Newsom Policies LITERALLY Killed California Teenagers

Gavin Newsom by closing schools, forcing students to be isolated LITERALLY caused the death of young people.

“Suicides in the Golden State last year jumped by 24% for Californians under 18 but fell by 11% for adults, showing how children were uniquely affected by “profound social isolation and loss of essential social supports traditionally provided by in-person school,” the presentation says.

Children requiring emergency mental health services jumped last year in Children’s Hospital of Oakland, and children’s hospitalizations for eating disorders more than doubled at UCSF Children’s Hospital. In January, the latter’s emergency department (ED) at Mission Bay hit a record for “highest proportion of suicidal children in ER” at 21%.

He has caused trauma in a generation of young people, that in some cases caused suicides.  Not mentioned is the massive increase in drug us and overdose deaths by young people thanks to Newsom.

Seriously, do you need any other reasons to Recall this arrogant, rich, privileged totalitarian?

Kids’ suicide, mental health hospitalizations spiked amid COVID lockdowns, research finds

University of California San Francisco’s COVID response director fears strict protocols in reopened schools will continue mental health problems in children.

By Greg Piper, Just the News,   7/22/21   

COVID-19 policies had disastrous results on children, especially in California, according to medical researchers at the University of California San Francisco.

Jeanne Noble, director of COVID response in the UCSF emergency department, is finishing an academic manuscript on the mental health toll on kids from lockdown policies. She shared a presentation on its major points with Just the News.

Suicides in the Golden State last year jumped by 24% for Californians under 18 but fell by 11% for adults, showing how children were uniquely affected by “profound social isolation and loss of essential social supports traditionally provided by in-person school,” the presentation says.

Children requiring emergency mental health services jumped last year in Children’s Hospital of Oakland, and children’s hospitalizations for eating disorders more than doubled at UCSF Children’s Hospital. In January, the latter’s emergency department (ED) at Mission Bay hit a record for “highest proportion of suicidal children in ER” at 21%.

Noble and her manuscript coauthors previewed their findings and conclusions in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last month. They accused the CDC of burying the harms to teen mental health from lockdown while cherry-picking data to cast teen COVID hospitalizations “in the worst possible light.”

The “lessons are national” from California’s lockdown policies, which resulted in the longest school closures and highest number of kids out of school, Noble said in a phone interview. “There’s evidence of similar trends elsewhere,” such as Colorado.

Noble shared an email from the director of a Texas summer camp who predicted a “perfect storm … of anger and frustration” headed for schools this fall, based on the experience of the camp this summer.

The kids’ interpersonal skills have “atrophied” over 18 months in “cloistered” communities. “The shy children are more shy, the anxious kids more anxious, the angry ones are more angry,” the director wrote. “Children that tend to miss social cues are missing more of them.”

At camps across the country, directors are observing “more mental health struggles than we would expect in 5-10 summers” among the counselors — college students who were also deprived of social interactions and limited to virtual classrooms. Both new staff and “stalwarts” are quitting due to mental health problems, according to the director.

‘Worse for kids than the numbers themselves’

Noble’s presentation also highlights lesser known CDC data on national trends. ED mental health visits jumped 24% for children 5-11 and 31% for those 12-17 in the first nine months of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.

The change is even more starkly illustrated when contrasting insurance claims for mental health versus all medical claims for children 13-18: The former jumped more than the latter fell in 2020 compared to 2019, particularly early in the pandemic.

Girls have suffered more than boys. ED visits for suspected suicide attempts jumped a whopping 51% among 12-17 year old girls in February and March 2021 compared to the same period in 2019. 

Noble said girls even pre-COVID were more active on social media and more likely to suffer from suicidality. They are also slightly younger when they start having mental health problems. She wants to see more research on whether differences in extracurriculars between the sexes plays a role.

Researchers expected to see a drop in emergency visits for mental health in 2020 due to fear of COVID infection and fewer child interactions outside the house, according to Noble. “Things have been even worse for kids than the numbers themselves describe,” she said.

The researcher theorizes that interaction through screens is “more foreign and likely unfulfilling from a socialization standpoint” for kids, especially K-3, because most of their waking hours were spent at school. Some who were actively engaged in the classroom “just stopped completely” on Zoom, Noble said, citing her own 12-year-old’s difficulties.

Given that the quantitative burden of the pandemic largely fell on adults, who got sick, lost jobs and suffered financially, researchers expected their mental health problems would have “dwarfed” those of kids, who feel these challenges “in an attenuated form,” Noble said. Instead it was the opposite, and Noble thinks “prolonged social lockdown” is the likeliest factor.

“Sacrificing the development and well being of our children for enhanced infection control was scientifically unnecessary and ethically unsound,” the presentation concludes.

File

Mental Health and School Closures June 17 2021.pptx_.pdf

She’s now seeking out data from other states to suss out the differences in mental health outcomes for teens based on the relative strictness of COVID-19 mitigations, such as school closures and mask mandates, Noble told Just the News.

Suicide rates may be hard to compare among states and across years because suicides are “traditionally underreported” and stigmatized, and the absolute numbers are small in smaller states. She said a better comparison may be ER mental health visits.

Even comparing large states with vastly different COVID responses, such as Texas and California, could be misleading because of internal variation, especially urban versus rural areas, Noble said. Unexpectedly high ER visits in Texas, for example, “could easily be coming from Austin” or other places where schools remained closed.

While Noble plans to survey kids who came into the ER and their parents about whether they had been in school when it happened, and what role isolation played, “it’s a little late in the game” as schools reopen, she said.

 Increased ‘feelings of isolation’

The researcher fears that strict COVID protocols in reopened schools, which were already cutting into the gains researchers expected to see this spring, will continue the mental health problems in children. Noble called it an “underrecognized” but hard-to-quantify problem.

Parents in many school districts that reopened with “really strict” protocols in the past few months have shared their anecdotes with Noble. Many teens didn’t want to return to settings where their interactions were constantly discouraged, and those who did said it “increased their feelings of isolation.”

The protocols instilled fear in younger children, who were constantly warned to stay away from each other, she said. Parents reported that masks were preventing them from reading emotions or understanding speech, particularly for those with speech impediments.

These in-school efforts are of limited value, according to the presentation. Researchers have known “for a year and counting” that adults are the “primary drivers” of COVID and kids are “extremely unlikely” to have severe reactions to the virus. Suicides outpaced COVID deaths 20-fold among those 18 and younger in 2020.

Noble told Just the News she’s worried that headlines will blare out an uptick in mental health service utilization and child abuse reports when kids return to school this fall, correlating school reopening with harm to children. That misunderstands the role of schools as the primary source of referrals, she said.

