.

Surveys of parents and the district’s own data have shown that students in these groups, in particular, have struggled with distance learning.

“It was a really hard time for the spring for [my son], in a place where he was so discouraged that he didn’t want to do anything school related,” said Keshara Shaw, a plaintiff and mother of a sixth grader in the district.

We are not using Shaw’s son’s name or naming the LAUSD school he attends to protect his privacy, as he is a minor.

When schools first closed to slow the spread of coronavirus in the spring, the district did not require its teachers to provide live instruction, per an agreement with the union representing LAUSD teachers.

Since then, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 98, which set a minimum number of instructional minutes, ranging from three hours a day for kindergarteners, to four hours a day for fourth graders and older. It also called for “daily live interaction” with teachers and classmates.

So this school year, LAUSD teachers are required to provide at least an hour and a half of “synchronous” instruction – meaning they’re interacting live with students – each day. The rest of the “asynchronous” time is supposed to be spent doing independent work or watching pre-recorded lessons.

But Shaw said in her experience, the fall has been inconsistent, too. She said her son’s teacher sometimes experiences internet connectivity problems. At times, her son logs onto Zoom at 9 a.m. and is done by 10 a.m.

She said she’s resorted to printing out math, science, and vocabulary worksheets to keep her son engaged with learning, and she worries for his future – in seventh grade and beyond – if things continue as they are.

“For him to already have struggled before, I feel like this will be a step into him really not wanting to further his education,” Shaw said. “And with that can come so many other problems.”

The lawyers and plaintiffs held a press conference this afternoon in downtown Los Angeles.

Vicenta Martinez told LAist she and her husband provided most of the instruction for her daughter, a second-grader. We’re not naming her daughter to protect her privacy as a minor.

“We’re not teachers,” Martinez said in Spanish. “We don’t really know the material that my daughter should be learning and we’re concerned that we won’t be able to help her.”

Martinez said before the pandemic her daughter was very motivated to do well in school, and had dreams of becoming an astronaut when she grows up. But Martinez says she’s noticed a change.

“Now during the pandemic, she’s become very unmotivated towards school and very discouraged,” Martinez said.

Martinez said she believes her daughter should have more time interacting with her teachers online, and that her school should have ways to support parents like her, who speak Spanish.

“All of the material that they send out is an English and I’ve called and asked my school questions, and they tell me that they don’t speak Spanish,” Martinez said.

The parents suing the district were brought together by two advocacy organizations – Innovate Public Schools and Parent Revolution.

Innovate Public Schools regional vice president Hannah Gravettte said they’re pursuing a lawsuit because “there’s really no other mechanism left” for changing the district’s Distance Learning Plan.

“Before, when you weren’t getting your needs met at school, you could march down to the school … and see what’s happening to your kid in their class … you could stand in the office and refuse to leave until you were heard or your problem was addressed,” explained Gravette.

“But there’s nothing that parents can do now” – with school campuses closed to students – “if a teacher or a principal chooses not to respond,” Gravette added.

In a statement, an LAUSD spokesperson said: “Many of the challenges society faces present themselves in schools including the impact of COVID-19. School districts like Los Angeles Unified have to balance the sometimes conflicting priorities of the learning needs of students and the health and safety of all in the school community.

“Since school closed in March, LA Unified has been working to bridge the digital divide ensuring all students have devices and access to the internet. It has also sought innovative ways to engage students online. Los Angeles Unified will continue to provide the best possible education to all students.”

San Fran to SUE Drug Sellers—NOT Arrest Them—Not a Joke

San Fran is becoming more of a dangerous place each day.  The George Soros bought District Attorney is no longer going to prosecute “small time” drug dealers (what is small to some is death to others”.  Instead he is going to sue them—as if they would show up in court, have assets that can be taken.  This the LEGALIZATION of drug dealers in San Fran.

“The city attorney for San Francisco filed civil lawsuits against 28 known drug dealers in the Tenderloin on Thursday.

City officials said over 441 people died in San Francisco of drug overdoses in 2019, reporting a 70% spike. The civil injunctions would keep the drug dealers from coming to the Tenderloin.

“The drug dealers do not live in the Tenderloin, but instead travel from around the Bay Area to sell deadly drugs there,” said a press release from the city. “The cases are designed to help stop the brazen open-air drug dealing that has plagued this historic neighborhood at the center of the City’s opioid crisis.”

Not mentioned is that the city has been giving drugs to the homeless, free needles and been supportive of druggies.  How many of the 441 drug deaths are because of government PROMOTION of drug use?  Any wonder decent people are fleeing San Fran?

SF cracks down on Tenderloin drug dealers; lawsuits filed

Buds are removed from a container at the “Oregon’s Finest” medical marijuana dispensary in Portland, Oregon April 8, 2014. Over 20 Oregon cities and counties are moving to temporarily ban medical marijuana dispensaries ahead of a May deadline, reflecting a divide between liberal Portland and more conservative rural areas wary about allowing medical weed. Portland, Oregon’s largest city, already has a number of medical marijuana clinics and has not moved to ban them. Picture taken April 8, 2014. REUTERS/Steve Dipaola (UNITED STATES – Tags: DRUGS SOCIETY POLITICS HEALTH) – RTR3KMHE

by: Fareeha Rehman, KRON,   9/24/20 

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. (KRON) — The city attorney for San Francisco filed civil lawsuits against 28 known drug dealers in the Tenderloin on Thursday.

City officials said over 441 people died in San Francisco of drug overdoses in 2019, reporting a 70% spike. The civil injunctions would keep the drug dealers from coming to the Tenderloin.

“The drug dealers do not live in the Tenderloin, but instead travel from around the Bay Area to sell deadly drugs there,” said a press release from the city. “The cases are designed to help stop the brazen open-air drug dealing that has plagued this historic neighborhood at the center of the City’s opioid crisis.”

