Merced Irrigation District Sues California over ‘Water Grab’ for Fish, Downstate Users

The Merced Irrigation District, a regional water authority in the San Joaquin Valley, is suing the State of California over a plan to divert water from the Merced River watershed to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta for fish and downstate use.

As Breitbart News reported in 2018, the state’s Bay-Delta Plan aims to increase the amount of fresh water in the delta, also known simply as the “California Delta,” which has suffered from increasing salinity in recent years.

The Merced Irrigation District (MID) alleges that the plan is simply a “water grab” that will take water from local users and send it to the delta, to satisfy environmental interest groups — many of which have no connection to the state — and Southern California users.

The MID has conducted its own scientific studies to suggest that declining salmon populations in other parts of the state are not due to water diversion, but rather to the arrival of alien predators and other development activities, such as mining. The MID has also negotiated with the state in the past to provide its own salmon habitat restoration — while keeping the water.

But the state has decided to go ahead with its plan, though it has not yet said how much water it plans to divert from the Merced River, which is a tributary of the San Joaquin River that flows from the Sierra Nevada, including Yosemite National Park, through the rich Central Valley farmland before joining the main watercourse northward to the Delta.

MID officials have set up a “Save Merced’s Water” website to gather signatures from residents to stop the diversions from moving forward.

“Our perspective is we didn’t create [California’s] water quality problems,” [MID spokesperson Mike] Jensen said. “It shouldn’t be our responsibility to bear the brunt of fixing them.”

Click here to read the full article at Breitbart Local

Beware of California’s Obscene Budget Surplus

Here’s a cautionary tale for California politicians who think voters will forever tolerate rising taxes as Sacramento swims in budget surpluses.

In 1978, virtually every political institution in California opposed Proposition 13, including big business, labor, local governments, and education advocates. Then voters stunned the elite political class by enacting the iconic tax-cutting initiative, a constitutional amendment that legislators couldn’t touch, by nearly a two-thirds vote.

The passage of Proposition 13 was driven by both fear and anger. The fear that motivated voters to the polls is easy to understand. Although unthinkable today — thanks to the security provided by Prop. 13 — in the mid-70s homeowners were literally being driven out of their homes by high property taxes. Howard Jarvis himself witnessed a despondent widow plead her case at the public counter in the L.A. County Assessor’s office where, regrettably, she collapsed and died of a heart attack.

The terrible fear of losing one’s home, even if the mortgage had been fully paid, was matched only by anger. If citizens believe today’s political environment is divisive, it was more so leading up to the election in June of 1978. Even those who cared little for politics rose up in rage after opening their annual property tax bills.

Part of that anger was driven by Governor Jerry Brown’s admission that California was sitting on a massive surplus. It was so large that California’s treasurer at the time, Jesse Unruh, labeled it as “obscene.” To Californians, the sight of government sitting on wads of cash while homeowners were losing their homes due to excessive taxation was just more gasoline on the fire.

Click here to read the full article on the San Gabriel Tribune

One Indicator Shows California’s Recovery Is Incomplete

Despite assurances that California’s economy is a treasure to behold – “We are world-beating in terms of our economic growth,” says Gov. Gavin Newsom – the post-pandemic recovery has a gaping hole in it. State unemployment is the highest in the country.

Federal data for October show that the jobless rate improved from September’s 7.5% to 7.3%. That puts the state in a last-place tie with Nevada, and far off Nebraska’s best-in-the-nation 1.3%.

Texas and Florida, rivals in many ways, posted far better numbers in October, 5.4% and 4.6% respectively.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also reports nine of the 15 metropolitan areas posting the highest jobless rates in the country are in California. This includes the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim metropolitan area statistical area, which has an unemployment rate of 7.1% – 373rd in a list of 389 metro regions.

Newsom can brag about California “dominating in every category,” and being home to the “fastest growing companies, the most influential companies in the world,” as he did at October’s California Economic Summit.

