Why Stockton Unified wants to spend $1.1M to send teachers to a Las Vegas conference (for social emotional learning)

The $1.1 Million scam of the Stockton School district.  Instead of training teachers how to better educate students about math, science, computers, history and the arts, they are going to spend it on sensitivity training and probably racism and sexual grooming.

Literally, you have to go to the very bottom of this lengthy article to find out what 500 teachers and staff people are going to learn:

“COVID has really changed things, and so has the PLC process,” Biedermann said. “If you look at the training offerings they have, a lot of it is for social-emotional learning … redefining education in the classrooms. We can’t just assume our teachers are going to do that by themselves.” 

Will they be taught how to use secret pronouns in class and keep it from the parents?  Is that what they mean when it is said they will learn social emotional learning and redefine education in the classrooms?  You bet this is about secrets from parents, NO education and learning how to emotional abuse and harm children.  That is where $1.2 million is going.  Now let them make public the curriculum to prove I am wrong.

Is your school district spending tax dollars on emotional abuse?

Why Stockton Unified wants to spend $1.1M to send teachers to a Las Vegas conference

Ben Irwin,, The Record, 2/1/23  

Stockton Unified School District plans to break the “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” cliché to send hundreds of educators to a conference in Las Vegas this summer.  

The Professional Learning Communities conference from Solution Tree came up at Stockton Unified’s Jan. 24 Board of Trustees meeting. The board unanimously approved $1.1 million in Title I funds — a federally funded program for improving academic achievement that, in part, pays for professional development — to send over 500 district teachers, principals and staff to bring back knowledge from the education extravaganza in the desert.  

Stockton Unified boasts an $859 million budget, though County Superintendent of Schools Troy Brown said in an Oct. 20 letter he’d “lost confidence in the accuracy of the actual financial data and the projections.”

The Stockton Unified Department of Public Safety had a heightened presence at the Jan. 24 board meeting after an anonymous caller claimed 150 protesters would be at the meeting to show their outrage with the conference, SUSD confirmed.  

But when the meeting took place, no protesters showed up. Brenda Vazquez, who had a 209 Times press pass and recorded the meeting on her phone, was the only person to make a public comment against sending SUSD’s teachers to the professional learning conference in Las Vegas. She towed the same line the 209 Times had hours earlier on social media: the conference is a million-dollar Vegas party for Board President AngelAnn Flores and her supporters.  

Vazquez’s comments were met with disapproval from the crowd and several board members.  

“Shame on anybody who tries to turn this around and paint it as a false narrative,” Flores said at the Jan. 24 board meeting. “If you are a parent and you have students at SUSD, you want your teacher to have this training … we will not allow anybody to come into our house, take this narrative, and paint it in a bad light. We care about our kiddos.”  

‘We’re not taking this money away from anything else’

Trustee Kennetha Stevens said the PLC conference is something Stockton Unified has done for years and is included in the School Plan for Student Achievement — a detailed document on individual school sites’ planned actions and expenditures to support students.  

“We must invest in our people … When I read the SPSA, every principal is asking for PLCs for their school sites, for their teachers … they want to invest back into their school communities,” Stevens said. “We should do our research before we attempt to talk against the district and what we do to be a viable asset to our school sites and our students moving forward.”  

Brian Biedermann, SUSD’s director of educational services, prepared the PLC conference documents — not Flores. He said there could have been 42 different board agenda items — 42 of SUSD’s 56 schools have opted into the conference so far — but he chose to package them into one board item to “streamline the process.”  

“This is Title I money that has to be spent on professional development. We’re not taking this money away from anything else,” Biedermann said at the Jan. 24 board meeting. “Every single one of our schools, all 56, are saying they’re going to use the PLC process to move their data (forward) … of the 500-plus people that are going to this conference, a large majority are teachers.” 

The conference is scheduled for June 7-9 after school is out for the summer. Biedermann said the school district cannot take teachers to professional development conferences during the year due to a substitute teacher shortage. 

“We have to do it in the summer,” Biedermann said. “I wish it wasn’t in Las Vegas … it is where it is, it’s been there for, I don’t know, 20 years.”  

PLC and educational challenges Stockton faces cost-COVID-19

Stockton Unified teacher Angela Pascual was one of several educators who spoke in support of the conference at the Jan. 24 board meeting. She was sent to the Las Vegas PLC when she became a teacher at the district in 2016, she said. 

“(We saw) hundreds of teachers from surrounding districts and other states — the spirit of collaboration was in the room, and this old-time educator got in the groove,” Pascual said. “We were not allowed to go out and just party.” 

Pascual said the conference equipped teachers with the tools to “implement instruction in a consistent manner,” and they saw seventh and eighth graders make “leaps and bounds” in their writing as a result. 

“If you want to attract teachers here — because many of us are five years and out — you have to provide them with a sound foundation to stand on,” Pascual said. “This is one of those foundations.” 

In the news:Audit looking for fraud at Stockton Unified to be ready Feb. 14

A joint study between Stanford and Harvard universities released in October 2022 equated the change in SUSD’s math scores from 2019-2022 to a learning loss of 64% of a grade level district wide. The study also shows the district’s math scores are nearly three grades behind the 2019 national average while reading scores are 2.4 grades behind.  

“(PLC) is the mechanism our principals and our teachers are telling us on how we’re going to get back or how we’re going to catch up,” Biedermann said. 

Biedermann, who did a small stint as Stockton Unified’s interim superintendent in 2020, said it’s about investing in people to adapt to a post-COVID learning environment. He said virtual options are available as well for educators who are still wary of large crowds.  

COVID has really changed things, and so has the PLC process,” Biedermann said. “If you look at the training offerings they have, a lot of it is for social-emotional learning … redefining education in the classrooms. We can’t just assume our teachers are going to do that by themselves.” 

Why are new laws shrinking our community colleges?