City Attorney Dennis Herrera said Tenderloin has the highest number of children in the city, but also the highest number of overdose deaths.

The kids of the Tenderloin deserve to be able to live their lives going to school or seeing a friend without “getting caught in a drug deal gone bad,” or seeing someone overdose, Herrera said.

Mayor London Breed supported the lawsuits, saying “We need to stop the open-air drug dealing happening on the streets of the Tenderloin. It is unacceptable and it needs to end. Thank you City Attorney for this creative solution to keep dealers out of the TL and help us make the neighborhood safer for everyone.”

Proactive operations aimed at getting drug dealers off Tenderloin streets continue: Over the last 2 days multiple dealers arrested & booked including 4 fugitives wanted for dealing here. Arrest locations include: 350 Turk (x2), 300 GG, 400 Blk Turk (x2), and the 200 Blk of Hyde. pic.twitter.com/qTZRCqc7fn

— SFPD Tenderloin (@SFPDTenderloin) September 24, 2020

The police station in Tenderloin said over the last two days, they arrested four fugitives who were wanted for drug dealing in the area. They also booked multiple other drug dealers.

  •  

Do We Need Police To Curb LA’s Traffic Violence? Some Cities Are Saving Lives Without Them

Should we have police do traffic control?  Actually, in Los Angeles and most other cities they do not, except for special events and major incidents and accidents.  Yes, we have what we used to call “fuzz ladies” giving out tickets for over parking—even that has pretty much been disbanded  with fewer and fewer—and I do not believe that carry a gun.

“One key question: Why do armed police officers enforce traffic laws?

Being pulled over while driving is the most common way members of the public interact with police. And the traffic stop is fraught. Both law enforcement and communities of color point to traffic stops gone wrong.

For police, that risk comes from uncertainty about who is in the vehicle and what their intentions are. For people of color, the danger comes from knowing that the person walking up to their window is armed and trained to kill when feeling threatened.

Critics say minor traffic infractions are often a pretext used by police to disproportionately stop, question and search Black and Brown people — and an abundance of research and reporting supports that.

So, to Progressives we should not have cops stop people for going through stop signs and red lights.  Great idea—watch as accidents rise and deaths ensue.  Speeding near a school—no problem mow down those kids.  Either these folks have no brain or really do not care about safety and traffic rules.  Imagine—NO RED LIGHTS, NOT STOP SIGNS, SPEEDING IS ALLOWED.  This is part of the chaos theory of the Left—maybe it is Darwinism, survival of the fittest.  If this happens, I will sell my Prius and but the biggest HUMMER I can find. The Army taught me to drive a tank, M-60-A1.  Maybe I can buy a tank for safety.

Do We Need Police To Curb LA’s Traffic Violence? Some Cities Are Saving Lives Without Them

By Ryan Fonseca, LA1st,  9/24/20 

TO SEE COMPLETE ARTICLE CLICK ON HEADLINE

The movement to shift money from armed policing to care-based programs has gained significant momentum in recent months, including here in Los Angeles. Underscoring those efforts are big challenges to long-held assumptions about the jobs law enforcement should be doing.

One key question: Why do armed police officers enforce traffic laws?

Being pulled over while driving is the most common way members of the public interact with police. And the traffic stop is fraught. Both law enforcement and communities of color point to traffic stops gone wrong.

For police, that risk comes from uncertainty about who is in the vehicle and what their intentions are. For people of color, the danger comes from knowing that the person walking up to their window is armed and trained to kill when feeling threatened.

Critics say minor traffic infractions are often a pretext used by police to disproportionately stop, question and search Black and Brown people — and an abundance of research and reporting supports that.

At the same time, our roads remain deadly and many fatalities are tied to behavior officers are trained to handle, like speeding and reckless driving. In L.A. alone, almost 250 people are killed each year on city streets — about the same number of people killed in homicides in 2019.

The majority of those killed in collisions are pedestrians and cyclists.

Even before the protests this year intensified criticism of American policing, some safety advocates and traffic experts had been calling for a new approach. Instead of traffic stops by armed officers, they advocate for renewed investments in street improvements, education and alternative methods to hold drivers accountable.

There is mounting evidence that those strategies can make notable progress in reducing death and injury on the road — progress that has eluded L.A. in recent years.

WHERE WE ARE TODAY

In 2015, the city of Los Angeles launched Vision Zero, an ambitious program with a goal of eliminating traffic fatalities by 2025 — relying in part on increased police enforcement. Despite that, the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed by drivers has soared.

Safety experts, community advocates and city leaders have told me L.A.’s efforts so far are weak, sluggish and not working.

There’s a lot to unpack, but here are the key issues to consider:

Are the police effective?

A growing number of city officials and transportation experts view the impact of armed police enforcement of traffic laws as “mixed at best.” And given the history of racism in policing, particularly as it relates to traffic stops, many communities simply don’t equate police with safer streets and neighborhoods.

Are the streets safer?

No. Los Angeles streets have gotten more dangerous and deadly in recent years, especially for pedestrians. And data show that Angelenos in the city’s underserved communities, which include more people of color, are disproportionately killed in traffic crashes.

Do alternative methods work?

There is increasing evidence that they do. By rethinking traffic safety, some U.S. cities have made notable progress in saving lives on their streets. Much of this has been achieved through lowering speed limits, meaningful investments in “self-enforcing” street design and automated enforcement — efforts that don’t require police officers.

That said, some of those measures are harder to enact in L.A. (more on that in a bit.)

What’s the current thinking in L.A.?

