Video Emerges Of Joe Biden Calling U.S. Troops ‘Stupid Bastards’ During Speech. Biden Campaign Responds.

Recently the Atlantic magazine tried to smear President Trump with a canard so egregious that even John Bolton, who was present when the magazine claimed Trump said nasty things about the military, had to come to the Presidents defense and say it was a lie.  Now we have a VIDEO of Biden calling military members “stupid bastards”.  It was filmed, not like the Atlantic based on anonymous sources.

“A video emerged on Friday of Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden calling soldiers “stupid bastards” and a “dull bunch” during a speech overseas to U.S. soldiers while he was serving as vice president in the Obama administration.

“I have incredibly good judgment,” Biden said. “One, I married Jill, and two, I appointed Johnson to the academy. I just want you to know that. Clap for that, you stupid bastards.”

Moments later, Biden appeared to say that the soldiers were “a dull bunch” and that they “must be slow.”

The Biden campaign confirmed to The Daily Beast that the video was real, but claimed that Biden made the comments “jokingly.”

Maybe it was not a joke—just another incoherent statement from a man who has to rest nine days out of 26 in September—ending most days before noon and unable to answer questions—even the easy ones, even with a teleprompter.  Note he does almost nothing after mid-day—some have suggested “sundowner syndrome: as the cause.

The Obama/Biden administration decimated the military—so he put his words into action.  Can we afford his supportive view of China AND cutting the military?. 

Video Emerges Of Joe Biden Calling U.S. Troops ‘Stupid Bastards’ During Speech. Biden Campaign Responds.

By  Ryan Saavedra, Daily Wire,   9/25/20 

Recently the Atlantic magazine tried to smear President Trump with a canard so egregious that even John Bolton, who was present when the magazine claimed Trump said nasty things about the military, had to come to the Presidents defense and say it was a lie.  Now we have a VIDEO of Biden calling military members “stupid bastards”.  It was filmed, not like the Atlantic based on anonymous sources.

“A video emerged on Friday of Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden calling soldiers “stupid bastards” and a “dull bunch” during a speech overseas to U.S. soldiers while he was serving as vice president in the Obama administration.

“I have incredibly good judgment,” Biden said. “One, I married Jill, and two, I appointed Johnson to the academy. I just want you to know that. Clap for that, you stupid bastards.”

Moments later, Biden appeared to say that the soldiers were “a dull bunch” and that they “must be slow.”

The Biden campaign confirmed to The Daily Beast that the video was real, but claimed that Biden made the comments “jokingly.”

Maybe it was not a joke—just another incoherent statement from a man who has to rest nine days out of 26 in September—ending most days before noon and unable to answer questions—even the easy ones, even with a teleprompter.  Note he does almost nothing after mid-day—some have suggested “sundowner syndrome: as the cause.

The Obama/Biden administration decimated the military—so he put his words into action.  Can we afford his supportive view of China AND cutting the military?. 

Video Emerges Of Joe Biden Calling U.S. Troops ‘Stupid Bastards’ During Speech. Biden Campaign Responds.

By  Ryan Saavedra, Daily Wire,   9/25/20  https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-video-emerges-of-joe-biden-calling-u-s-troops-stupid-bastards-during-speech-biden-campaign-responds?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=andrewklavan&fbclid=IwAR2c7Xfwuxw6B5Dqg4Cty2lIxPWlKfD0BqWD60CwoSWLyY9Ab_ZK7Zq_uxU

A video emerged on Friday of Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden calling soldiers “stupid bastards” and a “dull bunch” during a speech overseas to U.S. soldiers while he was serving as vice president in the Obama administration.

“I have incredibly good judgment,” Biden said. “One, I married Jill, and two, I appointed Johnson to the academy. I just want you to know that. Clap for that, you stupid bastards.”

Moments later, Biden appeared to say that the soldiers were “a dull bunch” and that they “must be slow.”

The Biden campaign confirmed to The Daily Beast that the video was real, but claimed that Biden made the comments “jokingly.”

“Vice President Biden was jokingly encouraging the audience to clap for an airwoman on the stage, and a number of service members can be seen laughing and smiling at the comment. Seconds before, he praised them for ‘the incredible sacrifices [they] make for our country,’” Biden campaign spokesperson Andrew Bates said. “He thanked them for their patriotism and courage throughout, and closed his remarks by saying, ‘you’re the finest generation of warriors the world has ever, ever known’—receiving an enthusiastic ovation.”

The video comes after The Atlantic reported earlier this month—citing anonymous sources—that Trump had called dead U.S. soldiers “losers” and “suckers” during a trip to France in 2018.

Biden pounced on the report—even though 14 witnesses went on record to dispute the report—launching a “a $47 million ad campaign across various TV, digital, and radio platforms” that targeted military service members, according to Business Insider.

“If what is written in The Atlantic is true, it’s disgusting,” Biden said. “And it affirms what most of us believe to be true: that Donald Trump is not fit to do the job of president, to be the commander in chief.”

The following individuals, who were reportedly with the president during the 2018 visit to France, pushed back on The Atlantic report:

  • Zach Fuentes, Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff to Gen. John Kelly, said: “I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers?”
  • John Bolton, Former National Security Advisor, said: “I didn’t hear either of those comments or anything even resembling them. I was there at the point in time that morning when it was decided that he would not go Aisne-Marne cemetery. He decided not to do it because of John Kelly’s recommendation. It was entirely a weather-related decision, and I thought the proper thing to do.”
  • Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Former White House Press Secretary, said: “The Atlantic story on @realDonaldTrump is total BS. I was actually there and one of the people part of the discussion – this never happened. I have sat in the room when our President called family members after their sons were killed in action and it was heart-wrenching… These were some of the moments I witnessed the President show his heart and demonstrate how much he respects the selfless and courageous men and women of our military. I am disgusted by this false attack.”
  • Hogan Gidley, Former White House Deputy Press Secretary, said: “These are disgusting, grotesque, reprehensible lies. I was there in Paris and the President never said those things. In fact, he would never even think such vile thoughts because I know from firsthand knowledge that President Trump absolutely loves, respects, and reveres the brave men and women of the United States military. He always has and always will. These weak, pathetic, cowardly background ‘sources’ do  not have the courage or decency to put their names to these false accusations because they know how completely ludicrous they are. It’s sickening that they would hide in the shadows to knowingly try and hurt the morale of our great military simply for an attack on a political opponent.”
  • Dan Scavino, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications, said: “I was with POTUS in France, with Sarah, and have been at his side throughout it all. Complete lies by ‘anonymous sources’ that were ‘dropped’ just as he begins to campaign (and surge). A disgraceful attempt to smear POTUS, 60 days before the Presidential Election! Disgusting!!”
  • Jordan Karem, Former Personal Aide to President Trump, said: “This is not even close to being factually accurate. Plain and simple, it just never happened.”
    • Karem added: “Again, this is 100% false. I was next to @POTUS the whole day! The President was greatly disappointed when told we couldn’t fly there. He was incredibly eager to honor our Fallen Heroes.”
  • Johnny DeStefano, Former Counselor to the President, said: “I was on this trip. The Atlantic bit is not true. Period.”
  • Stephen Miller, White House Senior Advisor, said: The accusation is a “despicable lie … The president deeply wanted to attend the memorial event in question and was deeply displeased by the bad weather call.”
  • Tony Ornato, White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Former Secret Service Special Agent in Charge of the Presidential Protective Division, reportedly “pushed back very hard” on the article, according Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
  • Derek Lyons, Staff Secretary and Counselor to the President, said: “I was with the President the morning after the scheduled visit. He was extremely disappointed that arrangements could not be made to get him to the site, and that the trip had been cancelled.”
  • Dan Walsh, Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, said: “I can attest to the fact that there was a bad weather call in France, and that the helicopters were unable to safely make the flight.”
  • First Lady Melania Trump said: “@TheAtlantic story is not true. It has become a very dangerous time when anonymous sources are believed above all else, & no one knows their motivation. This is not journalism – It is activism. And it is a disservice to the people of our great nation.”
  • U.S. Ambassador to France and Monaco Jamie McCourt, said: “In my presence, POTUS has NEVER denigrated any member of the U.S. military or anyone in service to our country. And he certainly did not that day, either. Let me add, he was devastated to not be able to go to the cemetery at Belleau Wood. In fact, the next day, he attended and spoke at the ceremony in Suresnes in the pouring rain.”
  • Major General (ret.) Bill Matz, Secretary of the American Battle Monuments Commission, said: “As a former Army infantryman who has flown on many helicopters, I knew that morning the weather was bad and the ceiling was too low for a safe landing that day. When the President’s visit was appropriately canceled due to weather, I received word also that he was upset he would not be able to make the wreath-laying visit and to pay his respect to the 2300 fallen soldiers and Marines interred there.”