But an economy that has a jobless rate as high as this state’s isn’t fully healthy, a fact that hasn’t gone unnoticed. The Public Policy Institute of California’s November survey found that 52% expect bad times ahead, while only 47% expect good times. Four months earlier, the outlook was just the opposite: Only 44% expected bad times ahead, while 54% thought the future looked good.

Legendary California journalist Dan Walters recently pointed out that eight of the 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates in October were red states, and nine of the 10 states with the highest jobless rates were blue. It’s a sharp reminder that public policy plays a substantial role in joblessness.

“It could just be coincidence, of course, but maybe those red states with low unemployment rates have regulatory and tax policies that encourage job-creating investment and maybe California and the other blue states with high jobless rates are perceived as being hostile to business,” he says.

Walters was being charitable. Taxes and regulation always impact job numbers, and both are uniquely heavy burdens for California businesses. Regulation stifles innovation, which promotes job growth, and we know taxes negatively affect employment because lawmakers say as much when they hand out tax breaks to companies expecting them to put people to work.

Lockdowns also figure in the state’s high jobless rate. Many businesses that were forced to close never reopened, and some that did still aren’t operating at full capacity. By October, the state had regained only a little more than two-thirds of the 2.7 million jobs that were lost due to the lockdowns.

California policymakers have come to think they can do whatever they want, and the hard work of previous generations that built this state will save them from the negative economic consequences that spin off their plans. It doesn’t work that way, though. There’s too much garbage in, garbage out in Sacramento.

Kerry Jackson is a fellow with the Center for California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.

This article first appeared in the Pacific Research Institute

What About Rebate Checks? Democrats Want to Spend California’s Surplus on Infrastructure

State lawmakers want to use a projected $31 billion surplus to fuel an infrastructure boom, a tactic that could reduce the amount Californians might see in any rebate checks this year – if they happen at all.

The state expects to have so much money it risks exceeding a state spending threshold called the Gann Limit. If it does, it must send more money to schools and some money back to taxpayers through rebates.

Top Democratic lawmakers who control the budget process in Sacramento said they intend to reduce the amount they exceed the limit in part by spending a big chunk of the projected surplus on infrastructure.

Assemblyman Phil Ting, who runs the Assembly Budget Committee, said he wants to spend a “significant portion” of the surplus on infrastructure, including $10 billion for school facilities and $10 billion for transportation projects.

That would, in theory, mean lawmakers wouldn’t have to send as much money back to taxpayers in the form of rebate checks, though they could still send stimulus checks anyway, regardless of whether they exceed the state spending limit. Stimulus checks are still on the table, said Ting, D-San Francisco, depending feedback lawmakers receive from their constituents.

Today’s top headlines

Although he expects rebates to be discussed in budget negotiations, Sen. Scott Wiener said he thinks the state needs to prioritize infrastructure spending.

“We’ll have some critical needs around infrastructure that need to be prioritized,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “If you’re sending rebates back instead of bolstering water systems and addressing sea level rise… you’re still shortchanging taxpayers.”

Assemblyman Vince Fong, the top Republican on the Assembly Budget Committee, said he supports spending surplus money on infrastructure, but said the budget should also include tax relief.

“There needs to be infrastructure investment in water storage and at our ports, but we have to realize our businesses are overtaxed,” the Bakersfield Republican said. “We have to look at providing permanent tax relief.”

State budget spending on infrastructure will be on top of billions in federal infrastructure money recently approved by President Joe Biden, which U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told the Sacramento Press Club on Thursday will fund a range of different projects.

“We’re talking about roads and bridges, we’re talking about rail, transit, buses, talking about ports, and airports, talking about water and internet access,” Buttigieg said.

Ting said he wants lawmakers to use the state surplus for drought resilience projects and broadband expansion to communities without reliable internet access. He also called for more spending on housing and homeless aid.

Wiener, who chairs the Senate’s Housing Committee, said he also supports spending more on housing and homeless programs.

Senate leaders say they hope to build on targeted tax relief programs such as the California Earned Income Tax Credit, known as CalEITC, the Child Tax Credit, and Small Business Relief.