A $280M handout for baseball? Secret California budget item might juice Oakland project

The bigots of the sports world, Major League Baseball, are going to get $280 million from taxpayers as part of a plan to build a stadium and business complex costing $12 billion—and they say that is not enough free money.

“But the infusion of state dollars came just weeks before Tuesday’s vote on developing the port’s Howard Terminal into a baseball stadium and mixed-use development in one of the smallest markets in Major League Baseball, and as the Oakland A’s hold out for more government funding.

The Oakland City Council is scheduled to take a nonbinding vote on a draft of the financial terms it will offer to the A’s, but the two sides remain at odds. Team executives said Friday the city’s offer was about $350 million short in funding for “off-site infrastructure.”

Why should the poor and middle class finance the risks taken by billionaires?  To me the property owners have every right to build—but not with a dime of tax money.

A $280M handout for baseball? Secret California budget item might juice Oakland project

By DEBRA KAHN, Politico,  7/19/21 

SAN FRANCISCO — California leaders tucked nearly $280 million into the state budget that could benefit the proposed A’s baseball stadium in downtown Oakland, taking advantage of a record surplus to potentially bring the team and city closer to a deal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers quietly approved the funds weeks ago, and the money has stayed under the radar ahead of a pivotal Oakland City Council vote Tuesday on the stadium’s future — a decision that the A’s and Major League Baseball insist could determine whether the team remains after 53 years in the city.

A state budget bill Newsom signed late last month directs $279.5 million in general fund money to the Port of Oakland for a broad range of infrastructure projects. The port says it doesn’t have a specific plan for the money, which the budget dedicates to “improvements that facilitate enhanced freight and passenger access and to promote the efficient and safe movement of goods and people.”

But the infusion of state dollars came just weeks before Tuesday’s vote on developing the port’s Howard Terminal into a baseball stadium and mixed-use development in one of the smallest markets in Major League Baseball, and as the Oakland A’s hold out for more government funding.

The Oakland City Council is scheduled to take a nonbinding vote on a draft of the financial terms it will offer to the A’s, but the two sides remain at odds. Team executives said Friday the city’s offer was about $350 million short in funding for “off-site infrastructure.”

Oakland A’s President Dave Kaval said in an interview Monday that he wasn’t familiar with the budget language but acknowledged that it “sounds pretty similar to what our project is.” The money has to be set aside by June 2024; the A’s current lease at the Oakland Coliseum expires after the 2024 season.

California is expected to receive tens of billions of dollars in direct federal pandemic aid this year. Those funds, paired with a strong stock market and unexpectedly high tax revenues from the state’s wealthiest residents, helped the state emerge from the pandemic with a record budget surplus.

Kaval said the off-site infrastructure he’s looking for includes grade separations, railroad safety, sewers, roads, bike lanes and other transportation improvements. He said further negotiations Monday ended in disagreement on the money and on the fundamental issue of developing a ballpark on the Oakland waterfront.

“That’s just something that the council is going to have to decide: How does it see the future of the waterfront?” he said in an interview. “It’s easy to focus on the money, but actually I think more than anything it’s the land-use question.”

“I’m worried about them voting yes on what they released Friday, which is like a nothingburger,” he said. “There’s just nothing in it, it’s got no details.”

A letter the port sent to the City Council last week notes that state or federal money can be used to get the terminal ready for the stadium project by upgrading pedestrian crossings.

“It is anticipated that a significant portion of the needed infrastructure to enhance vehicular and pedestrian safety at rail crossings may be eligible for state or federal transportation or infrastructure funding,” wrote the port’s executive director, Danny Wan.

The port on Monday thanked the state budget chairs for the funding.

“The State’s investment in transportation-related infrastructure will address safety and efficiency needs at the Oakland seaport,” port spokesperson Robert Bernardo said in an email. “We greatly appreciate the recognition by the State budget chairs and the Bay Area caucus for recognizing the Port’s role as an economic engine which supports 84,000 jobs in the region.”

Senate Budget Chair Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) represents Oakland and the neighborhood where the stadium would be built. A spokesperson for Skinner said the lawmaker was not available to comment.

A critic of the project said he welcomed the funding and didn’t think the stadium would progress to the point where it could use it.

“The fact that people are looking at this port money, which is obviously free and clear to the port, and saying, ‘Wow, this is a great backdoor for the A’s,’ I think underscores how ridiculous the A’s project is,” said Mike Jacob, vice president and general counsel for the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, which represents the container shipping industry and is suing over the stadium potentially receiving expedited environmental permits.

The money is relatively small change in the context of the overall $12 billion plan to redevelop the terminal with housing, office space, retail and parks. Most of that cost is for the area around the proposed ballpark; the stadium itself would cost the team about $1 billion.

“$280 million is significant, but it only represents first or second base. It surely doesn’t come anyplace close to third base or home, with home being, ‘Hey, we’re building a stadium at Howard Terminal,'” said Andy Dolich, a former A’s official who runs a sports business consulting firm.

Newsom: Out-of-state homeless welcome to ‘new beginnings’ in California

Gavin Newsom must really hate the families of California, the businesses and his office.  Instead of trying to solve the homeless problem, caused mostly by government policy, he wants the homeless of the nation to feel welcomed here and live off the remaining productive people of the State.

“California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he‘s not worried about a bill meant to combat homelessness exacerbating the problem because the state embraces everyone looking for “new beginnings.”

The Democrat made the comment when asked about the possible unintended consequences of signing the $12 billion AB-140 housing bill. Officials are required to “develop a framework for the California Dream For All Program, the goals of which would … [make] homeownership more affordable.”

“To the extent that people want to come here for new beginnings and all income levels, that’s part of the California dream and we have a responsibility to accommodate and enliven and inspire, and the California dream is still alive and well,” Mr. Newsom said Monday when asked if the Golden State — mired in a homeless crisis — might become a magnet for similar out-of-state populations.

Newsom has already made California the Mecca for illegal aliens.  Now the homeless.  Any wonder productive people are fleeing the State—between the homeless, the illegal aliens and the criminals, there is no place left in California for decent people.

Newsom: Out-of-state homeless welcome to ‘new beginnings’ in California

Democrat doesn’t fear unintended consequences of housing bill: ‘We have a responsibility to … inspire’

By Douglas Ernst – The Washington Times, 7/21/21   

California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he‘s not worried about a bill meant to combat homelessness exacerbating the problem because the state embraces everyone looking for “new beginnings.”

The Democrat made the comment when asked about the possible unintended consequences of signing the $12 billion AB-140 housing bill. Officials are required to “develop a framework for the California Dream For All Program, the goals of which would … [make] homeownership more affordable.”