Video Emerges Of Joe Biden Calling U.S. Troops ‘Stupid Bastards’ During Speech. Biden Campaign Responds.

By  Ryan Saavedra, Daily Wire,   9/25/20 

A video emerged on Friday of Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden calling soldiers “stupid bastards” and a “dull bunch” during a speech overseas to U.S. soldiers while he was serving as vice president in the Obama administration.

“I have incredibly good judgment,” Biden said. “One, I married Jill, and two, I appointed Johnson to the academy. I just want you to know that. Clap for that, you stupid bastards.”

Moments later, Biden appeared to say that the soldiers were “a dull bunch” and that they “must be slow.”

The Biden campaign confirmed to The Daily Beast that the video was real, but claimed that Biden made the comments “jokingly.”

“Vice President Biden was jokingly encouraging the audience to clap for an airwoman on the stage, and a number of service members can be seen laughing and smiling at the comment. Seconds before, he praised them for ‘the incredible sacrifices [they] make for our country,’” Biden campaign spokesperson Andrew Bates said. “He thanked them for their patriotism and courage throughout, and closed his remarks by saying, ‘you’re the finest generation of warriors the world has ever, ever known’—receiving an enthusiastic ovation.”

The video comes after The Atlantic reported earlier this month—citing anonymous sources—that Trump had called dead U.S. soldiers “losers” and “suckers” during a trip to France in 2018.

Biden pounced on the report—even though 14 witnesses went on record to dispute the report—launching a “a $47 million ad campaign across various TV, digital, and radio platforms” that targeted military service members, according to Business Insider.

“If what is written in The Atlantic is true, it’s disgusting,” Biden said. “And it affirms what most of us believe to be true: that Donald Trump is not fit to do the job of president, to be the commander in chief.”

The following individuals, who were reportedly with the president during the 2018 visit to France, pushed back on The Atlantic report:

  • Zach Fuentes, Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff to Gen. John Kelly, said: “I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers?”
  • John Bolton, Former National Security Advisor, said: “I didn’t hear either of those comments or anything even resembling them. I was there at the point in time that morning when it was decided that he would not go Aisne-Marne cemetery. He decided not to do it because of John Kelly’s recommendation. It was entirely a weather-related decision, and I thought the proper thing to do.”
  • Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Former White House Press Secretary, said: “The Atlantic story on @realDonaldTrump is total BS. I was actually there and one of the people part of the discussion – this never happened. I have sat in the room when our President called family members after their sons were killed in action and it was heart-wrenching… These were some of the moments I witnessed the President show his heart and demonstrate how much he respects the selfless and courageous men and women of our military. I am disgusted by this false attack.”
  • Hogan Gidley, Former White House Deputy Press Secretary, said: “These are disgusting, grotesque, reprehensible lies. I was there in Paris and the President never said those things. In fact, he would never even think such vile thoughts because I know from firsthand knowledge that President Trump absolutely loves, respects, and reveres the brave men and women of the United States military. He always has and always will. These weak, pathetic, cowardly background ‘sources’ do  not have the courage or decency to put their names to these false accusations because they know how completely ludicrous they are. It’s sickening that they would hide in the shadows to knowingly try and hurt the morale of our great military simply for an attack on a political opponent.”
  • Dan Scavino, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications, said: “I was with POTUS in France, with Sarah, and have been at his side throughout it all. Complete lies by ‘anonymous sources’ that were ‘dropped’ just as he begins to campaign (and surge). A disgraceful attempt to smear POTUS, 60 days before the Presidential Election! Disgusting!!”
  • Jordan Karem, Former Personal Aide to President Trump, said: “This is not even close to being factually accurate. Plain and simple, it just never happened.”
    • Karem added: “Again, this is 100% false. I was next to @POTUS the whole day! The President was greatly disappointed when told we couldn’t fly there. He was incredibly eager to honor our Fallen Heroes.”
  • Johnny DeStefano, Former Counselor to the President, said: “I was on this trip. The Atlantic bit is not true. Period.”
  • Stephen Miller, White House Senior Advisor, said: The accusation is a “despicable lie … The president deeply wanted to attend the memorial event in question and was deeply displeased by the bad weather call.”
  • Tony Ornato, White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Former Secret Service Special Agent in Charge of the Presidential Protective Division, reportedly “pushed back very hard” on the article, according Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
  • Derek Lyons, Staff Secretary and Counselor to the President, said: “I was with the President the morning after the scheduled visit. He was extremely disappointed that arrangements could not be made to get him to the site, and that the trip had been cancelled.”
  • Dan Walsh, Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, said: “I can attest to the fact that there was a bad weather call in France, and that the helicopters were unable to safely make the flight.”
  • First Lady Melania Trump said: “@TheAtlantic story is not true. It has become a very dangerous time when anonymous sources are believed above all else, & no one knows their motivation. This is not journalism – It is activism. And it is a disservice to the people of our great nation.”
  • U.S. Ambassador to France and Monaco Jamie McCourt, said: “In my presence, POTUS has NEVER denigrated any member of the U.S. military or anyone in service to our country. And he certainly did not that day, either. Let me add, he was devastated to not be able to go to the cemetery at Belleau Wood. In fact, the next day, he attended and spoke at the ceremony in Suresnes in the pouring rain.”
  • Major General (ret.) Bill Matz, Secretary of the American Battle Monuments Commission, said: “As a former Army infantryman who has flown on many helicopters, I knew that morning the weather was bad and the ceiling was too low for a safe landing that day. When the President’s visit was appropriately canceled due to weather, I received word also that he was upset he would not be able to make the wreath-laying visit and to pay his respect to the 2300 fallen soldiers and Marines interred there.”

California Ballot Initiatives: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly and the Ugliest

Several counties have already sent out their absentee ballots.  It looks like L.A. County is going to send out theirs a week early—this week.  Like everything else, government is playing fast and loose with the rules.  No doubt this will be, in California, the most corrupt election ever held.  It is important to vote on the Propositions, since massive tax increases, abuses of the public and crazy support for criminals is at stake.

California Proposition 19, Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment (2020)

Kiley: “Makes property tax protections more portable but less heritable: will lower your taxes if you move, but potentially raise them for your kids when they inherit your home. I will be ambivalently NO.”

HJTA: “Proposition 19 takes away important taxpayer protections that have been enshrined in the State Constitution since 1986. Proposition 19 eliminates Proposition 58, which allows parents to transfer a home and limited other property to their children without an increase in property taxes, and a similar measure, Proposition 193, which gives the same protection to transfers between grandparents and grandchildren if the children’s parents are deceased. Proposition 193, which gives the same protection to transfers between grandparents and grandchildren if the children’s parents are deceased. Proposition 19 would require property transferred within families to be reassessed to market value as of the date of transfer, resulting in a huge property tax increase for long-held family homes.”

“This is a billion-dollar tax increase on California families. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 19.”

Under Prop. 19 the biggest losers are family farms.  The biggest winners are realtors and large farm corporations buying up the family farms being sold to pay the taxes.

California Ballot Initiatives: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly and the Ugliest

California Globe and experts analyze the twelve ballot measures on the November 3rd ballot

By Katy Grimes, California Globe,  9/24/20 

There are twelve ballot measures certified to appear on the November 3, 2020 ballot.

California Globe has broken them down as the Good, the Bad, the Ugly and Uglier, with the analysis and recommendations of Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, Ballotpedia, the California Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, as well as our own reporting on these issues.

The Good Ones

Keeping Uber in California (Prop. 22)

California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020)

Kiley: “Liberates drivers from AB 5, one of the most disgraceful laws in state history (which is saying something). If this fails, get excited about riding taxis again as hundreds of thousands of rideshare drivers will be out of work. I will be proudly voting YES.”

CA Globe: “Assembly Bill 5, the bill authored by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) has greatly limited Californians’ ability to work as independent contractors and freelancers. The bill has impacted more than 300 industries in California.”

“The governor budgeted $20 Million for AB5 enforcement in the budget. ‘That’s 20 million $ to turn California’s Employment Development Department into the KGB,’ Sen. Shannon Grove said.”

CalChamber Supports.