This summer, a group of L.A. City Council members filed a motion calling on the city’s Department of Transportation and legislative officials to work with community members and report back on alternative methods of traffic enforcement, collision investigations and other traffic safety duties currently handled by the Los Angeles Police Department.

Some potential changes that will be explored: replacing LAPD officers with a “transit ambassador program” staffed by unarmed LADOT personnel and/or automated technology to monitor and cite drivers for speeding, illegal turns and other moving violations.

“Such a move would virtually eliminate the LAPD’s role in traffic stops, one of the leading forms of interaction between police and the public,” states the motion, which was filed by L.A. City Councilmembers Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Mike Bonin, Curren Price and Herb Wesson.

A ‘RECKONING’ ON POLICE ROLES

Councilman Harris-Dawson told me recently he believes that the “moral moment” happening over policing isn’t just on law enforcement agencies. He says police have long faced a “raw deal” in the communities they take an oath to serve, handling a range of issues without enough training.

“Basically everything that society didn’t want to deal with or didn’t want to invest in — every problem that was created as a result of social policy — ends up with police officers,” Harris-Dawson said.

And he sees this as leading directly to the “reckoning” happening now.

“You have armed officers directing traffic, you have them taking reports after accidents, you have them settling arguments between kids after school,” he said. “Invariably, when you’re not trained to do something, things go wrong and then [police] bear the brunt of it as if it’s all their fault. In fact, many of these circumstances they ended up in because we sent them there.”

In the communities Harris-Dawson serves — the South L.A. neighborhoods in Council District 8 — he said residents don’t view interactions with police as safe.

“The horror and trauma that people go through over ‘routine’ — and I say that in air quotes — traffic stops, is just unspeakable, especially for people in my district,” he said.

Harris-Dawson told me some of L.A.’s communities of color have been hesitant to embrace Vision Zero; they don’t see its increase in police enforcement as a benign attempt to reduce traffic deaths, but as “a ruse to put more police on the street.”

“People do not associate more infractions, more traffic enforcement with increased safety, and for good reason — because all too often that’s not the point, or at least it’s mixed at best,” he said.

Brian Bowens lives in Leimert Park and, like many Black Angelenos, he is painfully familiar with racial profiling by police in traffic stops. It’s something he’s dealt with since his youth. He estimates he’s been stopped by police while driving or riding in a car about 175 times in his life, and was cited for traffic violations about 10% of the time.

He believes many police officers cannot recognize how “systemic compartmentalization” is affecting them and their perception of what traffic safety means.

“[Police] are taught to be violent, but that violence is not manifested from true malevolence,” Bowens said. “It’s manifested from them really thinking: ‘Oh, we’re improving traffic. We’re doing a good job. Of course I gotta get Black drivers off the street … of course, I gotta be harder and harsher.'”

In the aftermath of the 1992 unrest in L.A. sparked by the Rodney King verdict, Bowens, then a college student, was featured in a 20/20 segment about driving while Black. Decades later, he says, nothing has changed. It’s one reason he decided to forgo a car, and instead take public transit.

“I don’t like driving in L.A. for the fact that I know I have a higher incidence of being involved with the police,” Bowens told me. For him, the long history of systemic racism is ample reason to limit police roles in public safety.

Bowens recalled one encounter when he was a college student in the early ’90s. He was home in L.A. for a visit and spending the evening with a childhood friend. He was behind the wheel when a police officer stopped them at a sobriety checkpoint.

“First thing he does is shine the light in my face, looks at her, says, ‘Ma’am, is there anything wrong? Is there anything going on?'” Bowens said. “The whole thing just becomes very real very quick.”

His friend, who is biracial, started to panic. Bowens told her to calm down and not say anything. He said the officer then quickly ordered him out of the car, checked his ID and gave him a breathalyzer test. Bowens said he was allowed back to his car 15 minutes later, where his friend sat, visibly shaken by the experience.

“She’s bawling, she’s absolutely just irate,” Bowens said. “[I said] ‘you can’t give them any more excuses to come back to this car. I’m not even gonna pull off until you get your shit together.'”

Their friendship ended because of that night. “She literally could not deal with it,” he said.

Bowens said he believes the “humiliation” police officers put him through was intentional “because I was in a car with someone that they perceived as a white girl.”

RACISM AND TRAFFIC STOPS

Bowens’ experiences mirror that of many Black drivers, going back to the early days of the automobile.

In the name of curbing unsafe driving, people of color have faced discrimination from authorities and had their movement in states and cities “cast as a criminal act … just by the virtue of their race,” said Genevieve Carpio, assistant professor in the César E. Chávez Department of Chicana/o Studies at UCLA and author of Collisions at the Crossroads: How Place and Mobility Make Race.

One example: the Mann Act, passed by Congress in 1910. The law was designed to stop human trafficking across state lines, but was used to criminalize interracial relationships, targeting Black men driving with white women.

“It not only led to more encounters with police, which could be deadly,” Carpio explained, “but it also disciplined and attempted to control interracial relationships between Black men and white women.”

The law was perhaps most famously used against boxer Jack Johnson, the first Black man to become world heavyweight champion. In 1912, Johnson was arrested, charged and convicted for driving a white woman, who later became his wife, across state lines for “immoral purposes.” More than a century later, Johnson received a posthumous presidential pardon.

Los Angeles in the 1930s provides another example. Carpio explained that’s when police began to target Latino youth for joyriding at the same time anti-Mexican sentiment was on the rise.

“Joyriding ordinances were broadly applied to Latino boys specifically, especially when they were driving outside of what were seen as Latino neighborhoods,” she said.

During this crackdown, Latino boys were arrested for joyriding at a rate double that of other boys in the city, Carpio said. The charge became the top reason for arrests of Latino boys in L.A. during that time.