“To the extent that people want to come here for new beginnings and all income levels, that’s part of the California dream and we have a responsibility to accommodate and enliven and inspire, and the California dream is still alive and well,” Mr. Newsom said Monday when asked if the Golden State — mired in a homeless crisis — might become a magnet for similar out-of-state populations.

Kevin Faulconer, a Republican vying to unseat the governor in the state’s upcoming recall election, was flabbergasted at the statement. 

“This is crazy,” Mr. Faulconer tweeted, a local ABC affiliate reported. “I have incredible compassion for homeless Californians. But no, we should not be encouraging homeless people from other parts of the country to move to California.”

Mr. Newsom signed the bill Monday in Sonoma County as part of his California Comeback Plan.

Seas are rising. Will California’s ‘managed retreat’ ease fears?

I am shocked.  Someone in government and a bunch of grifters trying to make a buck figured it out—the seas are rising.  Hence we need to take down hundreds of thousands of homes within two miles of the ocean (Al Gore wants that), create new housing and force people to leave their homes and take what government will pay them for it (which is zero because once government condemns a property it no longer has a value).

“Parts of Richmond are estimated to be at risk from a three-foot increase in sea levels, even as the waters of the Pacific Ocean along California’s coast are projected to rise by more than twice that due to climate change this century.

From building sea walls to nurturing “living” seashores, an array of potential solutions have been discussed by local authorities up and down the coast, but all are expensive and none had come up with a way of addressing the cost – until now.

Under a new state bill, a “revolving” fund would be set up to provide soft loans for cities like Richmond to buy vulnerable seaside properties from willing sellers, and then rent them back to the owners or tenants for as long as they remained habitable.

Willing seller today.  In the future the city will condemn the property of those not willing.  Don’t you love the Cuban/Chinese way of government?  The scam artist love this.

Seas are rising. Will California’s ‘managed retreat’ ease fears?

SEA WALL

As rising seas encroach upon coastal communities in California, cities are preparing to buy up vulnerable property and encourage residents to move inland in a “managed retreat.” It’s one of the state’s many initiatives to mitigate the effects of climate change.

By Carey L. Biron Thomson Reuters Foundation, 7/21/21 

Surrounded on three sides by the San Francisco Bay, residents of Richmond are used to being near the ocean. But as rising seas threaten to bring it even closer, Mayor Tom Butt is candid about the risks.

“It basically takes out a significant chunk of Richmond,” he said from the low-lying peninsula city, where little more than a road or narrow beach separates the ocean from densely populated neighborhoods, elegant seaside mansions, and cliff cottages.

Parts of Richmond are estimated to be at risk from a three-foot increase in sea levels, even as the waters of the Pacific Ocean along California’s coast are projected to rise by more than twice that due to climate change this century.

From building sea walls to nurturing “living” seashores, an array of potential solutions have been discussed by local authorities up and down the coast, but all are expensive and none had come up with a way of addressing the cost – until now.

Under a new state bill, a “revolving” fund would be set up to provide soft loans for cities like Richmond to buy vulnerable seaside properties from willing sellers, and then rent them back to the owners or tenants for as long as they remained habitable.

The proposal has been billed as the first strategic attempt to address the task of moving coastal cities back from rising seas, and it could also help local government leaders like Mr. Butt maintain the stream of revenue with rental income.

“It’s an excruciating political conundrum local government folks are facing,” California state Senator Ben Allen, the bill’s sponsor, said by phone.

Local officials have coastal property owners asking them to save their sometimes luxurious homes by building sea walls, said Mr. Allen, who represents areas around Los Angeles.

But sea walls are controversial – with critics citing their high costs, environmental impact, and relatively short life span.

‘Managed retreat’

The threat posed by rising seas to coastal cities and buildings has come to the fore in recent weeks following the collapse of an apartment block near Miami Beach, with some experts suggesting climate factors may have played a role.

Across the country, some 300,000 coastal homes worth almost $118 billion are at risk of chronic flooding by 2045, according to a 2018 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which sees that figure reaching $1 trillion by the century’s end.

 “Before things go underwater, you get these chronic flooding events that cause property to significantly lose value,” said Rachel Cleetus, climate and energy policy director with the nonprofit, who led the study.

Mr. Allen’s bill, which has passed one house of the state legislature and is under discussion in the other, offers the possibility of moving cities away from the rising Pacific – rather than attempting to keep the ocean at bay.

“This is one of the most innovative proposals we’ve seen in California,” said Sara Aminzadeh, a commissioner on the California Coastal Commission, a state agency that has voted to support the bill.

“In 20 or 50 years, we don’t want, nor could we afford, to build a wall along the entire coast, so a big part of that will be ‘managed retreat’ – making room for the coast and ocean by moving inland,” Ms. Aminzadeh added.

“This policy proposal is an important first step to start to think about how that could work.”

Mr. Allen’s proposal has been backed by the city of Santa Monica and the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, which represents nearly 20 jurisdictions around Los Angeles, according to documents shared with the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Bailing out the rich?

The bill’s approach has drawn criticism, however, with some saying it would effectively subsidize some of the country’s wealthiest property owners, whose multi-million dollar beach houses and mansions dot California’s coastline.

“[It] is a wasteful and unnecessary use of public money to bail owners of coastal properties out of a risky investment,” said Chelsea Kirk, a policy analyst for Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, a nonprofit.

“The owners have the information they need to decide what to do with their private property as its value declines. Instead, the money should be spent to support the hundreds of thousands of Californians in dire need of affordable homes.”

Hundreds of miles south of Richmond, in the Los Angeles County city of Hermosa Beach, Mayor Justin Massey welcomed a mechanism that would maintain municipal revenue and help flood-hit homeowners.

But he echoed some of Ms. Kirk’s concerns.

“The only problem is using public funds to rescue private property that was built … in a zone of sea-level rise,” he said.

Ms. Cleetus said a revolving loan fund merited investigation, but questioned whether it would offer a long-term solution.

Once an area includes many homes in the fund, “do you suddenly look at this community as blighted? Who gets left behind?” she said.

Another question is where people go when coastal homes are uninhabitable, she said, suggesting that one strategy could be another revolving loan fund to equitably establish new communities elsewhere.

Eric Clapton won’t play venues that require vaccinations

Some in the entertainer field still use commonsense and reality.  Eric Clapton took the jab and almost died.  He took the second jab and physically it was worse.