HJTA: “Proposition 22 was put on the ballot by Uber, Lyft and DoorDash. It would create an exemption from AB 5 for the companies’ drivers, while providing them with basic benefits and protections. Without this exemption, the companies would likely stop offering their services in California, depriving state residents of convenient and affordable transportation and delivery services. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 22.”

Making Crime Illegal Again (Prop. 20)

California Proposition 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative (2020)

Kiley: “Partially reverses both Prop. 47, which empowered calculator-wielding thieves to repeatedly steal up to $950 of merchandise; and Prop. 57, which prematurely released ‘non-violent’ domestic abusers, sex traffickers, and arsonists. I will be enthusiastically voting YES.”

CalChamber: Restricts Parole for Non-Violent Offenders. CalChamber Supports.

Proposition 20 fixes four specific flaws contained in recent criminal justice reforms — addressing violent crime classification and serial theft, as well as parole reform and DNA collection.

Prop. 20 is supported by:

Crime Victims United President Nina Salarno Besselman

Crime Survivors, Inc. Founder/CEO Patricia Wenskunas

Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove)

Assemblymember Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield)

Organization for Justice and Equality President Frank Lee

Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer

California Police Chiefs Association Imm. Past President Ron Lawrence

Whittier Mayor Joe Vinatieri

California Grocers Association President Ron Fong

California Retailers Association President Rachel Michelin

The Bad Ones

Tweaking the Classic Prop. 13 (Prop. 19)

California Proposition 19, Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment (2020)

Kiley: “Makes property tax protections more portable but less heritable: will lower your taxes if you move, but potentially raise them for your kids when they inherit your home. I will be ambivalently NO.”

HJTA: “Proposition 19 takes away important taxpayer protections that have been enshrined in the State Constitution since 1986. Proposition 19 eliminates Proposition 58, which allows parents to transfer a home and limited other property to their children without an increase in property taxes, and a similar measure, Proposition 193, which gives the same protection to transfers between grandparents and grandchildren if the children’s parents are deceased. Proposition 193, which gives the same protection to transfers between grandparents and grandchildren if the children’s parents are deceased. Proposition 19 would require property transferred within families to be reassessed to market value as of the date of transfer, resulting in a huge property tax increase for long-held family homes.”

“This is a billion-dollar tax increase on California families. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 19.”

Massive Stem Cell Funding – Again (Prop 14)

California Proposition 14, Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative (2020)

Kiley: “Borrows $5.5 billion more for California’s stem cell agency. Stem cell research still has promise, but after 14 years and $3 billion, this conflict-of-interest-plagued agency has little to show for it. I will be regretfully voting NO.”

HJTA: “In 2004, voters approved $3 billion for a publicly funded stem-cell agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, to support research into new treatments and possible cures. The money has been spent, and the backers of Proposition 14 want voters to approve $5.5 billion more. But CIRM has been widely criticized for inefficiency and insider dealing. Moreover, the federal government and private enterprise are now funding stem-cell research. Proposition 14 fails to address issues of accountability and oversight in the spending of previously approved public funds. These new bonds will cost taxpayers $2.3 billion just in interest payments, drawing $260 million out of the budget every year for three decades. Proposition 14 is not necessary and it’s especially unwise at this time, when there are so many demands on taxpayers. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 14.”

The Ugly Ones

Voting Rights for the Kiddies (Prop. 18)

California Proposition 18, Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment (2020)

Kiley: “Lets some (but not all) 17-year-olds vote in some (but not all) elections. Perhaps a precursor to voting booths in nurseries. For the time being, get ready for furious campaigning at Dave & Buster’s. I will be bemusedly voting NO.”

HJTA: “While some states allow this, California is different than other states because under Prop. 13 and Prop. 218, tax increases must go on the ballot for voter approval. These proposed tax increases are frequently on primary and special election ballots. Proposition 18 would allow high school students to vote on tax increases. This is unwise. The voting age in California should not be changed. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 18.”

Voting for Convicted Felons (Prop. 17)

California Proposition 17, Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment (2020)

Kiley: “Makes active voters out of active felons, letting them cast a ballot (or even run for office) before they complete parole. Such individuals would be eligible to vote on, say, Prop. 20 above. I will be disbelievingly voting NO.”

CA Globe: “Restores voting rights to convicted felons immediately upon release from prison. Many law enforcement and citizens groups have come out against ACA 6, citing that it would not reduce former prisoners rates of going back to prison, and that a felony is a large enough crime to not allow someone to vote.”

“Election Integrity Project California, one such group opposing ACA 6, has argued fastidiously against the bill.  “A period of parole gives the former criminal powerful reminders of what true liberty is by withholding just enough of it to incentivize further appropriate behavior so as to earn the rights just beyond the fingertip.” EIP said.”

The Uglier Ones

New Tools for Big Brother (Prop. 24)

California Proposition 24, Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative (2020)

Kiley: “Unites the ACLU and Republican Party in opposition with 52 pages of confusing ‘data privacy’ rules enforced by an Orwellian new government agency. In fairness, Andrew Yang is for it. I will be warily voting NO.”

HJTA: “In 2018, the Legislature passed, and the governor signed the California Consumer Privacy Act, which gave state residents more rights and control over how their data is shared when they go online. The CCPA took effect this year, and businesses have worked to learn the new legal requirements and comply with them. Proposition 24 is a new privacy law to replace the CCPA. It changes the rules before we even know if they’re working well. Worse, it creates a new state agency to write and enforce regulations that have the effect of new laws, but that no elected official will vote on. This new agency will cost taxpayers $10 million a year, but it will cost California businesses far more. Companies will be effectively forced to hire lawyers to review every technological change or upgrade in order to show the new agency that they are in compliance. This will be a great advantage to the largest companies, because many small start-up companies will not be able to afford the legal bills to file the compliance documents, or the cost of defending themselves from complaints, even meritless complaints. The regulatory burden will strangle technological innovation in California and protect tech giants while hurting small businesses. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 24.”

CA Globe: “The law was modeled after a similar overarching law adopted by the European Union in May 2018, and appears to be a tremendous expensive and time-consuming burden on businesses of all sizes, but particularly small and medium sized businesses, giving attorneys predatory opportunities similar to California’s thriving ADA lawsuit business.” (Read more HERE)

According to John Kabatek of the National Federation of Independent Business California:

  • Only about one-third of California businesses are prepared to comply with the CCPA costs.
  • An independent analysis conducted for the state Attorney General’s office estimates the initial compliance costs at $55 billion, affecting 75 percent of the state’s businesses.
  • Initial compliance costs for affected small businesses with fewer than 20 employees will be about $50,000 per company this year alone. For companies between 20-100 employees, expect double that amount. Those with more than 100-500 employees face $450,000 for the CCPA, and large companies can expect to pay $2 million or more.
  • The analysis estimated up to $16.9 billion to comply with the implementing rules over the next decade. These ongoing costs are related to software and website modifications, updated data inventories and collection (as the law fails to define “personal information”), new consumer interface processes to respond to consumer requests, employee retraining, legal counsel, and security protocols.

Letting Siri Release Criminals (Prop. 25)

California Proposition 25, Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum (2020)

Kiley: “Replaces cash bail with a ‘risk assessment’ algorithm for pre-trial release. In the best hands, this is not ready for prime time; in the technologically challenged hands of California government, it’s a disaster in the making. I will be soberly voting NO.”

CA Globe: “For the past several years, advocates for change have championed the use of risk assessment tools.  Based on algorithms, they claimed their use would allow us to predict which defendants would be a danger to not appear and/or a threat to commit further offenses.”

“The bonding industry provides a high level of supervision.”

“The past two years has seen the bottom fall out for support of these risk assessments.  Twenty-seven leading university academics from Harvard, MIT, Princeton, UC Berkeley and Columbia signed a joint statement last July, declaring that inherent problems with risk assessments could not be remedied and that these tools should not be used as a part of criminal justice reform.”

The Ugliest Ones

Equality Is So 20th Century (Prop. 16)

California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020)

Kiley: “Repeals a 1996 voter initiative that outlawed discrimination on the ‘basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin’ in state universities and public hiring. An attempt by politicians to duck responsibility for failed K-12 education policies that have widened achievement gaps. I will be indignantly voting NO.”

CA Globe: “Proposition 16, on the November ballot, would repeal Prop. 209 and divide Californians by making discrimination legal in California.”

“‘The effort to repeal Prop. 209 totally fails to recognize that the true culprit for the difficulties of underrepresented minorities gaining entrance into the University of California system lies not with Prop. 209’s anti-discrimination language, but with the failure of the California’s public K-12 system to adequately prepare these students for higher education,’ Education scholar Lance Izumi said.”