Government controls the transportation of people.  Government controls the food you eat.  Government controls the medicine you are forced to take.  Government protects criminals.  Now government is controlling education by using the classroom to teach racism, sexual grooming, how to stop free speech.  In the end, they are now stopping students from using the community colleges to get an education.—via AB 928.

“While students, faculty, administrators and the community college chancellor’s office expressed concerns about AB 928 at various points in the legislative process, the bill moved forward without substantive amendments, and the governor ultimately signed it.

After a year of implementing this legislation, community college stakeholders already see the unintended consequences of a single general education transfer pattern known as Cal-GETC. The legislation limits this pattern to requiring a maximum of 34 units, reducing the number of units currently needed to transfer to the CSU by five.

This is NOT an unintended consequence—the goal was to force young people into low paying dead end jobs.  In California this is working.  Yet, we allow the totalitarian State to control every aspect of our lives.

Why are new laws shrinking our community colleges?

WENDY BRILL-WYNKOOP, EdSource,  2/1/23   

Assembly Bill 928, legislation from the 2021 legislative year, was one of several recent bills developed by corporate-funded advocacy organizations that mandated oversimplified solutions to complex issues. The results often have unintended consequences that manifest themselves in the months and years after the law is implemented.

In the case of AB 928, the consequences are shrinking colleges.

The overarching aims of this particular bill were to reduce the time of transferring and obtaining a degree, as well as to improve course transferability and efficiency. In theory, this intention seemed sensible. In practice, however, it created new barriers and amplified existing challenges.

The bill had three objectives:

  • Rebooting the California Postsecondary Education Commission with a new oversight committee to streamline and improve coordination in California’s higher education systems.
  • Calling for a single general education transfer pattern from the community colleges to both the Cal State and University of California systems.
  • Mandating the automatic placement of students in the Associate Degree for Transfer programs, which provide students with guaranteed admission to a CSU (but not necessarily their CSU of choice).

While students, faculty, administrators and the community college chancellor’s office expressed concerns about AB 928 at various points in the legislative process, the bill moved forward without substantive amendments, and the governor ultimately signed it.

After a year of implementing this legislation, community college stakeholders already see the unintended consequences of a single general education transfer pattern known as Cal-GETC. The legislation limits this pattern to requiring a maximum of 34 units, reducing the number of units currently needed to transfer to the CSU by five.

This change is initiated by the University of California system, which holds all the power to create the Cal-GETC, has constitutional autonomy and is not subject to legislative mandates. The rigid reduction in units will create a double whammy of enrollment decline and a loss of educational offerings for community colleges already wrestling with a 16-20% statewide drop in enrollment. At a time when community colleges need to be expanding their appeal, new laws are forcing them to narrow their reach.

Cal-GETC is not the only unintended consequence of this legislation. The automatic placement of students into the Associate Degree for Transfer, or ADT, pathway might be even worse. The sponsors of the ADT pathway sold community college students a degree with a transfer guarantee to their preferred CSU.

Unfortunately, after years of investing in ADTs, the guarantee has never been truly honored.

Students are granted admission into the California State University system but not necessarily the college or program of their choice. In 2019-20 the most efficient and frequent path students took from the community colleges to the CSUs did not include a degree; students simply completed the transfer requirements. In addition, students who complete a local degree aligned with a specific CSU are more likely to be admitted to that campus than one who completes an ADT. To simplify this point: The ADT pathway is the least effective way for a student to transfer from community college into the CSU of their choice, yet AB 928 mandates all students be placed on this pathway.

All of these concerns were raised during the legislative process, but they did not resonate with well-intended policymakers seeking immediate solutions to difficult and complex challenges in our transfer system.

In reality, foundational and systemic shifts are required to fundamentally improve transfer rates. Even if we could drastically improve our transfer numbers overnight, there needs to be more space at CSUs and UCs to admit more community college transfer students and expanded bachelor’s degree programs at the community colleges for place-bound students that must stay in their local area.

If we are serious about improving our transfer rates, community college students should be at the top of the applications for our CSUs and UCs. Community colleges offer a world-class education in our students’ communities; why should we force them to go far from home to continue their educational journey?

To help our students reach their educational dreams, we must move away from overly simplified and politically expedient legislation and toward comprehensive, sustainable and equitable solutions.

California ends plans for kids’ Covid vaccine mandate

Great News?  The State of California has decided not to force dangerous drugs into the bodies of children.  For the long run, we will see lawsuits against the State and the drug companies for the scam of the vaccines and the long term health, physical and mental issues, they have caused.  A generation from now, tens of billions will be spent on the corruption of the FDA and the CDC by politicians using COVID as a means of controlling and destroying society—not protection of the health.

As information is leaked out, memo’s are exposed, people start telling the truth, we will see the canard of the past three years.  Fauci lying to Congress and the President.  The CDC being taken over by politicians, not medical people or scientists.  It may turn out to be the biggest government scandal in history—a million people dead and tens of millions forced to take untested drugs that cause lifelong health issues.

California ends plans for kids’ Covid vaccine mandate

DIANA LAMBERT. Edsource,  2/1/23  

Seven-year-old Ari Alleyne receives the children’s dose of the Pfizer Covid vaccine from RN Priya Meyer, Nursing Professional Development Mgr at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles on Nov. 3, 2021.

California state leaders seem to be quietly closing the door on the Covid-19 vaccine mandate for schoolchildren.

The California Department of Public Health hasn’t made an announcement, but officials told EdSource that the end of the state’s Covid-19 state of emergency on Feb. 28 effectively ends its current plan to add Covid-19 vaccinations to the list of 10 vaccinations children are required to have to attend school in person.

“We continue to strongly recommend Covid-19 immunization for students and staff to keep everyone safer in the classroom,” stated the email from the department. “Turnkey mobile vaccination services remain available for any K-12 school within the state.”

The statement went on to say that any changes to required K-12 immunizations are properly addressed through the legislative process. There are no bills mandating school vaccinations currently pending in the Legislature.