“It’s not an infraction in driving, but it’s rather that police have deemed the person behind the wheel to be suspicious,” she said. “It’s one of those laws that’s deeply prone to racial profiling.”

As more communities openly question the entrenched links between policing and public safety, Carpio said it’s also imperative to rethink enforcement itself — even if that shifts from armed police officers to unarmed personnel, or automated cameras.

“Part of what we need to do is move from seeing things like expired tags or broken tail lights from criminal issues to economic issues,” she said. “We need to move from enforcement — which is a word similar to punishment and which doesn’t do much to prevent traffic accidents — to actions that would truly increase our well-being.”

TO SEE COMPLETE ARRICLE CLICK ON HEADLINE

Did California just admit its drive to decarbonize has a problem?

Here is the problem created by Guv Newsom.  He wants to end the sale of gas powered cars in 15 years, to be replaced with electric cars for 40 million California.  Currently, we do not have enough energy to keep the lights on—outages all over the place.  We do not have enough electricity for our current usage.  Newsom wants to add possibly 15 million cars to the mix.  If we do not have enough energy now, how do we get the energy to charge 15 million cars?  At the same time he is not upgrading and adding to our electric grid.  Disaster is in the making.

“The problem, they tell us, is that it just got too hot. We concede the point. According to Stein, in the past, “California utilities and grid operators were able to purchase extra electricity from the Southwest and Northwest. But when the heat wave stretches from Texas to Oregon, there is little available to make up for California’s power shortage.”

Stein’s point is that the man-made global warming argument breaks down when we look at the whole picture. If the entire planet is overheating due to man’s carbon dioxide emissions – which we feel is a questionable proposition – or simply warms naturally, then California won’t be able to keep up with electricity demand by buying from other states. Other states will not have a surplus to sell California or anyone else.”

Other States will not be able to bail out the failed energy policy of Newsom and the Democrats.  Real business people will see this oncoming disaster and take action.  They have 15 years in which to relocate to another State.  This will be another cause for productive people to leave the State—for survival.

Did California just admit its drive to decarbonize has a problem?

Kerry Jackson, Pacific Research Institute,  9/24/20 

California was rushing toward what it thought was a fossil-fuel-free future when reality came rolling in like a solar eclipse, forcing officials to alter their plans a bit. On Sept. 1, the State Water Resources Control Board voted 4-0 to keep four natural gas power plants open beyond their planned closing dates. Coastal plants in Huntington Beach, Alamitos, Ormond Beach, will remain open until December 31, 2023, while the Redondo Beach facility will continue to generate electricity until the end of next year, unless the city is able to convince the courts to shut it down earlier.

Without these plants, the state’s renewable sources won’t be able to meet the demand. Their production is needed, according to the board, “to provide more energy grid stability and reliability, as additional energy and storage resources are built over the next three years.”

But either due to an oversight, or by design, the life of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, which energy consultant Ronald Stein reminds is a zero-emissions site supplying “zero-emission electricity to 3 million households,” was not extended.

Reuters reports the vote was “unrelated to last month’s outages, which the state’s grid operator has blamed on a gas plant’s dropping offline, low wind power and a lack of imported electricity from other states,” and instead “follows an analysis last year that identified a potential electricity capacity shortfall beginning in the summer of 2021.”

But it’s unrealistic the August blackouts had no influence over the board’s decision. Even as “energy regulators are still investigating the causes of the power shortage,” says the Los Angeles Times, the board acknowledged that “allowing the coastal gas plants to stay open a few more years would help prevent more outages as California continues its transition to cleaner energy sources.” The reality of the “potential” blackouts of summer 2021 arriving a year early was not likely ignored by the board members.

Rather than admit the blackouts were caused by a shortage due to renewables’ inability to keep up with the demand, we’ve seen – no surprise – the media, activists, and academics blame man-made climate-change.

The problem, they tell us, is that it just got too hot. We concede the point. According to Stein, in the past, “California utilities and grid operators were able to purchase extra electricity from the Southwest and Northwest. But when the heat wave stretches from Texas to Oregon, there is little available to make up for California’s power shortage.”

Stein’s point is that the man-made global warming argument breaks down when we look at the whole picture. If the entire planet is overheating due to man’s carbon dioxide emissions – which we feel is a questionable proposition – or simply warms naturally, then California won’t be able to keep up with electricity demand by buying from other states. Other states will not have a surplus to sell California or anyone else.

Yet the green solution is to keep building renewables and closing conventional plants that have served customers well for decades. But that’s hardly a practical response.

Even if renewables’ production miraculously doubled or tripled, or even quadrupled, overnight, we would still have blackouts during times of high demand when there’s no sun to feed solar panels, and the air is calm on wind farms, which can happen at any time. Until the problem of storing electricity produced by renewables is solved, shortages will cripple the state as policymakers continue to rely more on solar and wind while scaling back on fossil fuels and hydropower, and killing off the last nuclear plant in the state.

Technology will eventually produce affordable batteries able to store enough energy to keep the power on even when it’s dark, cloudy, and the wind isn’t blowing. That day, despite all the rosy media coverage about “breakthroughs” and “cheap batteries,” is still decades into the future. While the optimism is “seductive,” says Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark P. Mills, the “transformation in how energy is produced or stored” that activists and politicians are demanding “isn’t just unlikely; it can’t happen with the physics we know today.”

So we’re just going to have endure blackouts, as well as politicians bullying Californians into shutting off their appliances and turning up their thermostats, since, according to Stein, the state has “no plans to replace the capacity of the recent three natural gas power plants that were shuttered in 2018 and the upcoming five power plant closures.” Maybe there won’t be any lights on for the last person leaving California to turn off.