This is the second year in a row California revenues have come close to triggering Gann Limit requirements. Senate Democrats have yet to name specific proposals for next year’s budget, but in a set of early goals said they’d like to consider reforms to “modernize the Gann Limit while respecting original intent.”

In a statement, state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley and chair of the Senate Budget Committee, said the state’s surplus should be used to built a more equitable economy.

“Moving toward an equitable economy for all requires increased investments in affordable housing, our essential workforce, infrastructure at schools and colleges and protecting the climate,” Skinner said. “Fortunately, we have the opportunity to make such investments while we continue supporting small businesses and those Californians still struggling.”

State Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Red Bluff, criticized what he said were Democratic efforts to evade rebates under the Gann Limit in the past.

Nielsen, vice chair of the Senate Budget Committee, expressed skepticism about Democrats’ plans to “modernize” the Gann Limit.

“Their intent is not to revise and reform it,” he said. “Their intent is to destroy it.”

Nielsen said the state’s surplus should be spent on infrastructure to prevent forest fires and the Sites Reservoir in Colusa County to supply water during droughts. Lawmakers also need to make public safety a priority in next year’s budget, he said, noting recent “smash-and-grab” robberies affecting retail.

Expanding the state’s low-income health insurance program to more undocumented immigrants will also be up for consideration. Currently, the program excludes undocumented people ages 27-49. Ting said he supports expanding it to everyone, but it isn’t clear yet that there will be enough money to do it in the next budget.

Lawmakers’ overarching goal is to ensure regular people feel the benefits of the strong economy that has netted the state such a windfall of cash, Ting told reporters at a press conference.

“The budget remains strong, yet if you talk to individual Californians they are very pessimistic and don’t feel the benefits,” he said.

Click here to read the full article at Fresno Bee

Newsom Seizes on Texas Abortion Law Tactics to Go After Assault Rifles and Ghost Guns

Since the Supreme Court has given Texas the green light for its new legal approach that all but bans abortions, Gov. Gavin Newsom says, California will use the same theory to curtail guns — letting private citizens sue people who sell assault rifles and parts for untraceable “ghost guns.”

“SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?!,” Newsom tweeted Saturday. “If that’s the precedent then we’ll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets.”

State officials will try to craft a measure that would allow residents to seek damages of at least $10,000, plus legal fees, against anyone who manufactures, distributes or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit in California.

“If states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives,” Newsom said in a news release late Saturday, “then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.”

In seizing on Texas’s successful approach, Newsom’s plan is likely to attract controversy along the lines of what embroiled lawmakers there after they banned all abortions after a heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks into a pregnancy. The new law, which is already spurring droves of women to seek abortion access in California and other states, is unique in relying on enabling private citizens to sue abortion providers for the same amount Newsom is proposing in his new gun measure, $10,000.

President Biden criticized that citizen litigation path as the “most pernicious” aspect of the Texas abortion law because, he said, it creates “a sort of vigilante system” by encouraging the public to police the issue.

Newsom’s office billed his gun announcement as a direct response to Friday’s Supreme Court decision that largely allowed the Texas abortion measure to stand.

Jessica Levinson, a Supreme Court expert who teaches constitutional law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, told The Chronicle that Newsom is hoping again to be a “quarter step ahead of public opinion and one step ahead of where he can go legally,” as he was in his support of same-sex marriage and legalization of marijuana.

“He is proposing to use a mechanism that he and many others have vilified. But I think it’s quite smart, right? I think it’s a big ‘F— you’ to the Supreme Court,” Levinson said. “If you’re going to allow unconstitutional laws — or I should say in this case, constitutionally questionable laws — that are insulated from judicial review, then we’re going to use that to our advantage.”

Newsom gave few details about his plan. Its prospects in the Legislature were not clear.

Assembly Member Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, said Sunday that he has been working with the nonprofit Brady Campaign,which advocates for gun control, on similar legislation that he plans to introduce when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

Ting called it “a very simple issue”: The gun industry “needs to be held liable” for the use of firearms to commit crimes, or gun-related “incidents that result in injury or death.” Almost every other industry in this country is held liable for what their products do,” he said.