Much has changed in the 15 months since Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that California would be the first state to require schoolchildren to be vaccinated against Covid-19 and then-state Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, talked about legislation that would do away with the personal belief exemption and strengthen the mandate.

Now, slightly more than 72% of Californians have had the primary series of Covid-19 vaccinations and 61% of those have had booster shots. More than a third of children ages 5 to 11 and 67% of 12- to 17-year-olds have had their primary series of vaccinations.

In response, last summer the state withdrew a mandate that school staff be vaccinated or tested to remain on campus and rescinded a requirement that everyone wear masks in classrooms.

Pan also decided to put his bill on hold, saying it would be too difficult to implement. State health code calls for students to be checked for required vaccinations when they enter kindergarten and again in seventh grade. The Covid vaccination, which has waning immunity, would have required more frequent checks, Pan said in a previous interview.

But there has been no official announcement about the status of the vaccination mandate and school district officials have been frustrated about the lack of information about it, said Lucerne Valley Unified Superintendent Peter Livingston.

“Let’s wipe this whole Covid vaccination thing off the table,” Livingston said. “Just say it. If it’s over, just say it.”

If the vaccination mandate were to begin on July 1, there is no way the district in western San Bernardino County would be ready, he said. “I don’t even know what fully vaccinated is,” he said. “Is it one shot, two shots, three shots? Does that make me fully vaccinated?”

On Jan. 3, Livingston sent a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom requesting clarification about the future of the vaccine mandate.

“You have not pulled the order back, which puts school districts in a bind on what or how to communicate to our communities,” the letter read in part. “We have kindergarten parents asking us about this, and we do not have a response since you have been silent on this. Once again your actions (or lack thereof) places the burden of communication, implementation, and enforcement squarely on the shoulders of principals, teachers, staff, administrators, and school boards. These burdens erode the ability of LVUSD to focus on serving students and diminish our ability to foster outstanding educational outcomes.”

Lucerne Valley Unified’s school board was one of the first to pass a resolution proclaiming its opposition to the vaccination mandate. The resolution states that the mandate would infringe on parental rights and the rights of students to a free public education, that children are at lower risk of dying or getting seriously ill from Covid-19, and that people have the right to deny unwanted medical treatment, among other things.

Almost all the district’s families are opposed to the vaccination mandate, he said. “There is no way we could enforce it,” Livingston said. “ I frankly wouldn’t. I wouldn’t leave that number of students at home. Judging by what we know now, it wouldn’t make sense. I wouldn’t enforce it.”

The vaccine mandate was to begin as soon as the vaccine was fully approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for each age group: juveniles ages 12-17; and children ages 5-11. July 1 was the earliest the mandate was expected to begin.

Currently, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, including the bivalent booster, have an emergency use authorization for children 6 months of age and older, but have not been fully authorized by the FDA. The two-dose primary series of Novavax Covid vaccines has emergency use authorization for people ages 12 and older.

Since March 2020 when schools were closed in response to the pandemic, the deaths of 92 children ages 17 and younger have been associated with Covid-19, according to the California Department of Public Health.

Biden-supporter Stephen Curry moves to block ‘low-income housing’ near his $30 million mansion: report

Stephen Curry is the fifth highest paid athlete in the world.  He is a Warrior, playing for the San Fran Warriors.  And a Warriors for economic justice, the poor and those in need.  EXCEPT when it comes to his $30 million mansion.  While he has no problem with government affordable housing slums being built next to YOUR home—and does not want the government to develop a housing/crime slum next to his home.

“NBA superstar Stephen Curry, who publicly endorsed Joe Biden for president in 2020, is opposing a “low-income” housing development near his $30 million mansion, according to a local news report. 

“We hesitate to add to the ‘not in our backyard’ (literally) rhetoric, but we wanted to send a note before today’s meeting. Safety and privacy for us and our kids continues to be our top priority and one of the biggest reasons we chose Atherton as home,” Steph and his wife, Ayesha Curry, wrote in a letter to officials in Atherton. 

It was an attempt by Steph Curry, who was the fifth highest-paid athlete in the world last year, according to Forbes, to prevent undesirables from crowding the area around his home in Atherton, California

This HYPOCRITE has no problem with “undesirables” next to your home—but he wants his kids safe—does not care about your kids being crime victims.  What do you expect of Progressive supporter of the dement5ed Joe Biden?

Biden-supporter Stephen Curry moves to block ‘low-income housing’ near his $30 million mansion: report

Curry and his wife also asked the local government to build ‘fencing’ to block low-income residents from seeing their home

By Jeffrey Clark | Fox News,  1/31/23  

NBA superstar Stephen Curry, who publicly endorsed Joe Biden for president in 2020, is opposing a “low-income” housing development near his $30 million mansion, according to a local news report. 

“We hesitate to add to the ‘not in our backyard’ (literally) rhetoric, but we wanted to send a note before today’s meeting. Safety and privacy for us and our kids continues to be our top priority and one of the biggest reasons we chose Atherton as home,” Steph and his wife, Ayesha Curry, wrote in a letter to officials in Atherton. 

It was an attempt by Steph Curry, who was the fifth highest-paid athlete in the world last year, according to Forbes, to prevent undesirables from crowding the area around his home in Atherton, California

Atherton is one of the most exclusive communities in the U.S., with Forbes ranking it as the “most expensive” zip code in the country this year.  

The Curry family also petitioned the local government to build fencing and shrubbery around their home to protect the family from watchful eyes if they couldn’t block the new families from joining the neighborhood entirely. 

“Should that not be sufficient for the state, we ask that the town commits to investing in considerably taller fencing and landscaping to block sight lines onto our family’s property.”

Council member Rick DeGolia has reportedly said that “it’s not possible to build low-income housing in Atherton since land is worth about $8 million per acre.”

Curry is one of the highest-profile Democrats in the country. 