Waiting lists for home-school programs as parents grow weary of distance learning

Parents are fed up.  They now understand government schools will not educate their children.  It is understood school districts are going through the motions, to check boxes, not educate.  We have seen numerous districts report significant lowering of enrollment numbers.  Now we are seeing an explosion in homeschooling.  “San Juan Unified in Sacramento had 38 students in its home-school program in March, when the state closed school campuses because of the spread of Covid-19. Now, it has more than 700.”

That is just one school district, how about the others?  Why is there a waiting list to allow students to get an education—it is a constitutional right?  The reason is simple.  The teachers union is doing everything it can to keep kids hostage in failed government schools.   Who needs a union if kids are in charter schools or home schooled?

The COVID-19 virus has exposed the corruption and failure of government schools—and parents are voting with their feet, fleeing bad education for real education.  Are you joining them?

Waiting lists for home-school programs as parents grow weary of distance learning

Diana Lambert, EdSource,  9/25/20    

.

San Juan Unified in Sacramento had 38 students in its home-school program in March, when the state closed school campuses because of the spread of Covid-19. Now, it has more than 700.

The home-schooling program, which offers an alternative to the distance learning instruction currently prescribed by the school district, was started five years ago after some parents expressed an interest in teaching their children from home. It serves students in Transitional Kindergarten through eighth grade.

The district was fortunate to have the program in place when the pandemic hit, said Trent Allen, San Juan Unified director of community relations. The program is a rarity in traditional school districts in California. While students learn at home, and parents direct instruction, the district offers curriculum and teaching guidance.

“One of the lessons learned during Corona is that every situation is going to be very unique for our families, and being able to provide options is key,” Allen said. “There is a way to meet the individual needs of families.”

The district receives the same basic funding for homeschool children that it gets for other district children.

Some charter schools are dedicated to exclusively offering home-school programs. Programs like these and others have seen a surge of interest since campuses closed in the spring.

Some working parents want schools that offer them more flexibility than what is often offered through distance learning at traditional schools, so that their children don’t have to be online at prescribed times. Other parents want to ensure their children don’t have to switch back and forth between in-person and virtual learning as virus rates in their communities rise and fall.

As of Sept. 22, 3.6 million California children were enrolled in 555 school districts that were ineligible to reopen school campuses because of high Covid-19 infection rates in their counties. These children and many more, who are in schools that have not reopened even though they are eligible, are in distance learning.

Home-school operators, in most cases charter schools, interviewed by EdSource overwhelmingly said parents are coming to them looking for flexibility and control over everything from their children’s schedules to the amount of time they spend in front of a computer.

In a home-schooling program, parents take on the primary role of teacher, determining the schedule, planning lessons and delivering instruction. Parents can also determine how much, if any, of the instruction is completed online. The school offers a curriculum and an advisory teacher for support.

In California, a parent can file a private affidavit to start their own private school to home-school their children. They can also choose a home study program through a regular or charter public school, or they can enroll in a private school that offers home-schooling options. The most popular option is enrolling in a charter school program, which offers a variety of supports, including curriculum and advising teachers.

Most home-school programs cover the cost of supplies, classes or extracurricular activities up to a specified amount. The amount varies greatly and depends on which school the child attends. Some charter schools will cover costs up to as much as $3,200 a year per student, but others pay less than $2,000.

Parents are struggling to juggle their jobs and help their children, especially younger ones, with their schoolwork, said Sandra Butorac, manager of the home-school program at San Juan Unified. They want to be able to do schoolwork on weekends, in the evenings or whenever they want, she said.

Other parents want control over when their child returns to in-person instruction.

“All it would take would be one or two kids to perhaps shut down a classroom or a wing or an entire school,” Butorac said. “And it’s that flipping and flopping back and forth that they’re worried about. They are more concerned about that disruption to their child’s year.” 

Some appeal of the San Juan program may be that the district has promised that students can return to their former schools whenever they wish. To ensure a seamless transition, the curriculum used by the home-school is closely aligned with that of the district’s traditional schools, Butorac said.

Safety is one of the concerns that drove Lauren White to pull her children out of Mill Valley School District, just north of San Francisco, in the spring and move to the town of Auburn, in the foothills of Placer County. 

“Our school couldn’t even control the lice problem in the school, and you are telling me they are going to control the Covid problem,” White said. “I don’t think so. You can’t social distance kids in a classroom situation.”

Three of White’s five children, ages 7, 6 and 5, are attending Alta Vista Community Charter School in Auburn, which recently started a home-school program. She also has 2-year-old twins.

“We are so lucky we got in,” White said. She did not want to risk enrolling her children in a school that might later open for in-person instruction before she believed it was safe. 

White also was disappointed by the distance learning experience she and her children had in the Mill Valley School District in the spring. White had been overwhelmed by the number of emails teachers sent her with guidance and assignments on distance learning for her children. She said she received about 25 emails every day, each with multiple links.

“I wouldn’t be able to get through that,” she said. “It is insane.”

White also had to be prepared to help her children log onto video conference calls with little notice. “You have to jump on calls whenever they (teachers) want you to,” White said. “I have five kids, I can’t do that.”

She said a charter home-school program offers her family the curriculum and support without the stress of following a strict schedule and worrying about whether schools will reopen safely.

Margaret Fortune, president of the California Charter Schools Association, said she has seen an increase in the number of parents moving their children to charter schools that have experience with remote instruction. Many of those are home-school programs.

Clarksville, Feather River, Winship Community and Lakeview charter schools collectively have 4,000 students on their waiting lists. The home-school charter schools didn’t have waiting lists before the pandemic. 

Together, the four schools, which don’t have physical campuses, have about 2,800 students who live in a widespread area — from Sacramento County to the south to Tehama County to the north, and from Mendocino County to the west to Alpine County to the east.