“If legislators, policymakers, and educators truly want to improve the chances for success for underrepresented minority children, then they should avoid divisive identity politics and get to the hard work of offering better education alternatives for all children in California.”

Death to Dialysis Patients (Prop. 23)

California Proposition 23, Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative (2020)

Kiley: “Another attempt by a large union to swell its ranks by endangering the lives of dialysis patients. Imposes senseless mandates that will raise costs and close clinics. Medical groups and patient advocates are unanimously opposed. I will be disgustedly voting NO.”

No on Prop. 23: “Approximately 80,000 Californians with kidney failure rely on dialysis to stay alive. Proposition 23 would put dialysis patients’ lives at risk and hurt all Californians by making us wait longer to see our doctors and increasing health care costs by hundreds of millions annually.”

Ballotpedia: “Proposition 8, like this year’s dialysis-related ballot initiative, had the support of the SEIU-UHW West, a labor union for healthcare workers. Proposition 8 established a new front in the conflict between the SEIU-UHW West and the state’s two largest dialysis businesses, DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care. The SEIU-UHW West said workers at dialysis clinics have been attempting to unionize since 2016, but that their employers were retaliating against pro-union employees. Kent Thiry, CEO of DaVita, argued that “Proposition 8 puts California patients at risk in an effort to force unionization of employees.”[3] Sean Wherley, a spokesperson for the SEIU-UHW West, contended that dialysis workers “want these [initiative] reforms regardless of what happens with their union efforts.”[4]

From the Ash Heap of History (Prop. 21)

California Proposition 21, Local Rent Control Initiative (2020)

Kiley: “Rent control has failed miserably everywhere it’s been tried – including as an initiative on our 2018 ballot. But Bernie Sanders and company are back, with a new measure to further deplete our already feeble housing stock. Even Gavin Newsom is opposed. I will be *again* voting NO.”

CA Globe: “According to a Legislative Analyst’s Office study made public earlier this week, the ballot initiative expanding rent control, Proposition 21, would lead to more severe repercussions for Californians, including a reduction of available rental units and a drop in housing values.”

“Prop. 21 would ‘allow local governments to enact rent control on housing that was first occupied over 15 years ago, with an exception for landlords who own no more than two homes with distinct titles or subdivided interests.’ If it’s rejected, the current law of prohibiting rent control in rentals built in 1995 or after would stand.”

“The LAO study found that, if Prop. 21 is passed, cities would receive less in overall property taxes due to a decline in rental property tax payments. The huge drop in revenue would lead to close to $100 million in lost state and local revenue per year. The LAO also found that many landlords would sell rentals as a result, leading to a reduction units, most notably, affordable units, in favor of houses and buildings going on the market.”

HJTA: “Proposition 21 would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and allow unelected rent boards (or elected rent boards) to impose radical rent control and regulations, even on single-family homes. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 21.”

Biggest. Tax Increase. Ever. (Prop. 15) Prop. 13 Split Roll initiative

California Proposition 15, Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020)

Kiley: “Takes a sledgehammer to the classic Prop. 13, tearing down California’s one pillar of fiscal sanity. Raises taxes $11.5 billion per year. Kills even more small businesses. Destroys even more jobs. Further spikes the cost of living. And make no mistake: your home is next. I will be prayerfully voting NO.”

HJTA: “This is the treacherous ‘split roll’ property tax, a direct attack on Proposition 13. Proposition 15 would repeal part of Prop. 13 and require reassessment to market value of business properties. It would raise taxes on supermarkets, shopping malls, office buildings, factories, movie theaters, hotels, restaurants, sports stadiums, warehouses, self-storage facilities, major retailers and other businesses where Californians work or shop. Even the smallest businesses that lease space will face higher rents, or will have to pay the higher property taxes as part of their ‘triple net’ lease agreement. Those higher costs are passed on to consumers. Proposition 15 would raise prices, increase the cost of living and put countless jobs at risk as companies cut back or leave the state. The proponents of this measure are seeking to weaken Proposition 13, and we can guess why. They could come after homeowners next. Protect Prop. 13. VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 15.”

CA Globe: “Under the split roll ballot initiative to split residential and commercial/industrial properties, tax increase proponents recently admitted that they will redefine commercial and industrial structures to include barns, food processing structures for eggs, broccoli, citrus, lettuces, wineries, almonds, and just about anything that grows in the ground and that Californians and the rest of the country eats.”

“Milking barns, packing houses, processing facilities, and wineries would all be reassessed annually at current market value. But what these tax increase proponents miss is that almonds, fresh eggs, lemons and oranges and broccoli don’t just get picked in the field and end up on your plate – it takes many processes to make the food ready to sell in a grocery or neighborhood market.”

“Under Proposition 13 in 1978, the specificity of the property tax initiative defined real property as: land, fixtures, improvements. The new initiative is redefining these three steadfast definitions of real property, and what is taxable.”

“Backers of the property tax split roll include labor unions, social justice groups, teachers unions, environmental groups, housing advocates, Democratic Mayors of California cities, Democratic Presidential candidates, and Silicon Valley and San Francisco Bay Area philanthropic organizations: The Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, East Bay Community Foundation, Liberty Hill Foundation, Northern California Grantmakers Association, The San Francisco Foundation and Silicon Valley Community Foundation.”

Read more from California Globe HERE.

(The clever ballot title descriptions are Assemblyman Kiley’s)

Gavin Newsom Hands Out Fracking Permits to Connected Driller

Gavin Newsom once again proves himself to be a sleazy, Tammany Hall type of politico.  While demanding the end of fracking and oil drilling, throwing California into the Dark Ages, literally, he gives permits to firms that him his close friends and political advisors.

“The fracking permits are the latest example of California’s oil industry benefiting from regulatory or deregulatory action during the COVID-19 pandemic and came just months after the Newsom administration said it supported taking actions to “manage the decline of oil production and consumption in the state.” Aera, which also received 24 permits from the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) on April 3 during the early days of COVID-19, has well-connected lobbyists in its corner who work for the firm Axiom Advisors.

One of them, Jason Kinney, headed up Newsom’s 2018 transition team and formerly served as a senior advisor to Newsom while he was lieutenant governor. He is also a senior advisor to California’s Senate Democrats. The other, Kevin Schmidt, previously served as policy director for Newsom when the latter was lieutenant governor. Aera paid Axiom $110,000 for its lobbying work in 2019 and, so far in 2020, has paid $30,000, lobbying reports reveal.”

Soft-core corruption?  You bet.  Without a media reporting his duplicity, the public does not know how two-faced he is.  This is another reason to Recall Gavin.  Go to www.recallgavin2020.com and download a petition and free the people of California.

Gavin Newsom Hands Out Fracking Permits to Connected Driller

June 21, 2020 Roger Straw, Benicia Independent,  6/19/20    /

While California was convulsed by COVID-19 and George Floyd’s death, the governor gave Big Oil a big gift.

On June 1, in the midst of the turmoil created by the coronavirus pandemic and the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quietly issued 12 fracking permits to Aera Energy, a joint venture owned by ExxonMobil and Shell.

Oil drilling in California has faced criticism for its disproportionately negative health impacts on Latino communities and other people of color. The 12 new permits will be for fracking in the Lost Hills Oil Field. The Kern County town of Lost Hills is more than 97 percent Latino, according to 2010 U.S. Census data.

The fracking permits are the latest example of California’s oil industry benefiting from regulatory or deregulatory action during the COVID-19 pandemic and came just months after the Newsom administration said it supported taking actions to “manage the decline of oil production and consumption in the state.” Aera, which also received 24 permits from the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) on April 3 during the early days of COVID-19, has well-connected lobbyists in its corner who work for the firm Axiom Advisors.

One of them, Jason Kinney, headed up Newsom’s 2018 transition team and formerly served as a senior advisor to Newsom while he was lieutenant governor. He is also a senior advisor to California’s Senate Democrats. The other, Kevin Schmidt, previously served as policy director for Newsom when the latter was lieutenant governor. Aera paid Axiom $110,000 for its lobbying work in 2019 and, so far in 2020, has paid $30,000, lobbying reports reveal.

Axiom’s lobbying disclosure records show both Kinney and Schmidt listed as lobbyists and Aera as one of the firm’s clients. Kinney’s wife, Mary Gonsalvez Kinney, was also the stylist for Newsom’s wife–Jennifer Siebel Newsom–dating back to their time spent living in the San Francisco Bay Area. Kinney and Schmidt did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article.