“Eric Clapton performs on stage during Music For The Marsden 2020 at The O2 Arena on March 3, 2020 in London. (Gareth Cattermole/Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images)

“Following the PM’s announcement on Monday the 19th of July 2021 I feel honour bound to make an announcement of my own: I wish to say that I will not perform on any stage where there is a discriminated audience present,” Clapton said in a statement posted to his friend Robin Monotti’s Telegram account. “Unless there is provision made for all people to attend, I reserve the right to cancel the show. Eric Clapton.”

We already know that in L.A. County 20% of those fully vaccinated get the virus and that thousands around the nation have died because they took the jab. Congrats to Clapton for trying to save lives.

Eric Clapton won’t play venues that require vaccinations

By Brian Niemietz, New York Daily News, 7/21/21 

Guitar wiz Eric Clapton won’t bring his ax to venues that require the vax.

Drawing from his own experience — an AstraZeneca shot he described as “disastrous” — the “Tears in Heaven” singer stated that he took exception to English Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision that unvaccinated people would not be allowed inside English clubs and music venues.

Eric Clapton performs on stage during Music For The Marsden 2020 at The O2 Arena on March 3, 2020 in London. (Gareth Cattermole/Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images)

“Following the PM’s announcement on Monday the 19th of July 2021 I feel honour bound to make an announcement of my own: I wish to say that I will not perform on any stage where there is a discriminated audience present,” Clapton said in a statement posted to his friend Robin Monotti’s Telegram account. “Unless there is provision made for all people to attend, I reserve the right to cancel the show. Eric Clapton.”

Monotti, an architect and filmmaker who’s skeptical about COVID vaccines, also used his social media to share Clapton’s message in May regarding the 76-year-old musician’s experience after being inoculated. Clapton claimed the first dose made him sick, and the second jab was worse.

“The reactions were disastrous,” he recalled. “My hands and feet were either frozen, numb or burning, and pretty much useless for two weeks, I feared I would never play again.”

Clapton said he was hesitant about getting a vaccination shot on account of suffering from the neurological disorder peripheral neuropathy “But the propaganda said the vaccine was safe for everyone.”

Rolling Stone magazine confirmed Monotti was posting on Clapton’s behalf.

The World Health Organization acknowledged in March that it’s not unusual to hear about and investigate “potential adverse events” following immunizations — some occurrences could be a reaction to the vaccine, while others may have no relation. It’s unclear what happened in Clapton’s case.

The WHO said at the time that “the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks and recommends that vaccinations continue.”

Fans wanting to see “Springsteen on Broadway” were initially informed AstraZeneca vaccinations would not cut muster for fans wanting to see Bruce Springsteen perform. That decision was reversed after the governor gave the OK for people who had received either FDA or WHO approved vaccines to attend live indoor events.

City of LA Descends into Full-On Fascism

Eric Garcetti is leaving for India before the mob gets him.  To Progressives he is a Trump supporter.  To conservative he is a totalitarian.  Neither are right, he is just an old fashioned Fascist.  He believes government ownership or control of property is correct.  He thinks families and businesses are not taxed enough.  He does not believe in free speech nor should that government protect citizens from criminals— both outside and inside of government.

“The City of Los Angeles is moving towards a system in which civic employees can be accused of thought crimes and disciplined for a joke or tone of voice or perhaps just a raised eyebrow.

At least that’s my reading of the draft Workplace Equity Policy which has now been circulated. The draft speaks directly of microaggressions. Even the sociologists who study such phenomenon have been careful to put the adjective “micro” in front of the term. But the City of Los Angeles will hold its employees to a standard which is well meant but will be extremely hard to uphold in real world practice. 

Not so for the city’s Neighborhood Council system, in which full-on fascism is the future, at least if the city’s appointed officials get their way. 

If government THINKS you have bad thoughts you will be punished—any different from Germany in the 1930’s or China today?  That is what Garcetti is leaving behind—a fascist city filled with criminals, homeless illegal aliens and anarchists.  A slum for over three million people and a forum for hate.

City of LA Descends into Full-On Fascism

Bob Gelfand, City Watch LA  7/22/21 

GELFAND’S WORLD-The City of Los Angeles is moving towards a system in which civic employees can be accused of thought crimes and disciplined for a joke or tone of voice or perhaps just a raised eyebrow.

At least that’s my reading of the draft Workplace Equity Policy which has now been circulated. The draft speaks directly of microaggressions. Even the sociologists who study such phenomenon have been careful to put the adjective “micro” in front of the term. But the City of Los Angeles will hold its employees to a standard which is well meant but will be extremely hard to uphold in real world practice. 

Not so for the city’s Neighborhood Council system, in which full-on fascism is the future, at least if the city’s appointed officials get their way. 

An aside: When it comes to the city’s paid employees, we can be reasonably certain that in practice, the new policy will be accompanied by checks and balances. For one thing, city employees are generally represented by unions and work under negotiated labor agreements. 

But neighborhood council participants and the boards they sit on function in a different sort of environment. The boards are, ostensibly, independent political bodies whose job is to criticize the performance of elected officials and city departments. Under the city’s Charter, they should be protected from retaliation by city departments and elected officials. 

But now, the city government has gone completely over the top. On Monday, July 19, 2021, a draft proposal was presented to the city’s Board of Neighborhood Commissioners, which oversees the neighborhood council system. The proposal was presented by Raquel Beltrán, the General Manager of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. DONE, as it is colloquially known, has day-to-day administrative functions such as reminding us to take our state-required ethics training. They’ve done that job reasonably well. 

But now DONE’s General Manager is asking the city for absolute power over neighborhood council board members. If the proposed new policy is passed, then on her say-so, you can be removed from your board for the next three months without any requirement that anything be proved against you. On mere say-so, the GM can suspend you, and there is no recourse on your part. 

In a letter presented to the BONC on Monday, Beltrán presented the case for assuming such unprecedented power. Here is the paragraph in that letter which caused something of a firestorm among the ranks of neighborhood council participants: 

“6. If a Board  Member or Committee Member is alleged to have violated either the City’s Workplace Equity Policy or the Commission’s Code of Conduct, the Department, with written approval from the General Manager, may immediately suspend the Board Member or Committee Member for a period of up to 90 days. Said Board Member or Committee Member shall not be eligible to act on any matter that comes before their Neighborhood Council Board or Committee and shall not be counted for the purpose of establishing a quorum of the Neighborhood Council Board or Committee.” 

Let me translate that paragraph into plain English for you: If the General Manager of this one city department takes a dislike to you, you are gone. There don’t have to be established facts, or a chance to tell your side, or any other due process. If Raquel Beltrán wants you gone, you’re gone. All of that is implicit in that one word, “alleged.” There doesn’t have to be due process, or even a chance for you to defend yourself. It’s just something that has been alleged

One distinct problem with this proposal — aside from its essential fascism — is that Raquel Beltrán has not shown us the Solomon-like wisdom that would be required in order to grant her such power and authority. In our experience, there are distinct questions about her fairness and her fitness to serve. Now, based on the contents of the letter, we can say confidently that she is not fit to serve and should be removed as General Manager of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Could anyone even imagine Greg Nelson asking for such power? 