In 2020, he brought his family out to endorse Biden for president at the Democratic National Convention, during which Ayesha referenced “social injustices” and “racial inequality.”

This year, Steph Curry did a photo-op with the president, in a picture captioned “Team Captains.” 

Curry is one of the captains of the NBA team the Golden State Warriors.

His team joined him at the White House for a press event on Jan. 17 that became awkward after Biden dropped to one knee in front of the team, eliciting gasps. 

The Warriors had declined to visit the White House in 2017 and 2018, when former President Donald Trump was in office. 

Fox News Digital has reached out to the board of an Atherton Homeowners Association for additional comment but has yet to hear back. 

Los Angeles International Airport Loses Power For an Hour Showing the Limits of an All-Electric Future

This is the new world of all electric—the shutting down of a major airport.

“Herein lies the danger of an all-electronic universe. LADWP kicked in with the most likely gas-powered backup generators to ensure essential resources stayed online, but ultimately, things ground to a halt for a period of time. No terminal to tower interfaces, no TSA capabilities, and people even had to climb down from the planes because jet bridges lost power. This was just one hour of lost power. Imagine if it the duration had been longer.

LADWP is investigating the source of the outage. No word whether Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg will weigh in, as useless as that would be.

Did Newsom approve of the use of gas generators to keep the airport open?  Did the use of the gas generators kill the climate?  Can you depend on LAX staying open and useful, without gas generators?  Wait till you are unable to cook due to having an electric stove.

Los Angeles International Airport Loses Power For an Hour Showing the Limits of an All-Electric Future

Photo courtesy work the angles, flickr

By Jennifer Oliver O’Connell, RedState,  2/1/23    

The Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) suffered a power outage on Wednesday afternoon. The outage was brief, first reported around 2:30 p.m., then resolved within an hour – around 3:30 p.m.

You cannot scan Real IDs and passports, nor can you do electronic frisking for weapons when your equipment has no power. Go figure.

According to FlightAware, by 3:15, there were 140 delays and 64 cancelations. Whether these were a result of the power outage is yet to be revealed. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) came in to resolve the issue and took to Twitter to assure that it was not due to any rolling blackouts.

From Patch.com:

LOS ANGELES, CA — A power outage impacted operations for nearly an hour Wednesday afternoon at LAX, authorities said.

The majority of terminals were affected by the outage, according to the airport, which first reported the issue around 2:30 p.m. As of 3:10 p.m., power had been restored to most locations or was coming online, and all systems were back online by 3:30 p.m.

No flights were canceled or delayed, according to airport public information officer Victoria Spilabotte, but passengers on some flights did have to deplane manually after jet bridges lost power.

Department of Water and Power crews were at the airport and investigating the cause of the 50-minute outage, Spilabotte said.

“Our crews were able to make switches in the field to reroute power to LAX and restore service,” the utility provider tweeted.

The outage continued to affect the surrounding area, however, with more than 350 nearby customers still without electricity as of 4:30 p.m.

Herein lies the danger of an all-electronic universe. LADWP kicked in with the most likely gas-powered backup generators to ensure essential resources stayed online, but ultimately, things ground to a halt for a period of time. No terminal to tower interfaces, no TSA capabilities, and people even had to climb down from the planes because jet bridges lost power. This was just one hour of lost power. Imagine if it the duration had been longer.

LADWP is investigating the source of the outage. No word whether Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg will weigh in, as useless as that would be.

California Governor Gavin Newsom is drunk on his progressive agenda and sees it as a calling card for his future presidency. He is deluded that leading on climate change will somehow make up for his incompetency.

Under a groundbreaking new state regulation, 35% of new 2026 car models sold in California must be zero-emissions, ramping up to 100% in 2035. Powering the vehicles means the state must triple the amount of electricity produced and deploy new solar and wind energy at almost five times the pace of the past decade.

The Air Resources Board enacted the mandate last August — and just six days later, California’s power grid was so taxed by heat waves that an unprecedented, 10-day emergency alert warned residents to cut electricity use or face outages. The juxtaposition of the mandate and the grid crisis sparked widespread skepticism: How can the state require Californians to buy electric cars if the grid couldn’t even supply enough power to make it through the summer?

At the same time as electrifying cars and trucks, California must, under state law, shift all of its power to renewables by 2045. Adding even more pressure, the state’s last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, is slated to shut down in 2030.

Power outages like this one at LAX are a stark reminder that California is nowhere near ready for an all-electric future when it cannot even handle power management today.

The Great People Shortage hits China

In 75 years China will be half its current size.  The major reason?  A couple of decades ago they had a one baby policy.  Any babies more than one were killed.  Now they are going to pay the price for the genocide of the Chinese population—by the government.  Economic, military power will be gone.

In the U.S., we face the same situation, with millions of babies killed, with the protection of government.  We are losing population.  Only with the millions (five million in the past two years) of illegal aliens replacing Americans, has our population stabilized—but at what economic and social cost?  The loss of our heritage and traditions, the Rule of Laws and trust in government.

“China’s population is shrinking. While the massive country is still home to 1.4 billion people — nearly one out of every five people on Earth — China’s National Bureau of Statistics announced that its population shrank in 2022, falling by roughly 850,000 people. 

This shocking statistic is only the start of China’s population decline. This year India is set to surpass China’s population, and in a few years it will surpass China’s working-age population — people 20 to 69. The United Nations has estimated that if China’s birth rate remains at its super-low level and the country fails to position itself as an attractive destination for migrants, the country will lose nearly half of its population by the end of this century, a contraction of roughly 700 million people. 