Recruiting students in previous years had been a challenge, said Jenell Sherman, executive director of Clarksville and Feather River charter schools. Not this year. 

“Right now, it’s crazy,” she said. “Everyone wants to come because I think they feel like ‘I’m going to be home-schooling anyway. I’d rather be with people that have experienced it or offer funding for online classes and activities and things like that.’”

Even though charter schools are tuition-free, tax-funded public schools, a few parents over the last few months have offered to pay to get their children in one of the schools, Sherman said. 

The schools are giving priority to siblings of students already enrolled, but can’t accommodate all of them, said Julie Haycock, executive director of Winship Community School and Lake View Charter School.

Many charter schools have had to turn new students away due to a new state law that funds school districts this year based on last year’s attendance. It was revised Sept. 1 to provide additional funds for new students enrolling in schools that are classroom-based, but not for those without physical campuses.

The law provides districts with stable funding, even if there are attendance fluctuations, as schools move in and out of distance learning. It is meant to help districts like Calaveras Unified School District, which lost 120 of its 2,600 students this school year. 

The parents of some of those students enrolled them in home-school programs or in established online school programs this school year. Others enrolled in neighboring school districts that had reopened, although most of those have since shut down, said Mark Campbell, superintendent of Calaveras Unified. 

The district serves several small foothill communities, a little more than an hour southeast of Sacramento.

CORE Butte Charter School had already signed up more students than they had budgeted for when they learned state lawmakers had frozen funding. The school now has 930 students, 70 more than last year, said Superintendent Mary Cox. But its funding is the same as it was last year.

The charter school has had 900 inquiries from parents interested in having their children attend the Chico-based school. The school’s K-8 home-school program, which has never had a wait list, now has 440 children waiting to enroll. The high school, which has a home-school program and a site-based program, has 120 students waiting.

The parents say they want more control over how their children are educated, including the time they spend on a computer, Cox said.

“A big fear for parents is to have kids in front of screens most of the day,” Cox said. 

Other families live in places with insufficient internet access to support distance learning. Parents are begging school officials to enroll their children, Cox said. 

“It’s sad,” she said. “We can’t even recommend they go elsewhere. All the schools like mine are packed.”

Ring: How to Realign California Politics

Ed Ring makes the case that the way to change the political climate in California is to educate the public about fraud, hoaxes and scams of government, special interests and unions.  He is right, the public needs to be educated about the issue.  Yet, that is the problem.  Real people do not have the time or interest in learning about the issues.  I keep hearing, “I do not need to know about that that is why we elect people to know the answers.”

Dismantling the Density Delusion

If there is any area where years of indoctrination have turned ideologically driven opinions into supposed facts beyond dispute, it is in the area of environmentalism. And one of the most fundamental premises of environmentalism, often overlooked, is the delusion that higher density urban areas is necessary to protect the planet. The moral imperative is to save the earth, with “climate change” as the most urgent threat. But no matter what your opinion is about climate change, cramming California’s population into the footprint of existing cities will not have any impact whatsoever on the climate. All it will do is guarantee that housing is unaffordable forever.

If school vouchers is the revolutionary concept that will rescue K-12 education in California, more suburbs on open land is the revolutionary concept that will restore home affordability in California. Almost every premise of the “anti-sprawl” lobby is ridiculous and must be challenged. Single family homes of one or two stories are far less expensive per square foot than multi-story buildings. Building utility infrastructure for new suburbs is less expensive than tearing up streets and easements to retrofit utility conduits to accommodate higher density in cities.”

Seriously, he is right.  Sadly try explaining density to families trying to survive.  While Ring is right about the solution, the real question is how do we educate the public?  One way is to make it personal—a real campaign not saying education is a failure, bur a campaign saying government education has failed YOUR child.  Another campaign to show what density looks like by promoting Manhattan and it dirt and crime, cramped living spaces and high taxes as what the Sacramento Democrats want for YOU.  Personalize the issue and we change attitudes.

How to Realign California Politics

Failed policies are pushed by special interests that benefit from misery

By Edward Ring, California Globe,  9/25/20 

The working class, which still constitutes a supermajority of California’s voters, is being destroyed by the policies enacted by the Democratic Party. This is why political realignment in California can happen fast.

In three fundamental areas, public education, land use, and energy infrastructure, California’s current policies are destroying lives, livelihoods, and land. And in all three of these areas, the solutions that will work challenge core premises that California’s Democrats have relied on to claim the moral high ground. But these premises must be defied, because Democrats do not hold the moral high ground. They are ruining everything, from our cities to our forests. How can that be moral?

Dismantling the Public School Monopoly

The obvious example, where a realignment tipping point has already almost been reached, is the moral imperative to nurture the next generation. Everyone agrees: Teach the children well, that they might all have a chance at a bright future. But California’s public schools are failing their students, and the problem is the worst in low income neighborhoods where the importance of a good public education is the greatest.

The solution is equally obvious: Public schools need to experience competition. Parents need to be able to choose from an assortment of accredited K-12 schools; public, public charter, virtual, parochial, private, homeschool, and micro-schools.

To implement school choice, education advocates need to stop trying to push whatever baby step their consultants and donors claim is politically possible, and do what is right. They need to demand school vouchers that parents can redeem at whatever school they wish. Voters have had enough. They’re ready to vote for vouchers.

The biggest barrier to vouchers are the teachers’ unions, whose state and local chapters combined collect nearly a half-billion in dues each year. These unions use hefty portions of that money to buy politicians and lobbyists, impacting legislation that protects their monopolies.

But they are not doing this “for the children.” The do not hold the moral high ground. They oppose school choice because as a monopoly they can perpetually acquire more members, more dues, and more power. And the parallel moral dimension, at least for the leadership of these teachers’ unions, is they can use their control over the public schools to indoctrinate California’s children.