I will concede from the outset that the paragraph in question talks merely about a three-month suspension from one’s lawfully elected position, but the combined documents make clear that this is a move to give the authorities the power to remove board members permanently when, in their judgment, they think the system would be better off without them. The Coup de grâce would be administered by the BONC. 

You might imagine that such a radical change would have come about based on some demonstrated need. If there is some such need, it has not been discussed with neighborhood council participants. 

The Beltrán letter refers to requests and complaints from neighborhood council participants, but in a system which includes several thousand people (board members and participating public), there are always going to be those who are disgruntled. But I am not aware of any truly public airing of the sorts of problems that would justify giving some city department the power to overrule the decisions made by the city’s voters in official elections. 

Here is how the proposed policy came about, where I am quoting directly from the Beltrán letter. 

” Two members of the Commission were appointed to an Ad Hoc Committee to work with the Department to prepare draft amendments to the Policy. They include Commissioners Len Shaffer and Quyen Vo-Ramirez. 

“SUMMARY: 

“In partnership with the Commission’s Ad Hoc Committee, the Department led a Neighborhood Council Code of Conduct Work Group of City Department leaders with neighborhood council experience. They set out to review current policy, implementing procedures and processes, and current and anticipated City policies. The Work Group members included representatives of the Personnel Department’s Division, the City Attorney’s Labor Relations and Neighborhood Council Advice Divisions, and EmpowerLA’s Leadership Team. Additionally, the Work Group included representatives of the City of Los Angeles Civil, Human Rights, and Equity Department (LA Civil Rights). EmpowerLA is grateful to these seasoned professionals for their dedication to this project.” 

Again, allow me to translate these paragraphs into plain English. In order to develop a method that will allow the authorities to throw difficult people off of neighborhood council boards, the authorities put together a group of bureaucrats who know how to write legislation. This operation appears to have been carried out in secrecy, at least from the neighborhood council participants that this proposed policy is now aimed at. There was obviously no input from people like me. 

Allow me to take this moment to make an editorial remark. The proposed policy is really just another concession that the authorities have failed all along. They can’t eliminate the complaints from disgruntled people, and they have tried, in their own fumbling way, many things. What they don’t understand is that their own incompetence shines through when it comes to their attempts at behavioral modification. They just keep escalating their attempts at a dictatorship and the policy currently being proposed is just one more outrage they have perpetrated. 

In the hours following the release of the Beltrán letter, there was, naturally enough, speculation about the timing. The argument went like this: Over the past month, a group of people have been getting together to discuss the problem of DONE and what to do about it. The group was originally created by a vote of the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC) but has, over the weeks, begun to take on a life of its own. This group will eventually hold discussions (and a Town Hall Forum) on the issues with respect to DONE, and this is planned to be open to the public and online. 

So it was natural for some people to assume that this letter — and its public presentation at a BONC meeting — was a shot across the bow, so to speak, against the ad hoc committee and its members. Maybe we (I’m a participant) are some of the intended targets of the proposed policy. Perhaps DONE sees any criticism of its own actions as a microaggression. The proposed policy is so broad that, were it to be enacted, it could be used against the members of the ad hoc committee. 

But I have a different view. I think that the people who participated in the process of developing this monstrosity — particularly the two BONC members — are completely sincere in their belief that they have to have more power to discipline neighborhood council participants and to remove them from participation. I’m guessing that there are a couple or three people who they would like to get, even though they won’t say so in public. Or perhaps they just have vivid imaginations and speculate about what might happen someday. 

What’s interesting is that my colleagues, now aroused from their slumber, are pointing out how un-American the whole proposal is. It’s not a difficult argument to make. One might merely point to the Constitution’s prohibition of ex post facto laws. Should the new policy be implemented, the city of Los Angeles will be the exception to that principle. 

I suggest that neighborhood council participants take the time to read through the Beltrán letter in its entirety to see the overall scope and the danger to your own interests. 

In closing for today, may I point out that there are a substantial number of questions that should be taken up both publicly and in the pages of CityWatch. Some of them include the misuse and abuse of the technique called “exhaustive efforts,” the inability of the BONC to develop an equitable neighborhood council funding policy, the general incompetence and ignorance of DONE staff, and the punitive acts by DONE against some neighborhood council participants. We’ve got a lot to talk about in the coming months. 

For now, let’s summarize. It is time for Mayor Garcetti to remove Raquel Beltrán as General Manager of DONE and to remove Eli Lipmen from the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners. It is also long since time that we had a City Attorney who treats the neighborhood councils as coequal partners in city government rather than as the opponent. 

Could this be the tipping point? Will we finally get constructive change? 

The creation of the ad hoc committee to investigate DONE and the current public outrage over the Beltrán letter are not the cause, but merely symptoms of problems that go back for years. We have asked for action to be taken, but the city government always seems to go the wrong way. Perhaps the level of anger currently being manifested will finally lead to the right kind of action. Perhaps neighborhood council participants will start to tell DONE and the BONC, “I don’t work for you. You are supposed to work for me.” 

Here again is the Beltrán letter.

L.A. County 20% of Those Vaccinated get COVID!!

Six fully vaccinated members of the Texas Legislature have COVID.  So far they have transmitted it to staff in the White House and those on the state of Nancy Pelosi.  In L.A. County, 20% of those fully vaccinated then got the virus.  If we are going to isolate and punish those who have not taken the jab, based on FACT, we need to isolate and punish those who have taken the jab.

“In fact, during the month of June, 20% of all newly reported COVID infections in the county occurred among people who had been fully vaccinated. That was up from 11% in May and 5% in April. But Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said the increase is normal given the continued rise in the number of people who are getting fully vaccinated.

She also stressed that fully vaccinated people who become infected generally have extremely mild cases — a benefit the vaccines have always promised.

“Very few of them ended up hospitalized, and even smaller numbers ended up passing away,” Ferrer said. “So yes, if you are fully vaccinated you have a lot of protection, which is what the vaccines have always been best at — protecting people from serious illness and death. And these vaccines, even with the ‘Delta’ variant, are holding up really well.”

Milder, maybe?>  Still they are super spreaders.  Now you know why Biden and Newsom want you to wear a mask at all times.  They know the vaccine is little more than an emotional statement.  With or without the jab, you can get the virus.  Too bad the Lyin Fauci prefers the limelight of fame to the honesty of science.