To make up for it they invade Hong Kong, want to invade Taiwan and a few other places.  None of that will make up for the loss of population on the mainland

The Great People Shortage hits China

The country’s shrinking population is a grim omen for the rest of the world

China will lose half its population by the end of the century. The population decline is a warning for the US and Europe. Alyssa Powell/Insider

Sebastian DettmersChris Forman, and Andrew Flowers, Insider,  2/1/23  

China’s population is shrinking. While the massive country is still home to 1.4 billion people — nearly one out of every five people on Earth — China’s National Bureau of Statistics announced that its population shrank in 2022, falling by roughly 850,000 people. 

This shocking statistic is only the start of China’s population decline. This year India is set to surpass China’s population, and in a few years it will surpass China’s working-age population — people 20 to 69. The United Nations has estimated that if China’s birth rate remains at its super-low level and the country fails to position itself as an attractive destination for migrants, the country will lose nearly half of its population by the end of this century, a contraction of roughly 700 million people. 

Strong growth in its working-age population over the past several decades allowed China to become the world’s factory — over 70% of solar panels, 60% of farm machines, and 25% of robots are constructed with components from Chinese suppliers. Because of its manufacturing prowess and importance to supply chains, China’s shrinking working-age population has enormous, direct effects on the global economy. It’s also an omen for the US and Europe: If they don’t turn around their shrinking birth rates, they face the same economic fate as China.

Fewer children, fewer workers

For decades China’s fertility rate — the number of live births per woman — has declined, helping slow the country’s population growth. In 2022, it hit the lowest level on record, 1.1 children per woman. In the main population centers of Beijing and Shanghai the fertility rate cratered to 0.7 children per woman. China’s one-child policy, which restricted couples to only one child, is not solely to blame (though it played a small role). When the one-child policy was implemented nationwide in 1980, the fertility rate had already fallen to 2.6 from more than 6 children per woman in 1970. In 1991, it fell below 2.1 children per woman, the level needed to keep the population stable over time. At that moment a demographic timer was set, and now the alarm is ringing.

The specter of population decline has for years worried the Chinese government, leading the country to relax its restrictive one-child policy in 2016. The Chinese government began encouraging its citizens to have up to three children by enticing them with cash incentives, discounted real estate, and extended maternity leave. But it appears those efforts have been largely unsuccessful.

Unlike many developed economies in the West, China and other major economic powers in Asia aren’t using immigration to offset declining fertility. Instead, they’re closing themselves off. The proportion of migrants as a percentage of the total population in Japan in 2020 was only 2%. In India it was 0.3%, and in China it was as low as 0.1%. It is practically impossible for foreigners to obtain Chinese citizenship. In contrast, 17% of people living in Germany in 2021 were born abroad, and a third of them had obtained German citizenship.

Fewer children and fewer immigrants means fewer workers in the long term. The UN forecasts suggest the workforce in China will shrink more in the coming years than it will in almost any other country, and the precipitous population drop will set the stage for a reversal of its decades of strong economic growth, meaning living standards can’t improve as quickly. This is a gigantic challenge for the Chinese economy — and for Xi Jinping’s ambitious plans to make China the world’s largest economy and dominant superpower.

The shrinking workforce has already caused the government to shift its economic focus. After decades of export-led, labor-intensive manufacturing growth, the government’s 14th five-year plan — the latest set of growth targets and economic reforms set by the Chinese Communist Party, in 2021 — focused on orientating the economy toward its domestic market and investing in higher-value-add products. Instead of being an intermediate step in the global supply chain — importing raw goods and parts, using cheap labor to manufacture finished products, and then shipping that merchandise abroad — Beijing wants its own workers to produce those final goods and sell them to shoppers in its own country.

This shift is imperative because so much of the Chinese economy is dependent on an ever growing population. Take the demand for real estate: In the past two decades, Chinese people have invested 70% of their wealth in real estate. In the US, that share is only 35%. The construction and real-estate sector accounts for roughly a quarter of China’s total economic output. China builds like no other country: It has built entire cities from scratch, and it consumes half of the concrete produced worldwide. And China is apparently planning further growth: In 2017, 65 million empty apartments — enough to house the population of France or California — were waiting for young families. 

But how long will demand for real estate last? Who will move into the empty apartments when the population shrinks? What will happen to this massive industry when the number of Chinese consumers declines and there are fewer people to continue investing? And what will happen to the elderly Chinese people who have tied up so much of their wealth in their homes?

A shrinking workforce wouldn’t just hurt China’s economy — it would have spillover effects for the US and Europe. China’s manufacturing sector, for example, would likely struggle to maintain its recent growth streak. So in the coming decades, China’s economy would not lift global growth rates as it has in the past. Productivity growth in the country could also stagnate. Economists have long tracked the correlation between population density and innovation — a larger population means a larger pool of potential entrepreneurs — so a shrinking population means China’s ability to disrupt markets could decline as well. Taken together, China’s slowing economy would have severe knock-on effects for the rest of the world. 

The trouble with closed borders 

China’s population decline also serves as an omen for countries that have birth rates at or below the replacement level, such as the US and many places in Europe. Europe is facing the same demographic turning point as China — the continent’s population is projected to decline by 21%, or 157 million people, by the end of the century. Nigeria is set to overtake Europe as the third-largest labor force later this century.

Among today’s largest economies, only the US has a projection of positive population growth, though at very low levels. But the projected growth is due not to increasing fertility but to immigration. Pew Research Center has estimated that in the second half of the century, one-third of the US population — more than 100 million people — will be migrants and their US-born children.

And immigrants to the US punch above their economic weight. More than 40% of the 500 largest US companies were founded by immigrants or their children, from tech giants like Google to the wholesale chain Costco to the jeans brand Levi’s. The influence of immigrants on American prosperity is not relegated to the startup scene; the story of the rags-to-riches millionaire — or at least of middle-class success — is repeated frequently. This is impressively demonstrated by a recent study that followed millions of parents and their children and found that the children of immigrants of almost every nationality achieved social advancement at least as often as their peers from nonimmigrant families. For immigrants at least, the American dream is alive and well.