Dismantling the Density Delusion

If there is any area where years of indoctrination have turned ideologically driven opinions into supposed facts beyond dispute, it is in the area of environmentalism. And one of the most fundamental premises of environmentalism, often overlooked, is the delusion that higher density urban areas is necessary to protect the planet. The moral imperative is to save the earth, with “climate change” as the most urgent threat. But no matter what your opinion is about climate change, cramming California’s population into the footprint of existing cities will not have any impact whatsoever on the climate. All it will do is guarantee that housing is unaffordable forever.

If school vouchers is the revolutionary concept that will rescue K-12 education in California, more suburbs on open land is the revolutionary concept that will restore home affordability in California. Almost every premise of the “anti-sprawl” lobby is ridiculous and must be challenged. Single family homes of one or two stories are far less expensive per square foot than multi-story buildings. Building utility infrastructure for new suburbs is less expensive than tearing up streets and easements to retrofit utility conduits to accommodate higher density in cities.

The claim that expanding suburbs contributes to climate change is also ridiculous. Jobs will follow workers to new suburbs. People telecommute. Cars are becoming greener every year.

The idea that land is scarce is equally ridiculous. Using data drawn from 2017 USDA data, only 5.1 percent of California’s whopping 164,000 square mile area is given over to residential, commercial, and industrial use. California’s total urbanized land, 8,280 square miles, is insignificant compared to its 42,498 square miles of grassland, with about half of that used for cattle ranching and dryland farming. To develop a mere 20 percent of this grassland would allow California’s urban footprint to double.

The array of legislation and executive orders designed to prevent new suburban development in California is overwhelming. These laws and executive orders must be overturned, possibly through a constitutional amendment put before voters in the form of a ballot initiative. There is no environmentally compelling reason to block development of new towns and suburbs along California’s major freeways, 101, I-5, and 99, especially if these developments are on rangeland which is of marginal agricultural value and of which only a fraction would be developed anyway.

Expressed as a percentage of California’s vast area, the amount of land necessary to unlock suburban development again on open space is trivial. If ten million Californians moved into homes on spacious quarter-acre lots, four per household, with an equal amount of space developed for new roads and commercial development, it would only consume 1,953 square miles – this would be a 24 percent expansion of California’s urban footprint, i.e., from 5.1 percent to 6.2 percent of all land in the state.

To deny this opportunity to make home ownership affordable to California’s hard working low and middle income residents is based on misanthropic, cruel lies. Allowing suburban development on open land is a moral choice. Until it is again permitted, housing in California will never be affordable.

Dismantling the Renewable Energy Delusion

California’s ruling elite has decided that its citizens will bear the brunt of being the bleeding edge of a global transition to “renewable” energy. But by forcing this advance via government decree, they risk impoverishing a generation merely to leave a legacy of obsolete technologies.

A perfect example is Governor Newsom’s recent decree that new gasoline powered cars cannot be sold in the state after 2035, a mere 14 years from today. What if technologies are found to make gasoline powered cars even cleaner? Or what about natural gas powered cars? What about cars like the Chevy Volt, an extraordinary engineering accomplishment that allows all-electric driving for short commutes, but also delivers 50 MPG in city or freeway driving when in gasoline mode? The Volt died an unwarranted death because California’s green despots did not consider it sufficiently green.

And if California’s energy future is to be exclusively electric, why isn’t nuclear power an option? Why is Diablo Canyon, which could run for several more decades, being decommissioned? Why is California suing the federal government to stop them from increasing the height of Shasta Dam, which would increase hydroelectric capacity?

The selective use of facts to promote “renewables” in California is epic. What sort of analysis has been done as to how much of California’s solar panels, wind turbines and batteries have to be imported? What about lithium and cobalt, imported from nations where the environmental abuse and labor conditions are hideously worse than anything in the U.S.? Why aren’t mining concerns allowed to exploit the abundant lithium deposits in California’s Mojave Desert?

Then there is the question of what happens to all these “renewable” installations when they degrade and have to be replaced. How long will these solar panels and batteries last, and how will they be reprocessed? Even if California achieves a 100 percent renewable electric energy infrastructure, how can it ever be scaled to be applied worldwide, given the raw materials required and the fact that today solar and wind only supply 3.8 percent of global energy? What about new technologies that may come along and render this massive sacrifice obsolete?

Californians deserve reliable and cheap energy. This means nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and clean natural gas. Doing this makes life affordable for working families, and also makes it easier for manufacturers to come back to California, bringing with them well paying jobs.

Destroy the Premises of Misery that Masquerade as Morality

Much more can be said about policies in California that harm people and the environment, but these three are foundational. If you fix the schools you reduce crime and enable upward mobility. If you deregulate so you can build new suburbs on open land you make housing affordable, reduce the overall cost-of-living, and reduce homelessness. If you back off these extreme renewable energy mandates you reduce the cost-of-living and stimulate economic growth.

The premises that must be challenged and destroyed, because they are utterly false, are the following:

(1) More money to feed the teachers union monopoly does not help children learn.

(2) Packing people within the footprint of existing cities does not help people or the environment.

(3) “Renewable” energy is not cheap or reliable, and it is not helping the environment.

The policies that must be promoted without reservations or apology, because they are moral choices that will make California livable again, are the following:

(1) School vouchers must be implemented, so parents can choose whatever school they want for their children.

(2) The regulatory barriers to suburban land development must be all but scrapped, so housing that people want will be affordable.

(3) Hydroelectric, natural gas, and nuclear power must be expanded in California, and renewables mandates must be reduced, so energy will be affordable and reliable.