COVID variant continues relentless spread in LA County, even among vaccinated residents

Another 2,700 cases were reported Thursday and another 13 deaths. There were 655 people hospitalized in the county due to COVID, up from 645 on Wednesday.

By City News Service, 7/22/21  

A relentless surge of COVID-19 cases continued in Los Angeles County on Thursday, July 22, as another 2,700 cases were reported, with the percentage of infections occurring among fully vaccinated residents steadily rising.

In fact, during the month of June, 20% of all newly reported COVID infections in the county occurred among people who had been fully vaccinated. That was up from 11% in May and 5% in April. But Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said the increase is normal given the continued rise in the number of people who are getting fully vaccinated.

She also stressed that fully vaccinated people who become infected generally have extremely mild cases — a benefit the vaccines have always promised.

“Very few of them ended up hospitalized, and even smaller numbers ended up passing away,” Ferrer said. “So yes, if you are fully vaccinated you have a lot of protection, which is what the vaccines have always been best at — protecting people from serious illness and death. And these vaccines, even with the ‘Delta’ variant, are holding up really well.”

She said the fact that people who are fully vaccinated are still getting infected should not be viewed as the shots being ineffective, and should not be used as an excuse for people to avoid getting the shots.

“While seat belts don’t prevent every bad thing that can happen during a car accident, they do provide excellent protection, so much so that we all use them routinely,” she said. “It wouldn’t really make sense to not use a seat belt just because it doesn’t prevent all injuries from car accidents. Rejecting a COVID vaccine because they don’t offer 100% protection really ignores the powerful benefits we’ve experienced from those people who have gotten vaccinated.”

She noted that when the vaccination program began, the primary benefit cited was their ability to prevent people from ending up hospitalized or dying from the virus. With the county seeing rising infections — the vast majority among those who are unvaccinated — infections are expected to occur among some who have gotten the shots. And she noted that absent the vaccines, infection numbers would be much higher.

“When we went into this, the vaccines really promised us they would prevent illness and death, and there were big question marks about how much fully vaccinated people would be prevented from getting the virus,” Ferrer said. “… There is still so much protection for people who are fully vaccinated, especially in comparison to those who have no protection at all because they’re not vaccinated.” people hospitalized in the county due to COVID, up from 645 on Wednesday.

According to the county, among roughly 4.85 million fully vaccinated residents from Jan. 19 through Tuesday, 6,520 tested positive for the virus, for a rate of 0.13%. That’s up from a rate of 0.09% last week.

Of the fully vaccinated people in that period who tested positive, only 287 were hospitalized, for a rate of 0.0059% of the vaccinated population, up from 0.0045% last week. There were 30 vaccinated people who died, a rate of 0.0006%.

The most recent figures provided by the county Thursday show that 5.3 million of the county’s roughly 10.3 million residents are fully vaccinated, a rate of roughly 52%. About 1.3 million county residents are ineligible for shots because they are under age 12.

Dana Walker talks to students after they received COVID-19 vaccines during a walk-up vaccination clinic held by Kaiser Permanente and Los Angeles Mission College. The clinic was held as part of the college’s “Eagle Enrollment Fair” in preparation for the fall 2021 semester. Students who enroll at LAMC while at the event will receive assistance to apply for a $300 emergency grant and a free pass to Six Flags Magic Mountain if they received their COVID-19 vaccination on site.(Photo by Andy Holzman, Contributing Photographer)

The county reported 2,767 new COVID infections on Thursday, the highest daily number since February. The new cases lifted the county’s cumulative total since the pandemic began to 1,276,137. It was the 14th straight day of daily case numbers that topped 1,000.

Another 13 deaths were reported, raising the overall death toll to 24,607.

According to state figures, there were 655 people hospitalized in the county due to COVID, up from 645 on Wednesday. There were 148 people in intensive care, up from 140 a day earlier.

The average daily rate of people testing positive for the virus rose slightly to 5.26% on Thursday, compared to 5.2% a day earlier. The rate one month ago was 0.7%.

Health officials have pointed squarely to the highly infectious “Delta” strain of COVID-19 for the recent surge in cases locally and across the country. The variant, first detected in Indian, has increased in prevalence statewide, and it now represents the vast majority of confirmed variants in the county.

Ferrer again insisted that the current vaccines offer strong protection against the “Delta” variant, and she continued to urge residents to get vaccinated. Young Black and Latino residents continue to have the lowest rates of vaccination in the county.

Black residents also had the highest rate of new infections over the last month, at 181 per 100,000 residents. Latino/a residents have traditionally had one of the highest infections rates throughout the pandemic, but over the past months, white residents accrued a higher rate, at 83 per 100,000 residents. Latinos had an infection rate of 62 per 100,000 residents.

Black residents also had the highest rate of hospitalizations over the month, followed by Latinos and whites.

In hopes of encouraging more people to get vaccinated, the county is continuing to offer incentives. Between Friday and next Thursday, anyone who gets vaccinated at sites operated by the county, the city of Los Angeles or St. John’s Well Child and Family Center will be entered for a chance to win one of seven concert ticket packages at AEG venues, for a variety of acts.

My High School Taught Me Critical Race Theory Six Years Ago And Tried To Reeducate Me When I Fought Back

Racism has been taught, promoted and demanded in schools for years.  Hate of white people in California schools today equal the hate in Alabama schools in the 1950’s.  Hate is wrong, period.  But to Biden, Newsom and other self loathing white Democrats, it is their way to make up for their guilt—by destroying a generator of students and make hate the national slogan.

“I went to high school at a mid-sized government school in the heart of the Silicon Valley. The student body was highly diverse, with large Asian and Hispanic populations and a white plurality. The Public School Review noted my school was in the top 20 percent of the most multiracial schools in California, a state that’s already far more multi-ethnic than most of the rest of the country.

My first encounter with critical race theory was in my freshman year, when we skipped our P.E. class to engage in a racial struggle session, hosted by a teacher and a special cadre of students who had been handpicked and placed in her equity advisory class.

I began to catch on when the presenters played a video titled “What kind of Asian are you?” The clip features a buffoonish caricature of an insensitive white man, the video’s antagonist, who becomes the subject of scorn after he commits several “microaggressions” as he attempts to relate with the video’s heroine, an Asian woman. She then humiliates him and trots off.

Yes, they also teach hate of Asian and Hispanics.  Remember, only Black Lives Matter—the slogan of the Klan in Tan.

My High School Taught Me Critical Race Theory Six Years Ago And Tried To Reeducate Me When I Fought Back

Critical race theory has just recently become one of the primary targets for the right, and for good reason. But CRT’s presence in K-12 education isn’t new.