That said, immigration is notoriously hard to forecast and is increasingly politicized. But without an injection of immigrants, the working-age population in the US is likely to decline, harming the country’s economy. But if American policymakers can keep the door open to new residents, the US will be one of the few industrialized nations that won’t have to contend with a shrinking population, which could prove a decisive factor in its race against China for dominance in the global economy.

The Great People Shortage is not an abstract threat — it has very real consequences. Already, many companies are facing major challenges in filling their open positions, especially in crucial industries like healthcare and education. And in the coming years, both in China and in the West, many more sectors and fields will struggle to find workers. The lack of train drivers, teachers, engineers, doctors, firefighters, nurses, and programmers will have more far-reaching consequences down the road. With fewer employees, companies will produce or perform less, resulting in fewer sales, less economic growth, and ultimately less prosperity for everyone. And in China, the problem exists on a far more dramatic scale. Unless nations manage to turn things around, the problem will only accelerate, and it could spell disaster for the economy.

Here are the states Americans are moving to — and the states they are ditching

California is losing its energy, tech and agriculture industry.  Even with a billion dollar give away to the rich and elite of Hollywood, the entertainment industry is leaving.  If you want a minimum wage job, controlled by government, California is the place.  Want a career, you need to go to a State that wants high paying, innovative jobs.  Soon California will have a wealth tax—watch as investors sell off their California property—even at a loss—and invest elsewhere.

“The states that attracted the most new residents in 2022 are Florida, Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina, followed by other states in the South and West.

“Everybody knows about the low taxes and great weather in these areas, but something else that makes these areas popular is the robust job market recovery after the pandemic,” Evangelou told CBS News. “Not only were their economies able to recover all the jobs that were lost, but there are 5% more jobs now than there were in 2020.”

California is an economic suicide, not a murder.

Here are the states Americans are moving to — and the states they are ditching

moneywatch

BY AIMEE PICCHI, CBS News,  2/1/23   

The pandemic sparked a restlessness in American life, with many families opting to move in search of more space or a lower cost of living. That trend continued in 2022, with hundreds of thousands of people uprooting their lives and moving to new states. 

But some regions are benefitting from an influx of new residents — a trend that can help those areas grow their economies and expand their tax bases — while others are witnessing a net loss of residents. About 25 U.S. states saw more people move within their boundaries last year, while about 25 states lost residents or were relatively flat, according to an analysis of census data from the National Association of Realtors (NAR).

The states that are gaining residents share a few traits, said Nadia Evangelou, senior economist and director of real estate research at NAR. For one, many are states with job markets that grew faster than average during the pandemic. And secondly, they are also states where housing is more affordable and available than in parts of the country that lost residents.

The states that attracted the most new residents in 2022 are Florida, Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina, followed by other states in the South and West.

“Everybody knows about the low taxes and great weather in these areas, but something else that makes these areas popular is the robust job market recovery after the pandemic,” Evangelou told CBS News. “Not only were their economies able to recover all the jobs that were lost, but there are 5% more jobs now than there were in 2020.”

There could be another reason why Southern and Western states drew more residents last year: Low taxes, according to the Tax Foundation. Some high-tax states, like California and New York, lost residents in 2022.

Florida was the biggest net gainer last year, with about 319,000 people migrating into the state, the NAR analysis found. California lost the most residents, with 343,000 leaving the state for other regions.

“This population shift paints a clear picture: People left high-tax, high-cost states for lower-tax, lower-cost alternatives,” wrote policy analyst Janelle Fritts in a blog post earlier this month. 

Still, taxes may play just a small part in a family’s decision to move. More affordable housing and plentiful jobs could be more of a draw, according to a new analysis of New York migration patterns from the Fiscal Policy Institute. Last year, almost 300,000 people left New York state.

People who move out of New York state typically save 15 times more from lower housing costs than from tax savings, the new analysis found. 

“Of the top twenty largest county-to-county flows out of New York State, median housing costs were substantially lower in the destination county,” the analysis noted. “On average, annual mortgage costs for median-priced homes are $18,300 lower in destination counties — a savings of 34 percent — than in New York origin counties.”

The cities that attracted the most in-bound moves last year are located in Florida, Texas and the Carolinas, the NAR analysis found. Cities including Ocala and Tallahassee in Florida and Houston, Texas, were among the large cities where inbound moves exceeded outbound moves by more than six percentage points, NAR said.

PG&E releases new numbers of cost of shutting down Diablo Canyon Power Plant

Thanks to Newsom and his buddies, the ratepayers of PG&E are going to spend at least $4.1 billion to END the production of energy.  Not, noted is the high cost of providing limited energy from alternative energy sources—plus, not enough to cover the loss of 10% of the State’s energy supply.  Inflation—this is part of the cause.  Poverty, this is part of the cause.  People fleeing the State?  This is part of the cause.

At the end of the day the climate and planet will not be saved and the people of California will be impoverished—that seems to be the goal of the Democrats.

“Those in favor of nuclear power say it’s a reliable source of energy that was not disrupted by January 9th’s torrential storm.

“During those recent floods, diablo canyon ran 24/7,” said Gene Nelson, Senior Legal Researcher at Californians for Green Nuclear Power. “When things are really rainy, having reliable power is super important, and that’s what diablo canyon specializes in.”

Guess the Democrats are so illiterate that they do not know that in the midst of torrential rains solar panels and wind turbines in the middle of the ocean (killing whales and other denizens of the ocean) do not work.  Literally, the closing of Diablo Canyon will cause large economic losses, the loss of lives and instability—which causes people to flee an area.

PG&E releases new numbers of cost of shutting down Diablo Canyon Power Plant

Humpback Whate breaching near PG & E’s Diablo Canyon nuclear facility. Photo credit to mikebaird, Flickr

By: Austin Herbaugh, KSBY,  2/1/23  

We are getting new numbers on how much money it will take to decommission the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.

PG&E says it will cost $4.1 billion to shut down Diablo Canyon, but it’s still unclear exactly when that will happen.