Calling the situation “unseemly,” Jamie Court, president for the Los Angeles-based group Consumer Watchdog, wrote via email that “Aera should not be able to buy the influence it apparently has over state oil and gas policy.” Last November, prior to the 24 permits issued in April, Newsom had declared a statewide fracking permit moratorium in response to a scandal involving a regulator for the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). The regulator, who had been tasked with heading oversight issues on issuing permits, was revealed to have stock investments valued up to $100,000 in Aera Energy’s parent company, ExxonMobil. Newsom fired the head of DOGGR at the time, Ken Harris, and eventually renamed the agency CalGEM.

Kinney and Schmidt are not the only two with Newsom ties. Aera CEO Christina Sistrunk sits on the governor’s Task Force on Business and Jobs Recovery, created to craft an economic recovery plan in response to the ongoing COVID-19 economic fallout.

Aera is one of the state’s top drillers and accounts for nearly 25 percent of California’s production, its website claims. Aera landed 490 drilling permits from CalGEM in the first quarter of 2020, according to data collected by FracTracker, and 651 permits in 2019.

Lost Hills

The town of Lost Hills has a population of about 2,500 people and its field ranks sixth in oil produced in the state. The field sits in close proximity to a residential neighborhood just west of Interstate Highway 5, close to both a middle school and public park.

Infrared camera footage from 2014, taken by the advocacy group Earthworks and the Clear Water Fund for a 2015 report they published, showed that the Lost Hills field emits prolific amounts of toxic chemicals into the air, including methane, acetone, dichlorodifluoromethane and acetaldehydes. High levels of isoprene and acetaldehydes can cause cancer, while the other substances can result in serious health damage, including heartbeat irregularities, headaches, nausea, vomiting, throat irritation, coughing and wheezing.

In a survey done for that same report of Lost Hills residents, respondents reported having “thyroid problems (7 percent), diabetes (7 percent), asthma (11 percent) and sinus infections (19 percent).”

“Of all respondents, 92.3 percent reported identifying odors in their homes and community,” it further detailed. “Odors were described as petroleum, burning oil, rotten eggs, chemicals, chlorine or bleach, a sweet smell, sewage, and ammonia. Participants reported that when odors were detected in the air, symptoms included headache (63 percent), nausea/dizziness (37 percent), burning or watery eyes (37 percent), and throat and nose irritation (18.5 percent).”

Methane is a climate change-causing greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide during its first 20 years in the atmosphere, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A 20-year window falls within the 2030 deadline established by IPCC climate scientists in a 2018 report that concluded that, if bold action is not taken steadily until then, the world could face some of the most severe and irreversible impacts of climate change.

Setbacks

The new Lost Hills permits came as CalGEM completed its pre-rulemaking public hearings, on June 2, for regulations pertaining to distancing setbacks of oil wells from homes, schools, health clinics and public parks.

The rulemaking process also came as a direct result of the Newsom administration’s November fracking moratorium announcement, found within that same directive.

Last January, two months after the directive, new CalGEM head Uduak-Joe Ntuk, Newsom’s legislative affairs secretary Anthony Williams and Department of Conservation director David Shabazian all attended and spoke at a pro-industry hearing convened by the Kern County Board of Supervisors. They held the hearing in direct response to Newsom’s November announcement. Aera CEO Sistrunk spoke at that hearing and the company promoted it on its website.

The lobbying disclosure records also show Kinney and Schmidt’s firm represents Marathon Petroleum, which advocated against legislation that would mandate CalGEM to implement a setbacks rule by July 1, 2022. That bill, AB 345, had previously mandated that a setback rule be put into place by 2020.

But after receiving lobbying pressure from the Common Ground Alliance— which has united major labor groups with the oil industry, and which was incorporated by an attorney whose clients include Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP America and Western States Petroleum Association—Assembly Appropriations Chairwoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) made it a two-year bill during the 2019 legislative session. The “two-year” option for state legislators extends the lifeline of a bill for potential amendments and passage into the second year of every two-year legislative session. Gonzalez told Capital & Main the bill received two-year status due to its high implementation cost.

Aera’s parent company, ExxonMobil, has given Gonzalez $5,500 in campaign contributions since her first run for the Assembly in 2013. Aera also gave a $35,000 contribution to the California Latino Legislative Caucus Foundation during the first quarter of 2020, its lobbying disclosure form shows. Gonzalez is the chairwoman of the California Legislative Latino Caucus and the foundation is its nonprofit wing. And both Aera and the Common Ground Alliance share the same attorney, Steven Lucas, incorporation documents and disclosure forms show.

“The Governor has been clear about the need to strengthen oversight of oil and gas extraction in California and to update regulations to protect public health and safety for communities near oil and gas operations,” Vicky Waters, Newsom’s press secretary, told Capital & Main in an emailed statement. “CalGEM has launched a rulemaking process to develop stronger regulations and will consider the best available science and data to inform new protective requirements.”

Waters did not respond to questions about Axiom Advisors and its personnel ties to Gov. Newsom.

“An Afterthought”

The permits handed to Aera coincide with the Newsom administration granting the industry a suite of regulatory relaxation measures during the COVID-19 era. These include a delay in implementing management plans for idle oil wells and cutting the hiring of 128 analysts, engineers and geologists to bolster the state’s regulatory efforts on oil wells—even though the industry was legally obligated to pay for it.

These measures came after San Francisco public radio station KQED reported that the oil industry’s top trade associations, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), requested that CalGEM take such actions.

Aera’s general counsel, Lynne Carrithers, sits on the board for CIPA, while the company is also a WSPA dues-paying member.

In response to a question about the cancellation of hiring of 128 regulators, Teresa Schilling, a spokeswoman for the Department of Conservation—which oversees CalGEM—said by email that the “Administration had to revisit many proposals in the January budget as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fiscal challenges it created.”

“Significantly expanding a fee-based program in this time of belt-tightening would not be appropriate,” Schilling continued, speaking to the oil industry’s current financial travails. “However, CalGEM is committed to continuing its critical core enforcement and regulatory work with its current resources. Furthermore, all regulations remain in effect and operators are still accountable for meeting them.”

Schilling added that, with regards to the connections with Axiom Advisors, the administration works with “a variety of stakeholders on policy issues and budget decisions,” calling the latest budget proposal “consistent with Administration priorities.”

But Cesar Aguirre, a community organizer with the Central California Environmental Justice Network who lives near Lost Hills in Bakersfield, sees the situation differently.

“The Lost Hills community is already surrounded by extraction and the Newsom administration and CalGEM continue to show that they intend to put the environment and frontline communities as an afterthought,” he said, advocating for the passage of AB 345. “These actions show us that Californians can’t depend on empty political promises to protect public health.”

U.S. Attorney threatens legal action against SF over limits on indoor church services

The Mayor of San Fran has violated the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Thankfully AG Barr is not letting Mayor Breed to get away with banning religious freedom.  Churches are being closed, while Walmart and target are crowded, protestors and rioters are roaming the streets and homeless encampments are fill to the brim, sleeping bag next to sleeping bag.  But she opposes your right to prayer in a church.

“Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Eric Dreiband and David Anderson, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, argued that the ban raises concerns about religious freedom and may violate the Constitution in a Friday letter to Mayor London Breed.

“These rules plainly discriminate against people of faith and their ability to gather and practice their faith at churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship,” the officials wrote. “Put simply, there is no scientific or legal justification for permitting a 20,000 square foot synagogue to admit only one worshipper while allowing a tattoo parlor to accommodate as many patrons as it can fit so long as they are six feet apart.”

I have a better idea.  All churches, all of them should be totally opened. Have Breed send in the troops to close the churches, arrest the parishioners, just like they do in China.  Force her hand, to show she is in violation of the Constitution.

U.S. Attorney threatens legal action against SF over limits on indoor church services

Michael Barba, Washington Examiner,  9/25/20 

Federal authorities threatened to take action on Friday if San Francisco did not loosen its “draconian” ban on indoor religious gatherings that is meant to protect against the spread of coronavirus.

The ban limits the number of people who can worship inside a church, temple or mosque to one, while private businesses like gyms and fitness centers have been allowed to open at 10 percent capacity.

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Eric Dreiband and David Anderson, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, argued that the ban raises concerns about religious freedom and may violate the Constitution in a Friday letter to Mayor London Breed.