By Spencer Lindquist, The Federalist,  7/22/21 

One step backward. They asked another question. One step forward. The PA system buzzed back to life. Another question, another step forward. Then another, and another. It had been decided. 

It was 2015 during my freshman year of high school. I had just been exposed to critical race theory for the first time. We were in the midst of a privilege walk, a racial shaming exercise that uses selective questioning to substantiate claims of privilege and oppression.

Now, six years later, critical race theory has just recently become a target for the right, with various different states outlawing it and parent groups forming to oppose it. This cancerous ideology has had a presence in our K-12 public schools for much longer than many realize, however. I know because my high school attempted to indoctrinate me with it and, when I fought back, to reeducate me. 

Taxpayers Paying for Indoctrination

I went to high school at a mid-sized government school in the heart of the Silicon Valley. The student body was highly diverse, with large Asian and Hispanic populations and a white plurality. The Public School Review noted my school was in the top 20 percent of the most multiracial schools in California, a state that’s already far more multi-ethnic than most of the rest of the country.

My first encounter with critical race theory was in my freshman year, when we skipped our P.E. class to engage in a racial struggle session, hosted by a teacher and a special cadre of students who had been handpicked and placed in her equity advisory class.

I began to catch on when the presenters played a video titled “What kind of Asian are you?” The clip features a buffoonish caricature of an insensitive white man, the video’s antagonist, who becomes the subject of scorn after he commits several “microaggressions” as he attempts to relate with the video’s heroine, an Asian woman. She then humiliates him and trots off.

I was beginning to wonder if our conversation was really about advancing “equity,” or if it was about scapegoating those who pose an obstacle to progressivism’s long march. They didn’t leave me wondering for long. Shortly after the video, we were taken into the school courtyard, where chalk lines had been meticulously drawn on the pavement, where we were then told to stand on the center line. We then started our privilege walk. 

The presenters asked us a series of questions, telling us to step forward or backward depending on our answers to inquiries like “Have you ever felt like you’ve been racially profiled?” or “Did your parents graduate from college?” By the time it was over, whites were in the front, then Asians, Hispanics, and finally African Americans. The verdict was in. 

But while trivial questions like “Can you easily find Band-Aids that match your skin tone?” were used to substantiate sweeping claims of privilege and oppression, more pertinent inquiries that would’ve jammed the narrative were excluded. 

We were never asked, for example, to take a step back if we’d be systematically discriminated against when we applied for college. Nor were we asked if we had ever felt that the media had ever weaponized our ancestry against us to brand us as oppressors, or if violence against us had been ignored because of our race, either in America or abroad.

Similar exercises held today likely don’t ask questions that account for recent developments, like multi-million-dollar organizations branding phrases like “It’s Okay To Be White” as hate slogans, critical race theory teaching white children to hate themselves, or the adoption of the language of genocide by academics who dub whiteness a “parasitic condition” without a “permanent cure,” or fantasize about committing acts of racial violence against white people. 

The selective questioning was intended to create a certain outcome, a prime example of a conclusion in search of evidence. 

Afterwards, we were divided into breakout groups, where I was chastised by the group leader and a peer who made a scene when I disputed a claim that our city upheld white supremacy. 

Although the event had left a bad taste in my mouth, I gave it little thought until the next year when I saw I’d been placed in the class that hosted the yearly event. I was told I’d been recommended by faculty members who thought I’d be a good fit for the class. As a vocal conservative, I knew there was no chance that any of my teachers genuinely believed I’d be a good fit. I knew the equity advisory faculty member was well aware of my beliefs due to the pushback that I offered at her event.

I was left to conclude that I was placed in the class in an attempt to reign in my dissent. On the first day, my suspicions were confirmed. Not only was I the lone straight white male in the year-long class, I was also one of the only students who wasn’t left-wing. 

Throughout the class, we watched Emma Watson’s feminist speech to the U.N, sifted through Peggy McIntosh’s Invisible Knapsack of white privilege, and deconstructed various forms of privilege and oppression, always noting who the “oppressors” were. We were even shown a video that advocated for affirmative action, which was then shown to the rest of the school. 

Rather than soften my conservative proclivities, the class hardened my disposition towards the “social justice” movement and what would soon be known as critical race theory. When it came time for us to run the struggle session that I had been subjected to the previous year, my dignity nagged at me, and I refused to take part. 

I noticed the tragic irony of being told that I was the beneficiary of structural racism while a government school that my family helped fund marched in lockstep with much of the media and higher education, telling me on a weekly basis that, because I am a straight, white, Christian male, recognizing these facets of my identity as anything other than a source of shame was evidence of my own wickedness. 

Upon leaving the class after my sophomore year, the consistency of my exposure to critical race theory slowed down, but the severity of such instances didn’t, with racial grievance politics permeating our discourse. One teacher instructed me not to use the word “minority,” claiming it was offensive since it meant “less than whole.” When I objected, I was mocked, with my teacher remarking, “You know white people will be a minority one day, right?” 

In a public speaking class, a two-minute speech I delivered turned into a 45-minute exchange after I decried the villainization of white people on college campuses, citing an anti-white article from Texas State University’s student newspaper titled “Your DNA is an Abomination” that argued white people are genetically inferior and claimed that “white death will mean liberation for all,” even ending with “I hate you because you shouldn’t exist.”

My teacher called me back up to the podium, asking in front of the class if I “understood why some people might feel this way, given our nation’s history?” I was in awe. A teacher who would’ve described herself as an “anti-racist” was attempting to justify the rhetoric of genocide in an article that argued for the genetic inferiority of white people. 

This was the type of outright, anti-white hatred that critical race theory exposed me to, beginning six years ago. Since then the situation has undoubtedly worsened, with CRT even targeting children in elementary school

Critical race theory isn’t new, but the fight against it is. After years of pushing back against it, it’s been heartening to watch a mass movement rise to counter the left’s politics of racial grievance as the right relearns how to organize on the grassroots level, even as impotent so-called conservatives like David French attempt to undercut their success.

Moving forward, it will be incumbent not only on lawmakers and commentators but on parents, educators, and even students to continue to organize against ideologies like critical race theory that use appeals to egalitarianism as a smokescreen while they engage in blood libel.

Spencer Lindquist is an intern at the Federalist and a senior at Pepperdine University where he studies Political Science and Rhetoric and Leadership and serves as Pepperdine’s College Republicans President and the Chief of Staff of the California College Republicans.