Ting said he “fully supports the governor’s statement,” on guns and hopes the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority will get the proposal passed.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said Sunday that it’s too soon to say what lawmakers will do, but noted that the supermajority has passed “very, very strong gun safety measures.” The governor and Legislature agree that “we’ll do whatever we can to drain the gun swamp, to reduce the number of guns in our society, particularly assault weapons,” he said in a phone interview.

Click here to read the full article at the San Francisco Chronicle

President Biden’s Job Approval Sinking On Inflation, Crime and COVID: POLL

President Joe Biden is facing significant skepticism from the American public, with his job approval rating lagging across a range of major issues, including new lows for his handling of crime, gun violence and the economic recovery, a new ABC/Ipsos poll finds.

As the White House confronts rising and widespread concern about inflation, Americans are especially negative on how the Biden administration is managing this issue.

More than two-thirds of Americans (69%) disapprove of how Biden is handling inflation (only 28% approve) while more than half (57%) disapprove of his handling of the economic recovery. Partisan splits for inflation show expected negativity in Republican views (94% disapproving), but the survey also reveals weaknesses from Biden’s own party with only a slim majority of Democrats (54%) approving. Biden’s orbit is also hemorrhaging independent voters, with 71% disapproving of his handling of inflation.

MORE: Social spending plan will help ease pain from record-breaking inflation: White House

he ABC/Ipsos poll, which was conducted by Ipsos in partnership with ABC News using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel, reveals these rocky ratings for Biden at a time when the bulk of Americans name inflation and paying everyday bills as a top concern. Concern about inflation has eclipsed worry about the coronavirus pandemic, according to recent polls from Monmouth and AP-NORC, as Republicans continuously spotlight rising prices at the gas pump and the grocery store as a key issue for the upcoming midterm elections — likely to be a referendum on Biden’s performance.

These low job assessments in areas of high public concern have led to a new low in Biden’s overall approval rating, measured by FiveThirtyEight at 43%.

Click here to read the full article at Yahoo! News

Brazen Thefts Bring Out Prop. 47 Critics

For many, the lead villain in the rash of smash-and-grab thefts plaguing California is a sentencing reduction ballot measure that voters approved overwhelmingly seven years ago.

“I think it was the biggest con job in California history,” says Sacramento County Dist. Atty. Anne Marie Schubert, a former Republican who intends to run for state attorney general next year as an independent.

“Criminals have been laughing at us…. There’s a clear belief — and very large reality — that there’s no consequences anymore to theft…. You tell everybody we’re not going to hold anybody accountable, and guess what’s going to happen?”

The measure was Proposition 47, co-written by then-San Francisco — now Los Angeles — Dist. Atty. George Gascón and strongly supported by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who later was elected governor. Proposition 47 was approved by a landslide vote of roughly 60% to 40%.

The measure reduced from a possible felony to a misdemeanor the possession of narcotics for personal use and certain property crimes. The narcotics piece isn’t an issue, but the sentence reduction for thefts is.

Under 47, the crimes of petty theft, receiving stolen property and writing bad checks were lowered to misdemeanors when the value was less than $950. No prison time. In some counties, maybe a short time in jail or a wrist slap.

In 2020, voters lopsidedly rejected Proposition 20, which would have tweaked 47 by lowering the felony threshold to $250 for serial thieves.

The $950 threshold is deceiving, critics say. A thief can go from store to store, grabbing $900 worth of merchandise at each, and it’s still a misdemeanor.

“If you steal $3,500 from five stores, it’s not a felony,” Schubert says.

Newsom and Gascón still passionately defend Proposition 47.

“These organized crime waves, millions of dollars of materials have been taken. That has nothing to do with Prop. 47 and $950 because it well exceeds that,” Newsom told reporters last week. “Prop. 47 has been conveniently used, from my humble perspective, as an excuse for things that don’t necessarily have to be.

“Meaning [law enforcement] can arrest. They can hold people accountable. And they should.”

Newsom emphasized: “We need arrests and we need prosecutions. We need people held to account.… Prop. 47 seems rather insignificant in relationship to what’s been happening with these organized crime units because it’s well beyond the $950 limit.”