“These rules plainly discriminate against people of faith and their ability to gather and practice their faith at churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship,” the officials wrote. “Put simply, there is no scientific or legal justification for permitting a 20,000 square foot synagogue to admit only one worshipper while allowing a tattoo parlor to accommodate as many patrons as it can fit so long as they are six feet apart.”

The letter comes after the Roman Catholic Church led a protest on Sunday against the restrictions in San Francisco.

“There is no science that says only one person should be allowed to pray in churches such as the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption, which seats 2,500 people,” Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of the Archdiocese Of San Francisco said in a statement. “There’s only one explanation for such a rule: a dislike of the Catholic Church.”

San Francisco currently has a goal to allow places of worship to open at 25 percent capacity indoors, or up to 25 people, by the end of September.

The federal officials argued Friday that even that goal would “continue to burden religious exercise severely and unnecessarily, including for houses of worship with large capacity and room for proper social distancing protocols.”

The Mayor’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Read the full letter here.

YouTube/Zoom block San Fran State event with terrorist: violates their terms

San Fran State is hosting a plane hijacker/self admitted terrorist to speak as if they were a decent person—not one bent on murder, chaos and violence.  Guv Newsom has allowed this, without saying a word trying to stop it—and he could.  How bad is this person?  YouTube and ZOOM have BANNED this event from its platforms—even they are opposed to promoting a criminal terrorist.  Yet a California government school wants students to know it is OK to kill cops, blow up planes and terrorize communities—if you have “a good heart”.  Sick.

“Two departments at San Francisco State University were scheduled to host a woman who hijacked two planes for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which the U.S. designates as a foreign terrorist organization.

Following outrage from pro-Israel groups and a legal warning from a group that fights anti-Semitism, Zoom proactively canceled Wednesday’s virtual event on its platform, Jewish News Syndicate reports.

Organizers then moved it to YouTube, which stopped the event 23 minutes in for violating its terms of service, Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports.

While Zoom’s statement said the Leila Khaled event violated its terms of service, it mentioned “anti-terrorism laws” as the seeming basis for making that judgment. A civil liberties group challenged the legal analysis behind the decision.

How does Newsom explain to his Jewish donors that he wants their money—but doesn’t care if they are blown up?  In affect Newsom is supporting and promoting violence against Jews—where is the media?  Silent, of course.

YouTube and Zoom block San Francisco State event with terrorist: violates their terms

Photo Courtesy of Rusty Stewart, Flickr

Greg Piper, The College Fix,   9/23/20   

Two departments at San Francisco State University were scheduled to host a woman who hijacked two planes for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which the U.S. designates as a foreign terrorist organization.

Following outrage from pro-Israel groups and a legal warning from a group that fights anti-Semitism, Zoom proactively canceled Wednesday’s virtual event on its platform, Jewish News Syndicate reports.

Organizers then moved it to YouTube, which stopped the event 23 minutes in for violating its terms of service, Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports.

While Zoom’s statement said the Leila Khaled event violated its terms of service, it mentioned “anti-terrorism laws” as the seeming basis for making that judgment. A civil liberties group challenged the legal analysis behind the decision.

The event was to be hosted by Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies and Women and Gender Studies. The subject was “gender, justice, and resistance.”

Dozens of pro-Israel groups, including the AMCHA Initiative and StandWithUs, told President Lynn Mahoney last week that Khaled’s invitation to speak to an “open classroom” was indeed “an endorsement of a point of view
and a political cause,” despite Mahoney’s assurance that SFSU was not taking sides.

While their letter claims that the professors who invited Khaled had intended to “indoctrinate” students with “propaganda consistent with their own political causes” and make them “foot soldiers,” the groups made two legal claims.

AMED Director Rabab Abdulhadi (below) has engaged in “blatant politicization of her classroom, conference hall and other professional spaces” in violation of two California laws on “misuse of SFSU’s name and resources for personal or political purposes, including for the promotion of a boycott.” That refers to the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

The Lawfare Project made more far-reaching claims in a Sept. 14 letter to Zoom, accusing the livestreaming service of “[u]nlawful provision of material support to designated foreign terrorist organization” through the SFSU event. It said Khaled is still a member of the U.S.-designated terrorist group, making Zoom liable under federal law for facilitating a prohibited event.

Federal law states that “knowingly” providing support for such an organization “shall be fined … or imprisoned” for up to 20 years, with “support” including a “service” such as Zoom, the letter said. SFSU and event hosts Abdulhadi and Tomomi Kinukawa, a women’s studies lecturer, could also “each be found liable for violating the statute by providing, and/or conspiring to provide, such material support or resources to Khaled.” (Lawfare sent a nearly identical letter to the Justice Department.)

Lawfare said it had an “intensive dialogue” with Zoom this week, according to JNS, leading Zoom Deputy General Counsel Lynn Haaland to release a statement apparently crediting Lawfare’s legal claims:

Zoom is committed to supporting the open exchange of ideas and conversations, subject to certain limitations contained in our Terms of Service, including those related to user compliance with applicable U.S. export control, sanctions, and anti-terrorism laws. In light of the speaker’s reported affiliation or membership in a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization, and SFSU’s inability to confirm otherwise, we determined the meeting is in violation of Zoom’s Terms of Service and told SFSU they may not use Zoom for this particular event.

The legal claims in both letters are bogus, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said Wednesday.

The letter from dozens of pro-Israel groups wrongly cited a state election law that would be unconstitutional on its face if applied to academic speech, wrote Adam Steinbaugh, director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program. The second state law is flatly unconstitutional on its face because it requires advance permission from the university to use its name “anywhere.”

Noting that Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn called on the Department of Education to cut funding from SFSU if it hosted the event, Steinbaugh said he had found no “indication that Khaled will be compensated for her virtual appearance.”

That means the only “support” she’s receiving is the virtual forum, which is protected by the First Amendment. Even Khaled’s membership in an organization designated as terrorist is constitutionally protected, he said:

Universities should be places where students and faculty can discuss — and hear from — people whose acts or views may be controversial or unlawful. Students and faculty members must remain free to invite speakers — whether they agree with them or not — without fear of censorship or punishment by administrator, bureaucrat, or politician. The First Amendment extends a right not only to speak, but also a right to hear or receive information. This right makes no exception for people who have engaged in misdeeds, criminal activity, or membership in blacklisted organizations.

SFSU president joined ‘the Zionist chorus’

JTA reports that organizers asked SFSU Provost Jennifer Summit to help them find a new streaming host, saying it’s “obligated to defend us against the vilification and smearing by an Israel lobby that is troubled by and seeks to silence Palestinian narratives and scholarship, teaching and advocacy for justice in/for Palestine.”

Another Facebook post – apparently removed by now – said the event would go forward on Facebook Live. Abdulhadi, one of the faculty hosts, said on her own Facebook page Wednesday morning that “Facebook has taken down the AMED event page and disappeared the Leila Khaled webinar.”

A few hours later, Abdulhadi notified followers that the livestream was now on YouTube.

The event had about 900 viewers when YouTube pulled the plug, “abruptly ending when an old video of Khaled was being shown in which she defended her former activities,” JTA says.

“YouTube shut us down. If SFSU Administration has stood by us and if SFSU President did not join the Zionist chorus, we would not be here today,” Abdulhadi fumed Wednesday afternoon.

In response to their request for help finding a host, the organizers received “Radio Silence” from the administration, she wrote Wednesday night. “The question is why are Palestinian narratives exceptionalized and why SFSU president siding with Zionist defamation, silencing and bullying?”

California city approves ‘healthy checkout’ ordinance, banning junk food at grocery checkouts

Berkeley has decided that government, not the grocer, should determine the placement of products for sale.  Why?  Because they believe it can stop people from buying a candy bar.  That is arrogance.  This is the city that started the soda tax—causing folsk to buy soda outside the city.  If I want a Snickers bar, I will buy it.  But the next step is for Berkeley to add a high tax on foods it does not like—the slogan of Berkeley? “Let them eat KALE not candy.”

Noting the health consequences of so-called impulse items like candy bars, chips, sodas and other snacks luring customers in last-ditch purchases at checkout lines, the Berkeley City Council unanimously approved a “healthy checkout” ordinance Tuesday night, KGO reported.

“We’re not saying you can’t have these goods,” said Kate Harrison, a city council member. “We’re just saying they’re not going to be right at the eye level of your children when they walk into the store and you’re waiting in that long line at check out.”

Maybe they will put candy behind locked doors, like liquor and cigarettes—see how good that works.  Maybe they will pass an ordinance on the amount of candy you are allowed to buy in a month.  Watch as a black market in Snickers bars gets started.