The future of California’s last operating nuclear power plant is still uncertain.

PG&E is filing to extend operations beyond 2025 while planning to eventually shut down the plant at the same time.

“So, that makes it a challenging time for our community because we’re in a state of uncertainty,” said Los Osos Resident Linda Seeley, who is concerned about extending the life of Diablo Canyon beyond the previously scheduled decommissioning of both reactors.

“My concern is that the problems and the challenges that are set up by decommissioning may not be well addressed because they’re working so hard to keep the plant open now,” said Seeley.

Those in favor of nuclear power say it’s a reliable source of energy that was not disrupted by January 9th’s torrential storm.

“During those recent floods, diablo canyon ran 24/7,” said Gene Nelson, Senior Legal Researcher at Californians for Green Nuclear Power. “When things are really rainy, having reliable power is super important, and that’s what diablo canyon specializes in.”

Others are concerned about nuclear waste storage as PG&E moves forward with relicensing.

“Back when we were talking about approving Diablo Canyon, it was called the Diablo Canyon Power Plant—people weren’t calling it the Diablo Canyon power plant and nuclear waste dump,” said San Luis Obispo Resident Paul Veesart.

PG&E says it’s looking at the impacts that more nuclear waste could have on long-term storage while also looking at other concerns.

“While PG&E is pursuing relicensing of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, at the same time—we are continuing to update our decommissioning plans for whenever that may be,” said PG&E Spokesperson Suzanne Hosn.

The utility says that costs associated with decommissioning will not be passed onto customers in the future.

“This proposal that’s being considered by the California Public Utilities Commission does not require any additional increase in rates from our customers. So, there’s a net-zero outcome there,” explained Hosn.

PG&E plans to submit a relicensing application by the end of 2023.

Last week, the RNC ruled that PG&E must submit a new license renewal application instead of picking up where the utility left off in 2009.

Brooke Jenkins Squares Off With LA’s Progressive DA George Gascón

If Gascon had been the L.A. DA during the Manson trial, would Charlie or any of his “family” had gone to jail?  These are the words of the George Soros owned DA, Gascon:

““We need to look at our interventions and ask, ‘Am I really fixing anything or am I actually causing a bigger problem?’” Gascón said. He continued by saying that data shows that few people who go to jail come out any different, so prosecutors who focus on putting people in jail as a tool to make streets safer often just prolong the problems they are trying to solve. 

Jenkins’ response, which focused on her responsibility to the victims of crimes instead of the disproportionate number of Black and Latino people in jail, seemed to be a direct contradiction of Gascón’s point about data showing that relying on jails to solve social ills has not worked. “

Even Progressives like Jenkins of San Fran understand that the victims and society have rights.  Too bad Gascon and his buddies prefer criminals to victims.

Watch: Brooke Jenkins Squares Off With LA’s Progressive DA George Gascón

Written by Jonah Owen Lamb, SF Standard,  1/31/23  

Brooke Jenkins sparred with her former boss and the current Los Angeles district attorney in an unusual debate between two of the state’s most powerful DAs—as well as a handful of the state’s DAs who still carry the mantle of reform—which she campaigned against.

San Francisco’s tough-on-crime district attorney publicly clashed with her progressive Los Angeles counterpart over their dueling views on crime and punishment. 

The heated exchange between Brooke Jenkins and George Gascón was caught on video Friday during a University of San Francisco panel of mostly progressive prosecutors.

Sparks started flying while they sat side-by-side on a panel where Gascon railed against carceral justice in what seemed like a veiled critique of Jenkins.

Video courtesy of University of San Francisco

“We know that concrete boxes don’t cure mental health just like they don’t cure cancer,” Gascón said. “If we are not honest about it and if we’re not willing to tell our community that we cannot fix every social ill, we are actually doing harm.”

The debate reflected broader tensions between reform-minded and hard-on-crime prosecutors. 

Gascón was joined on the panel by fellow progressive DAs—Diana Becton and Pamela Price, from Contra Costa and Alameda counties, respectively—along with the more conservative San Mateo County DA Steve Wagstaffe.

This was no campaign debate since each DA already won a recent election—but it showed how the future of criminal justice reforms in California remains an open question despite the ascendance of more conservative prosecutors like Jenkins. 

Gascón—who served as San Francisco’s DA from 2011 to 2019—has increasingly held himself up as a progressive prosecutor. The newly elected Price in Alameda and reelected Becton in Contra Costa likewise campaigned as reformers. Their opposite on the panel and in politics, Jenkins ran a tough-on-crime campaign against her former boss and progressive poster child Chesa Boudin.

The panel’s discussion about how to balance punishment with rehabilitation was encapsulated by the question that almost all of the California prosecutors have made central to their political futures: whether or not harsh punishment will deter crime. 

The panel grew from a simmer to near-boiling after Gascón condemned incarceration as a one-size-fits-all approach to solving social issues. He said he tells every prosecutor he hires that they have the same obligation as doctors: Do no harm.

“We need to look at our interventions and ask, ‘Am I really fixing anything or am I actually causing a bigger problem?’” Gascón said. He continued by saying that data shows that few people who go to jail come out any different, so prosecutors who focus on putting people in jail as a tool to make streets safer often just prolong the problems they are trying to solve. 

Jenkins’ response, which focused on her responsibility to the victims of crimes instead of the disproportionate number of Black and Latino people in jail, seemed to be a direct contradiction of Gascón’s point about data showing that relying on jails to solve social ills has not worked. 

“We have to include victims in this part of the dialogue: What data also shows is that the majority of victims of crimes are Black and Brown—my community—the people that look like me,” she added. “I’ve had people who I sent to prison come back and give me a hug and say, ‘Thank you.’”