But Proposition 47 critics contend that the measure sent a signal that stores are easy pickings for shoplifting. And that attitude blossomed into more daring smash-and-grab attacks.

In his news conference, Newsom asserted that after 47 passed, “shoplifting dropped significantly. Property crimes dropped significantly.”

But critics counter that’s because these crimes stopped being reported.

“We have seen rampant thefts across California,” Schubert told me. “Those who say thefts are down have no concept of reality. You can walk into any grocery store and spend a half-hour and watch it happen.

“People are not reporting anymore because they know nothing will happen. Nothing. The effort it takes to report something when there are no consequences, it’s too much effort.”

Assemblyman Jim Cooper of Elk Grove, a retired Sacramento County sheriff’s captain, disagrees with fellow Democrat Newsom.

“The governor is wrong,” Cooper told me. “Shoplifting has been decriminalized, so it’s underreported. They’re not going to file a report. Police don’t respond.”

“There’s a direct correlation between rampant serial theft and voters being duped by proponents of Proposition 47,” Cooper asserted in a statement last month after flash mobs hit high-end stores. “We are watching an epidemic of theft caused by Proposition 47 that over promised and under delivered.”

Schubert contends voters were “conned” into believing that reduced sentences would save hundreds of millions of dollars — most of it to be used for mental health and drug treatment programs.

“We’re not getting people into treatment,” she says.

But that’s disputed in a study released last December by 47’s main sponsor, Californians for Safety and Justice. It reported that $200 million was being spent on mental health, substance abuse, diversion and housing programs for people charged or convicted of crimes.

Will Matthews, the group’s public affairs manager, sent me an email denouncing “baseless potshots at Prop. 47.”

Click here to read the full article at LA Times

Crooks Steal 40 Firearms From Gun Shop As California Crime Wave Continues To Surge

Crooks made off with nearly 40 firearms during a smash-and-grab burglary at a California gun shop early Thursday morning, a report said.

The suspects shattered the front door glass at Whitten Sales just after midnight and stole the guns that were kept in a safe at the store, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing Garden Grove Police Lt. Mario Martinez.

The owner of the business tipped off police to the burglar after seeing a suspect on surveillance footage, the report said.

By the time police arrived, the thieves were gone. Police said they fled in two BMWs.

The burglar comes amid a rash of smash-and-grab robberies in Southern California that have targeted high-end retailers.

Click here to read the full post at New York Post

California Lawmakers, Abortion Proponents Unveil Plan To Create Abortion Sanctuary State

Recommendations include funding abortion groups, funding support infrastructure at abortion clinics, improving Medi-Cal abortion policies

Dozens of California abortion clinics, pro-abortion groups, and lawmakers in favor of abortion presented a plan Wednesday to make California a sanctuary state for those wanting abortions in case the landmark Roe v. Wade is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court next year.

Abortion has been legal in the United States since 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that women have the right to an abortion without state interference within the first trimester of a pregnancy. Despite a few challenges and alteration challenges in the last 48 years, the wording was only changed once. 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey changed the first trimester wording to fetal viability. Since then, it has been worded as “A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.”

However, in recent years, a number of states have passed restrictive abortion laws, such as the Texas Heartbeart Act, which virtually ends nearly all abortions in the state after six weeks due to a detected heartbeat. Another case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges a 2018 Mississippi law that banned abortions after 15 weeks.

The Supreme Court also reached a definitive conservative majority last year following Amy Coney Barrett being confirmed as the next Justice in place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had died in October 2020.

Now, with the Supreme Court giving indications that they would rule in favor of the state and ban abortions once again to some degree in the Dobbs case, with the most likely outcome kicking abortion laws back to the states, Californian abortion supporters are now putting a plan in place to welcome the influx of women seeking a legal abortion.

According to a report by the California Future of Abortion Council, 26 states would likely see abortion bans if Roe v. Wade is overturned, including Texas, Utah, Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Florida. As California has a large number of reproductive clinics and a mostly non-harassment environment from protestors, the number of women estimated to come to California for abortions will go from the current 46,000 a year to 1.4 million a year, with the largest number likely to come from Arizona.