California city approves ‘healthy checkout’ ordinance, banning junk food at grocery checkouts

Cox Media Group National Content Desk, 9/24/20 

BERKELEY, Calif. — A California city approved a law that would ban the display of certain high sugar and sodium “junk” foods from grocery store checkout lines.

Noting the health consequences of so-called impulse items like candy bars, chips, sodas and other snacks luring customers in last-ditch purchases at checkout lines, the Berkeley City Council unanimously approved a “healthy checkout” ordinance Tuesday night, KGO reported.

“We’re not saying you can’t have these goods,” said Kate Harrison, a city council member. “We’re just saying they’re not going to be right at the eye level of your children when they walk into the store and you’re waiting in that long line at check out.”

In March, items with 5 grams of added sugar or more and 250 milligrams of sodium per serving will be prohibited from being displayed in the checkout aisle of grocery stores. Enforcement of the changes would start in January 2022.

“We know that people that eat a lot of high-sugar and salty products have worse health outcomes and this particularly besets low income communities and people of color,” Harrison said.

The city previously passed a tax on soda in 2014, the first city in the country to do so, KGO reported.

This Week In Campus Insanity Vol. 12

Want proof that colleges have turned into indoctrination centers, similar to Cuba or China?

5. ASU Journalism School Removes People and News Accused of Being Too Pro-Police | LaCorte News

Arizona State University’s school of journalism removed an incoming dean, deleted a Twitter poll about looting, and took down an interview with a police officer because the posts were deemed too friendly to police.”

One sided education.  Only one view of police allowed.  Any wonder your students are muddled headed and unable to think for themselves?  If they think for themselves they will be bullied, harassed and isolated.  Arizona Sate is a totalitarian school—avoid it as you would avoid Havana University.

This Week In Campus Insanity Vol. 12

Chrissy Clark and Alex Nester, Washington Free Beacon,  9/26/20 

Welcome back to Campus Insanity, a weekly roundup of the craziest developments at our nation’s 4,000-plus institutions of higher education.

6. University Professor Promised to Spy on Conservative Student Nick Sandmann | The College Fix

Avery Tompkins, an assistant professor at Transylvania University, pledged to monitor student Nick Sandmann—who last year became famous after being confronted by Native American activists for wearing a “MAGA” hat and was slammed by mainstream media outlets.

5. ASU Journalism School Removes People and News Accused of Being Too Pro-Police | LaCorte News

Arizona State University’s school of journalism removed an incoming dean, deleted a Twitter poll about looting, and took down an interview with a police officer because the posts were deemed too friendly to police.

4. Boston University Professors Claim School’s COVID Reopening Plans Enforce ‘White Supremacy Culture’ | The Daily Free Press

Students, professors, and faculty at Boston University penned a letter to the university claiming that aspects of the school’s plan to return students to campus upheld “white supremacy culture.”

3. University of Chicago Activists Vow Year of Protests After School Refuses to Defund the Police | The College Fix

The #CareNotCops student group at the University of Chicago pledged to protest for a year without “peace or quiet” after the university rejected the group’s demands to defund the police.

2. Professor Uses Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death to Attack ‘MAGA F—stick Bootlicker’ Republicans | Campus Reform

University of Alabama-Birmingham archaeology professor Sarah Parcak gave a tribute to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, saying she “was stronger in her mid-80s than any M*GA f*ckstick bootlicker could ever dream of.”

1. Yale Publishes Graphic Guide to COVID-Proof Sex | Washington Free Beacon

Yale University published a comprehensive guide for how to have sex amid the coronavirus pandemic—so comprehensive, in fact, that it includes detailed descriptions of the sex acts thought to spread the virus.

Want more Campus Insanity? Read Vol. 11 here.

Oakland police assaulted during rioting; unrest prompts BART station closure

Riots are happening all over California, just as they are in Portland, Seattle, Philly, NYC and Minneapolis.  Yet, the media has been silent.  Worse, the media has hidden the extent of the violence, disruption and crimes involved.  Unless you are directly involved or watching local Facebook pages, you would not know that in Oakland, for instance, the violence was so great that BART had to be stopped—stranding people trying to get to work or go home.  Another reason for folks NOT to use government transportation.

Police in Oakland, Calif. arrested several protesters for assaulting officers Friday night as demonstrations calling for justice for Breonna Taylor turned violent.

The Oakland Police Department said more than 250 protesters in the downtown area became “immediately violent” by throwing bottles and cans at officers.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) also closed one of its downtown Oakland stations as protesters converged on the area, according to KPIX-TV in San Francisco.”

Yet, few south of Silicon Valley know about this—Oakland is NOT SAFE—it is a RIOT ZONE.  Go there at your own risk.

Oakland police assaulted during rioting; unrest prompts BART station closure

Protests erupted across the country this week, following the Breonna Taylor grand jury decision

(Photo by Ted Soqui)

By Brie Stimson | Fox News, 9/26/20 

On today’s episode, Lawrence Jones is ‘Outnumbered’ as new protests continue to erupt all over the United States in response to not charging the officers that shot Breonna Taylor.

Police in Oakland, Calif. arrested several protesters for assaulting officers Friday night as demonstrations calling for justice for Breonna Taylor turned violent.

The Oakland Police Department said more than 250 protesters in the downtown area became “immediately violent” by throwing bottles and cans at officers.

The department said officers used “minimal smoke,” which is allowed only under certain situations, FOX 2 of the Bay Area reported.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) also closed one of its downtown Oakland stations as protesters converged on the area, according to KPIX-TV in San Francisco.

Police said there were no reports of damage to nearby businesses.

Protests bubbled up across the country this week, following a grand jury decision in Louisville, Ky., on Wednesday in which it was announced no officer would be directly charged in the death of Breonna Taylor. One officer was charged with wanton endangerment after bullets entered a neighboring home during a March drug raid.

Bialosky: Biden Plan for the Criminal Justice System

Joe Biden has released one of the most anti-woman, anti-person of color criminal “justice” plan in memory.  He wants to make sure government protects the sale of illegal drugs by using the California plan—making marijuana legal (he basically wants all drugs to be decriminalized) so government can raise high taxes on “legal drugs sold.  That allows the illegal market to benefit from the marketing of the legal market—in California illegal marijuana sales have exploded, due to high pot taxes.

Worse, Biden wants to make sure those considered “poor” will never  pay child support, not need to obey traffic laws and many others.  No fines, not mandated via threat of jail for missing child support payments and more.  This is a recipe for chaos, more poverty and lots more crime.  In affect, Biden is setting up a two tier justice system.  One for the middle class and rich—the other for the poor.  If poor, no need to obey laws or care about society.  The Civil War continues.

“9. They say they want to “End the Criminalization of Poverty.” They want to end jail time for not paying fines, fees or child support. If someone has been jailed, they want to wave traffic fines. So the only people who have cause to pay these fines any longer or child support will be law-abiding citizens who have a good job. Anyone who has a criminal history or simply claims to be broke will never have to pay these fines again. What will the mothers say when they do not receive their court ordered child support? Aren’t the Democrats pro-woman?”

Biden Plan for the Criminal Justice System

Bruce Bialosky, Flashreport,   9/27/20  

The Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force provides recommendations in six areas of domestic policy which are a roadmap for what Biden and his team want to accomplish if he is elected president. Despite little discussion about public policy at their convention, this is a detailed plan for domestic policy. Today we will look at their plans for criminal justice called Protecting Communities by Reforming Our Criminal Justice System.

There are two parts of the plan, a 4-page narrative of what they want to do and then a 7-page description of their policy recommendations. The co-chair of the committee that wrote this, Chiraag Bains, is funded by the Soros family which has contributed significantly to elect District Attorneys across the nation.

A note of interest. Not once during any of the statements by the committee did they say anything positive about either the current justice system or the police in our country. In their opinion it is a racist system that unnecessarily incarcerates individuals unfairly.

Here are some points of what they describe:

1. They want to completely eliminate the cash bail system. That means violent criminals and people charged with murder would be freed to report for their trial on their word. They would also be expected not to commit any crimes after their release before their trial.

2. They stated “Democrats believe we need to overhaul the criminal justice system from top to bottom. Police brutality is a stain on the soul of our nation.”

3. They state “It is unacceptable that 1,000 people are killed by police every year.” No one would disagree with that, but most people would be interested to understand the circumstances under which they were killed. The committee would lead you to believe they were just sitting in their homes enjoying a beer. There is no mention that over the last ten years, an average of 163 police officers per year were killed in the line of duty, many by the 1,000 who were later killed by police.