Proterra Bus Fire Prompts California Agency to Consider Shelving Electric Bus Fleet

This is what your tax dollars are financing:

“The Foothill Transit agency, which serves the valleys surrounding Los Angeles, will decide on Friday whether costly Proterra buses purchased in the last decade are still operable. Problems cited by the agency include not only the bus that caught fire in what’s described as a “thermal event,” but also buses that melt in the California heat and have transmission failures. Roland Cordero, the agency’s director of maintenance and vehicle technology, says the problems with the buses are exacerbated by Proterra’s inability to help with repairs.

“With the number of failures we are experiencing and the inability of Proterra to provide parts, these [Battery Electric Buses] BEBs will only get worse as we continue to operate them whenever the BEBs are available for service,” Cordero wrote ahead of Friday’s executive board meeting, where the agency will debate taking Proterra buses out of service.

They cost one million dollars a piece—for a driving death trap.  You would think Biden and his people would be embarrassed—they do not care.

Proterra Bus Fire Prompts California Agency to Consider Shelving Electric Bus Fleet

Electric buses are melting in sun, too expensive to fix, transit official says

Matthew Foldi • Washington Free Beacon,  7/23/21 

An electric bus manufactured by Proterra caught fire while charging in a southern California city that is now considering taking the electric buses off the road, according to government records.

The Foothill Transit agency, which serves the valleys surrounding Los Angeles, will decide on Friday whether costly Proterra buses purchased in the last decade are still operable. Problems cited by the agency include not only the bus that caught fire in what’s described as a “thermal event,” but also buses that melt in the California heat and have transmission failures. Roland Cordero, the agency’s director of maintenance and vehicle technology, says the problems with the buses are exacerbated by Proterra’s inability to help with repairs.

“With the number of failures we are experiencing and the inability of Proterra to provide parts, these [Battery Electric Buses] BEBs will only get worse as we continue to operate them whenever the BEBs are available for service,” Cordero wrote ahead of Friday’s executive board meeting, where the agency will debate taking Proterra buses out of service.

The electric bus company, which has been hailed by the Biden administration as the future of mass transportation, has seen its stock plummet in the last month as reports pile up about problems with its product. In Philadelphia, mechanical failures and weak battery performance forced city officials to shelve buses received as recently as 2019. In Duluth, Minnesota, the buses were taken off the road because their brakes couldn’t handle the city’s hills. The publicly known failings of Proterra’s buses have not deterred key members of the Biden administration, including the president himself, from touting the company on multiple occasions.

A Foothill Transit spokeswoman told the Washington Free Beacon the “thermal event” referenced in the report refers to a Jan. 9, 2020, incident in which a Proterra bus caught fire while connected to its charger. The agency’s report complains that parts for the buses it purchased are “difficult to obtain” and that expired warranties force the transit agency to pay tens of thousands of dollars for “advanced technology parts.”

The report says some of the Proterra buses have remained out of service for up to 275 days due to an inability to get replacement parts.

“As of July 7, 2021, only three of the 15 BEBs are available for service,” the report says. “Some of the buses have been out of service for very extended periods such as bus 2012 out of service for 275 days waiting for a part, bus 2010 out for 125 days waiting for a part, bus 2017 out for 45 days for a bad transmission and waiting for a part.”

The report notes that Proterra’s problems are unique to the electric vehicle buses, which have been much more trouble than the company’s fleet of compressed natural gas-fueled rivals.

“The plastic interior panels, front wheel well cabinets, and driver bulkheads in the [Proterra buses] have deformed due to exposure to heat and sunlight,” the report notes. “We have never experienced interior panel deterioration in our fleet of [compressed natural gas] buses.”

Foothill Transit was one of Proterra’s earliest customers, purchasing its first fleet of buses from the company in 2010, shortly after Proterra received federal money through the Obama administration’s stimulus package. Two of the first Proterra buses acquired by the transit agency are now off the road and “have only been used for operator training due to its very poor build quality and reliability.”

A Proterra spokesman would not comment on the “thermal event,” but said Foothill Transit’s problems are with the earliest generation of the company’s buses.

“The technology in Proterra electric transit buses and chargers manufactured today is vastly different from when Foothill’s initial vehicles were designed, manufactured, and put into service,” a spokesman told the Free Beacon. “We are now on our fifth-generation electric transit bus, powered by our industry-leading battery technology.” 

The “thermal event” Proterra experienced in California isn’t the first time one of its buses melted down. In 2015, a prototype Proterra bus exploded at the company’s South Carolina facility. Fire investigators say the explosion likely started with the bus’s tires—only one tire was found after the fire was extinguished. “They blew out because the bus was on fire,” a fire department spokesman said. “That caused the tires to blow. We don’t know if the bus was the origin of the fire or if another origin caused the bus to catch on fire.”

The executive meeting to discuss the fate of the troubled buses is on Friday morning.

Inspiring: US Women’s Soccer Team To Boycott Scoring Goals Until Racism Is Defeated

This may be the first time in history that Americans are cheering against an “American” Team.  The Women’s Soccer Team at the Olympics have demeaned the flag and our nation,, but our volunteers and donors sent them to Tokyo—and they are using the photo opportunity to denounce our nation.

So, since they believe the nation is racist—the black women on the Team must be tokens, then they have only one choice in the Games.

: “Yeah, we didn’t score any goals against Sweden last night, but that was totally on purpose,” said star player and beloved activist Megan Rapinoe. “This isn’t the time to score goals—when America is still racist. We totally could have beaten Sweden but we decided as a team that no goals will be scored until complete equality has been achieved in America. Also, we demand a hefty raise.”

As you eat a Subway sandwich, promoted by this American hater, remember you are financing her lifestyle.

Inspiring: US Women’s Soccer Team To Boycott Scoring Goals Until Racism Is Defeated

 BabylonBee.com, 7/21/21 

TOKYO—People were stunned after the U.S. women’s soccer team lost to Sweden in the Olympics this week by a score of 3-0—until the team revealed they are boycotting scoring any goals until racism is defeated.

“Yeah, we didn’t score any goals against Sweden last night, but that was totally on purpose,” said star player and beloved activist Megan Rapinoe. “This isn’t the time to score goals—when America is still racist. We totally could have beaten Sweden but we decided as a team that no goals will be scored until complete equality has been achieved in America. Also, we demand a hefty raise.”

Onlookers were stunned during the second half of the game when Rapinoe dribbled the ball all the way to Sweden’s unprotected goal and whispered “This is for you, people of color,” before kicking the ball straight into the air and running headfirst into the goalpost.

“This may be one of the most powerful performances in the history of sports,” said Teen Vogue‘s sportswriter who has never watched sports.

The U.S. Women’s team is demanding to remain in the Olympic tournament and promises to continue its streak of zero goals. Inspiring!