However, California abortion and reproductive care currently has many barriers for women seeking treatment coming from outside the state, including the long drive times to the state, high costs for things such as co-pays and deductibles, and difficulty in finding more specialized providers. An influx of Texas patients this year in California due to the new Texas law highlighted highlighted the potential issues of a sudden influx, and showed the areas where California needs improvement. With demand likely to go up by astronomical numbers should Roe v. Wade falls, California abortion groups and lawmakers started coming up with a plan on Wednesday to address this issue.

California’s sanctuary state plans

The California Future of Abortion Council’s report specifically has 45 recommendations for the state in a sanctuary capacity, including funding many abortion groups to provide care, funding support infrastructure at abortion clinics, improving Medi-Cal abortion policies, give more protections to those seeking abortions, and even help fund travel, lodging, and procedure costs for those otherwise unable to afford the procedure. The recommendations, written largely by abortion provider experts and lawmakers, such as Senator Toni Atkins (D-San Diego),

“We’re looking at how to build capacity and build workforce,” noted Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California CEO Jodi Hicks on Wednesday. “It will take a partnership and investment with the state.”

However, those opposing abortion in California plan to push back against those recommendations should they be enacted.

“We know that we aren’t going to get California to ban abortion should Roe be overturned,” explained Kathy Weber, a San Bernardino County anti-abortion group leader who assists women who choose to give birth after previously wanting an abortion. “Not the way the state is now. But we can try and stop the state from outright paying people to come here or to loosen laws here even more.”

“But it has been hard recently, especially with the Texas surge of people coming into California for abortions. When neighboring states get bans and California getting this huge influx as sort as an abortion-vacation destination like how many Americans go to Mexico to get dental work, this will be a big problem.”

“We don’t want California’s new growth industry to be abortion clinics.”

Proponents of the recommendations are currently eyeing multiple funding sources, including the state’s projected $31 billion surplus, for next year.

This article was originally published by the California Globe

Questions About Crime Ruin Soros-funded George Gascón’s One-Year Anniversary Party

Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón gathered “progressive” prosecutors from around the country to celebrate the one-year anniversary of his time in office, but the party was derailed by questions about rising violent crime.

Gascón, who ran against the first black woman to hold the job, and who received millions of dollars in donations from left-wing billionaire George Soros, has pursued an aggressive, radical agenda of “criminal justice reform” since taking office.

But crime has spiked, leaving the city in the throes of what the Los Angeles Times has called a spate of “brutal, brazen” crimes.

Last week, Jacqueline Avant, a prominent philanthropist in the black community who was married to legendary music producer Clarence Avant, was gunned down in her home, allegedly by a man recently freed from state prison.

In a statement touting his achievements after a year in office, Gascón was short on crime numbers, but heavy on “reforms.” For example, he touted ending the death penalty — a controversial policy that he has applied to cases like child murder:

Death sentences are no longer sought in Los Angeles County. Nor will the office seek execution dates for people sentenced to death. In addition, post-conviction death penalty cases currently are being reviewed to determine if thereis [sic] ameritorious [sic] legal reason to vacate the death sentence or resentence the individuals in the interest of justice. To date, five people, including four with cognitive or intellectual disabilities, have been resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Gascón had hoped to celebrate, as he did after 100 days in office, when he celebrated thousands of hours in reduced prison sentences. But as the Times reports, his party was crashed by reporters seeking answers to the public’s urgent questions:

One year and one day later, Gascón was flanked by progressive prosecutors from around the country as he stood before a room full of reporters during a 90-minute news conference meant to celebrate what he saw as his successes during his first 12 months on the job.

But on the heels of weeks of high-profile crimes, including the killing of a beloved Beverly Hills philanthropist, an explosion of gunfire that left one child dead in Wilmington and viral videos of smash-and-grab robberies at retail stores, Gascón instead spent much of his time sparring with reporters and trying to counter questions about criticism levied by those seeking to recall him.

Click here to read the full article at Breitbart