4. “We must start by preventing people from entering the criminal justice system in the first place.” Everyone can agree with that. Republicans believe it should begin with people abiding by the law. Democrats want to ignore crimes. The want to break the school-to-prison pipeline. So do Republicans. Unfortunately, they want to ignore the 962,300 violent acts done at public schools each year across the nation. Republicans do not and neither do the other students and teachers being attacked.

5. They want to end the “War on Drugs.” Many Republicans agree. Even if they legalize all drugs, there will still be an illegal market. In California where marijuana is legal, the illegal market is bigger than the legal market because of the excessive taxes put on by the Democrats here. What is their plan to deal with the continuing illegal drug dealers? It is not here.

6. Democrats support measures to increase diversity among the ranks of the police departments. Maybe they missed the memo where major police departments are already diverse. One can have a sneaking suspicion that they are interested in racial quotas matching the communities. There has been no Democrat outcry about the multiple Black police chiefs who have been forced to resign for multiple reasons.

7. They want a national database for cops to track any improper behavior. As stated earlier, they are more interested in the cops than the criminals.

8. They want to get rid of mandatory sentences. Combined with making it more difficult for the prosecutors, they are all about the criminals.

9. They say they want to “End the Criminalization of Poverty.” They want to end jail time for not paying fines, fees or child support. If someone has been jailed, they want to wave traffic fines. So the only people who have cause to pay these fines any longer or child support will be law-abiding citizens who have a good job. Anyone who has a criminal history or simply claims to be broke will never have to pay these fines again. What will the mothers say when they do not receive their court ordered child support? Aren’t the Democrats pro-woman?

10. They want to decriminalize disciplinary offenses for truancy and alcohol use. Folks, they just lowered the drinking age to 10 years old. There is nothing to stop them from drinking and nothing to force them to go to school. That is a major flip from where their V-P candidate was just a few years back where she wanted to arrest the parents of truant kids.

This is a scary document. The problem is the police and prosecutors and the judges forced to hand out harsh sentences; not the criminals. There is no aspect of our justice system that they do not want to overturn in favor of the criminals and nothing good about our police. Yes, they did not specifically state they want to defund the police, they just want to switch responsibilities to other parties and take policing out of their hands because the problem is not the criminals, it is the cops.

Interestingly, recent polls show that minorities are strongly in favor of effective policing that is visibly available. Since they would be most affected by this planned emasculation of the justice system, I hope they become aware of the Democrats’ plans before they vote. They will be the ones most harmed.

Ideas can flow down from leaders whether elected or self-anointed or up from the streets and the people. The current mistrust, abuse and attacks of the police is flowing both ways. Yet, in a civilized society leaders are responsible to encourage law and order. With this document the leaders of Democrats and Biden abandon law enforcement and most particularly the police. We are seeing that acted out on the streets.

We will be back to let you know what else the Biden team wants to do so you can make an educated decision for whom to vote on November 3rd.

Bialosky: Biden Plan for the Criminal Justice System

Joe Biden has released one of the anti-woman, anti-person of color criminal “justice plan in memory.  He wants to make sure government protects the sale of illegal drugs by using the California plan—making marijuana legal (he basically wants all drugs to be decriminalized) so government can raise high taxes on “legal drugs sold.  That allows the illegal market to benefit from the marketing of the legal market—in California illegal marijuana sales have exploded, due to high pot taxes.

Worse, Biden wants to make sure those considered “poor” will never pay child support, not need to obey traffic laws and many others.  No fines, not mandated via threat of jail for missing child support payments and more.  This is a recipe for chaos, more poverty and lots more crime.  In effect, Biden is setting up a two tier justice system.  One for the middle class and rich—the other for the poor.  If poor, no need to obey laws or care about society.  The Civil War continues.

“9. They say they want to “End the Criminalization of Poverty.” They want to end jail time for not paying fines, fees or child support. If someone has been jailed, they want to wave traffic fines. So the only people who have cause to pay these fines any longer or child support will be law-abiding citizens who have a good job. Anyone who has a criminal history or simply claims to be broke will never have to pay these fines again. What will the mothers say when they do not receive their court ordered child support? Aren’t the Democrats pro-woman?”

Biden Plan for the Criminal Justice System

Bruce Bialosky, Flashreport,   9/27/20  

The Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force provides recommendations in six areas of domestic policy which are a roadmap for what Biden and his team want to accomplish if he is elected president. Despite little discussion about public policy at their convention, this is a detailed plan for domestic policy. Today we will look at their plans for criminal justice called Protecting Communities by Reforming Our Criminal Justice System.

There are two parts of the plan, a 4-page narrative of what they want to do and then a 7-page description of their policy recommendations. The co-chair of the committee that wrote this, Chiraag Bains, is funded by the Soros family which has contributed significantly to elect District Attorneys across the nation.

A note of interest. Not once during any of the statements by the committee did they say anything positive about either the current justice system or the police in our country. In their opinion it is a racist system that unnecessarily incarcerates individuals unfairly.

Here are some points of what they describe:

1. They want to completely eliminate the cash bail system. That means violent criminals and people charged with murder would be freed to report for their trial on their word. They would also be expected not to commit any crimes after their release before their trial.

2. They stated “Democrats believe we need to overhaul the criminal justice system from top to bottom. Police brutality is a stain on the soul of our nation.”

3. They state “It is unacceptable that 1,000 people are killed by police every year.” No one would disagree with that, but most people would be interested to understand the circumstances under which they were killed. The committee would lead you to believe they were just sitting in their homes enjoying a beer. There is no mention that over the last ten years, an average of 163 police officers per year were killed in the line of duty, many by the 1,000 who were later killed by police.

4. “We must start by preventing people from entering the criminal justice system in the first place.” Everyone can agree with that. Republicans believe it should begin with people abiding by the law. Democrats want to ignore crimes. The want to break the school-to-prison pipeline. So do Republicans. Unfortunately, they want to ignore the 962,300 violent acts done at public schools each year across the nation. Republicans do not and neither do the other students and teachers being attacked.

5. They want to end the “War on Drugs.” Many Republicans agree. Even if they legalize all drugs, there will still be an illegal market. In California where marijuana is legal, the illegal market is bigger than the legal market because of the excessive taxes put on by the Democrats here. What is their plan to deal with the continuing illegal drug dealers? It is not here.

6. Democrats support measures to increase diversity among the ranks of the police departments. Maybe they missed the memo where major police departments are already diverse. One can have a sneaking suspicion that they are interested in racial quotas matching the communities. There has been no Democrat outcry about the multiple Black police chiefs who have been forced to resign for multiple reasons.

7. They want a national database for cops to track any improper behavior. As stated earlier, they are more interested in the cops than the criminals.

8. They want to get rid of mandatory sentences. Combined with making it more difficult for the prosecutors, they are all about the criminals.

9. They say they want to “End the Criminalization of Poverty.” They want to end jail time for not paying fines, fees or child support. If someone has been jailed, they want to wave traffic fines. So the only people who have cause to pay these fines any longer or child support will be law-abiding citizens who have a good job. Anyone who has a criminal history or simply claims to be broke will never have to pay these fines again. What will the mothers say when they do not receive their court ordered child support? Aren’t the Democrats pro-woman?

10. They want to decriminalize disciplinary offenses for truancy and alcohol use. Folks, they just lowered the drinking age to 10 years old. There is nothing to stop them from drinking and nothing to force them to go to school. That is a major flip from where their V-P candidate was just a few years back where she wanted to arrest the parents of truant kids.

This is a scary document. The problem is the police and prosecutors and the judges forced to hand out harsh sentences; not the criminals. There is no aspect of our justice system that they do not want to overturn in favor of the criminals and nothing good about our police. Yes, they did not specifically state they want to defund the police, they just want to switch responsibilities to other parties and take policing out of their hands because the problem is not the criminals, it is the cops.

Interestingly, recent polls show that minorities are strongly in favor of effective policing that is visibly available. Since they would be most affected by this planned emasculation of the justice system, I hope they become aware of the Democrats’ plans before they vote. They will be the ones most harmed.

Ideas can flow down from leaders whether elected or self-anointed or up from the streets and the people. The current mistrust, abuse and attacks of the police is flowing both ways. Yet, in a civilized society leaders are responsible to encourage law and order. With this document the leaders of Democrats and Biden abandon law enforcement and most particularly the police. We are seeing that acted out on the streets.

We will be back to let you know what else the Biden team wants to do so you can make an educated decision for whom to vote on November 3rd.