Jenkins then seemingly criticized DAs who have little to no actual courtroom experience. Jenkins and Wagstaffe, San Mateo’s DA, were the only two such lawyers on the panel with extensive courtroom experience as prosecutors. Price spent much of her career as a criminal defense attorney, Becton as a judge and Gascón as a police officer before being elected DAs.

Jenkins said handling heinous cases involving child molestation, murder and hate crimes gave her insight into how these crimes have impacted victims. Those victims, she continued, deserve a DA who will look at the facts and use whatever is at their disposal to prosecute those cases. 

“There are really terrible people in our society, I am sorry to say,” Jenkins said. “You don’t want me to eliminate my tools when that person comes across your child or mother.”

Court Slaps Down California’s Attempt To Muzzle Doctors Who Dissent From Covid Groupthink

Should a doctor be able to freely and honestly discuss with a patient the value of drugs, medicine, operations to the patient?  That has been the historic role of doctors.  In California the Hollywood Slicky tried to change it.  He wanted the LEGISLATURE and his office to determine what a doctor is allowed to tell a patient.  Worse, they wanted the doctors to LIE to the patients as to the risks of a vaccine.  LIE.

“The new statute sought to stop what the legislature called a “pernicious” threat to public health — doctors who spread “misinformation” or “disinformation” to their patients about Covid-19. Specifically, AB 2098 provides:

It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

As we now know, it was NEWSOM who lied.  It was Fauci who lied.  It was the FDA and CDC that lied.  The doctors were only telling the truth.  To the Democrats, the telling of truth is harmful to the State.  People died because Newsom lied and did not want doctors to tell the truth.  Though Fauci may be the biggest serial killer in world history, Newsom is also in that category.

Court Slaps Down California’s Attempt To Muzzle Doctors Who Dissent From Covid Groupthink

BY: ANNE COURCHAINE, The Federalist, 2/1/23  

The court’s decision represents a victory against authoritarianism, but censorship by Covid scaremongers should still trouble Americans.

A federal judge halted California’s attempt to censor doctors when, last Wednesday, the court enjoined the state statute that banned medical professionals from spreading purported “misinformation” or “disinformation” to their patients about Covid-19. The decision represents the latest victory against the authoritarian edicts that quickly followed the outbreak of the pandemic three years ago but continue to this day.

In August of 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098), adding a new provision to California’s extensive regulations governing the professional and ethical conduct of physicians — regulations that ban practices ranging from human cloning to performing a pelvic exam on an unconscious or anesthetized female patient without her knowledge or consent.

The new statute sought to stop what the legislature called a “pernicious” threat to public health — doctors who spread “misinformation” or “disinformation” to their patients about Covid-19. Specifically, AB 2098 provides:

It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

The California law defines “disinformation” as “misinformation the [physician] deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead,” while “misinformation” is “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

In passing the law, the California legislature made multiple “findings,” including facts purveyed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that there is a much higher risk of death for unvaccinated individuals from Covid-19 than the vaccinated. The legislature also found that “the spread of misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines has weakened public confidence and placed lives at serious risk” and that “major news outlets have reported that some of the most dangerous propagators of inaccurate information regarding the COVID-19 vaccines are licensed health care professionals.”  

Soon after Newsom signed AB 2098, a group of doctors and organizations representing doctors filed suit in federal court in California. The plaintiffs in Høeg, et al. v. Newsom, et al. argued the statute violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and their constitutional right to due process. The plaintiffs in Høeg then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the state from enforcing AB 2098 until the resolution of the doctors’ constitutional challenges.

On Wednesday, presiding Judge William Shubb, a George H.W. Bush appointee, granted the motion and entered an injunction barring California from enforcing the law.  

In his ruling, Shubb first held that the plaintiffs had “standing” or the right to sue because, if allowed to go into effect, the doctors faced an actual injury in the form of disciplinary action. The court then held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim — “likelihood of success on the merits” is the controlling standard at the preliminary injunction stage — because the terms “misinformation” and “contemporary scientific consensus” were unconstitutionally vague, making it impossible for a reasonable person to know what the law prohibited.  

The court further stressed that the phrase “contemporary scientific consensus” lacks an understandable meaning because it has no technical meaning within the medical community and was left undefined in AB 2098. Covid-19 is a “quickly evolving area of science that in many aspects eludes consensus,” the court noted, reasoning that while the phrase “contrary to the standard of care” is a clearly defined term in law, by adding the undefined language, “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus,” the California legislature made the statute “grammatically incoherent.”

Because the court concluded the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their due process claim given the vagueness of AB 2098, Shubb held he did not need to reach the plaintiffs’ argument that the California law violated the First Amendment by preventing medical professionals from openly discussing issues with Covid-19 shots, alternative treatments and therapies for Covid-19, or the merits of universal masking with their patients. Shubb, however, added that AB 2098 “clearly implicates First Amendment concerns.” 

Following Wednesday’s decision in Høeg, the corporate press quickly coalesced around the vaccine-denier narrative by highlighting that one of the plaintiffs in the case was the Children’s Health Defense, an “advocacy organization” connected to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Then, rather than focus on the significance of the court’s decision and California’s blatant violation of doctors’ constitutional rights, the left-leaning media intoned that the Children’s Health Defense has “long promoted false information about standard childhood vaccines.”

This tact tracks the media’s approach to AB 2098 following its enactment, when the legacy press reported favorably on the new law, claiming the California legislature was “trying to strike a balance between free speech and public health” while highlighting laws passed in other countries that criminalized the “spread of vaccine misinformation.”  

The reporting at the time also quoted supposed experts who, while admitting the law likely would not survive First Amendment scrutiny, nonetheless opined that it “doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea.” “People have died because they made choices based on false information spread by people in a position to know better,” one so-called expert said.

The court’s decision enjoining California’s AB 2098 represents a solid victory in the fight against the authoritarianism pushed under the auspices of protecting the public from Covid-19, but the sentiments voiced by the legislature and experts — that they know better — should nonetheless trouble Americans.