California’s voters need to understand that these failed policies are pushed by special interests that benefit from misery. The teachers union has a monopoly on education, and the worse things get, the more money they demand. The major corporations, the investment banks, and the pension funds are all in a position to benefit from artificial scarcity of land, because it pumps up the value of their real estate portfolios. The tech giants and the public utilities love renewable energy, because it drives a much larger percentage of consumer spending into paying for overpriced electricity, along with creating a mandatory market for the “internet of things” to manage energy consumption.

Politicians that advocate for school vouchers, suburban expansion, and conventional energy will be viciously attacked by self-righteous zealots, backed up by self-serving billionaires. But the politicians with the courage to stick to this revolutionary agenda will win, because it serves the people instead of the bureaucracy and the billionaires.

Union—With Help of Newsom—Kills Thousands of Jobs in Anaheim

Between the unions and Newsom, California has 27% of the nations unemployed, though we are 12% of the population.  Gavin has given us AB 5 to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and a lockdown that has put the State in a Depression.  The teachers unions refuses to return to the classroom, destroy our children’s future.  You have Unite Local 11 in Orange County that is keeping Disneyland closed—as well as restaurants and hotels—with the help of Newsom.  Literally the dues of the members are being used to KEEP them unemployed.

“You’d think the union would support getting its rank and file back to work, especially since Local 11 still expects laid off members to pay dues. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

In June, it looked like hotel employees might finally get their jobs back. Instead of cheering this progress, the union called for hotels throughout Los Angeles County to pause any reopening efforts. Local 11’s main concern was that the County’s Board of Supervisors didn’t “consult or solicit input” from the union. Now, Local 11 co-president Ada Briceño continues to kick the reopening can down the road, saying the governor should only “reopen theme parks when it’s safe.”

Just as the unions killed the America automakers and steel industry, till Trump changed that, now the entertainment/hospitality and restaurants are being killed by unions.  Thank the unions and Newsom for unemployment in California being at Depression levels.

Union Watchdog: Local 11 Still Grumpy About the Happiest Place On Earth

Eues on Local 11,  9/25/20 

The City of Anaheim is asking California to issue reopening safety protocols for theme parks, “citing that the city is facing unprecedented financial woes due to the closure of Disneyland and Disney California Adventure.” The city currently has a $100 million deficit, and a 15 percent unemployment rate.

Unite Here Local 11’s members aren’t faring much better. Turns out, it’s a small world after all when it comes to the impact of coronavirus. The union admitted over 90 percent of its members had been laid off due to COVID-19 — including Disney theme park workers. A drop in theme park tourism has also led to a drop in hotel usage — another industry that’s heavily organized by Local 11. Of the 142 hotels in the city, only half are even open right now.

You’d think the union would support getting its rank and file back to work, especially since Local 11 still expects laid off members to pay dues. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

In June, it looked like hotel employees might finally get their jobs back. Instead of cheering this progress, the union called for hotels throughout Los Angeles County to pause any reopening efforts. Local 11’s main concern was that the County’s Board of Supervisors didn’t “consult or solicit input” from the union. Now, Local 11 co-president Ada Briceño continues to kick the reopening can down the road, saying the governor should only “reopen theme parks when it’s safe.”

But plenty of other theme parks across the country have been able to reopen safely. According to the latest report, “No Covid-19 outbreaks have been reported at Disney, Universal, SeaWorld, Busch Gardens, Six Flags, Legoland, and Cedar Fair parks in Florida, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio New Jersey, Virginia and Michigan according to state health agencies and theme park officials.” Apparently, hundreds if not thousands of workers across the country were allowed to return to their jobs safely — just not in Los Angeles.

For Disney park employees eager to get back to work, they might have better luck wishing upon a star than relying on union leaders.

Newsom the Publicity PIMP Wants to Ban Gas Powered Cars–Maybe

Gavin Newsom knows how to make headlines.  In 2018 he announced he would build 3.5 million homes.  In fact, under his leadership the number of homes being built is less than before he became governor.  When running for Guv he went against the Democrats and said he would end the train to nowhere.  Once in office he supported the train and put money meant for education, public safety and welfare into the train, to pay off the unions and special interests that financed his campaign.

“The governor’s declaration that by 2035 new car buyers in California must buy only “zero emission vehicles” (ZEVs) seems to be in the mold of his housing promise. In fact, his executive order does not command that it happen, but rather says “it shall be a goal of the state that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035” and directs the Air Resources Board to figure out how to do it “consistently with technological feasibility and cost-effectiveness.”

Read carefully, it makes great headlines, but changes nothing—expect puts fears into the hearts of gas station owners and workers, oil industry owners, stockholders and workers.  It will cost billions for government to set up the needed electric charging stations—making government the supplier of energy for government.  That is called socialism.

Is Newsom serious about banning gas-powered cars?

 Dan Walters, CalMatters,  9/25/20 

In summary

Is Gov. Gavin Newsom serious about banning sales of internal combustion-powered vehicles, or is this just another impractical goal?”

Gov. Gavin Newsom flatly declared Wednesday that “In the next 15 years we will eliminate in the state of California the sales of internal combustion engines.”

It was the latest example of Newsom’s fondness for headline-grabbing pronouncements of “big hairy, audacious goals.”

The classic example was his flat campaign declaration that he would solve California’s chronic housing shortage by building 3.5 million new homes.

That was impossible, as anyone familiar with housing issues could attest, and after his election, Newsom backed off, calling it an “aspirational” goal. Actually, housing production has declined during his governorship.

The governor’s declaration that by 2035 new car buyers in California must buy only “zero emission vehicles” (ZEVs) seems to be in the mold of his housing promise. In fact, his executive order does not command that it happen, but rather says “it shall be a goal of the state that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035” and directs the Air Resources Board to figure out how to do it “consistently with technological feasibility and cost-effectiveness.”