Tag Archives: California Governor Gavin Newsom

How Is The Plan Actually Working?

Posted on by

On Monday, Fox News posted an article about California Governor Gavin Newsome’s plan to end homelessness in California.

The article reports:

As Newsom took over following the 2003 San Francisco mayoral election, the then-mayor-elect said that December he intended to “aggressively” make ending homelessness in his city his administration’s top priority.

The plan involved a 10-year strategy to end chronic homelessness with “tens of millions” of federal dollars in funding to create 550 “supportive housing” units for the troubled homeless, SFGate reported at the time.

Fast-forward to December of this year and the announcement of that strategy is now two decades old. San Francisco, along with the rest of California, is far from solving the problem.

In fact, the growing homeless population has become a central issue in California’s political debate.

“Twenty years ago, then-Mayor Newsom laid out his 10-year plan to end homelessness in San Francisco,” California GOP chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson told Fox News Digital. “Not only does the problem remain unsolved today, but in the time since, he has taken his failures statewide, where communities across California are grappling with the devastating homeless crisis.”

The article notes:

Newsom was elected governor in 2018 and re-elected in 2022, with 2023 marking his fifth year in office.

Newsom took some heat earlier this year after San Francisco cleared out its homeless encampments ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s summit with President Biden in the city.

“I know folks are saying, ‘Oh they’re just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are coming to town,'” Newsom said at that time. “That’s true, because it’s true – but it’s also true for months and months and months before APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit], we’ve been having conversations.”

I don’t claim to have a solution to homelessness, but it is interesting that the streets of San Francisco could be cleaned up for a state visit.

If Robert F. Kennedy, Sr., Can Do It…

Posted on by

In case you don’t remember, Robert F. Kennedy, Sr., served as a Senator from New York State from 1965 until he was assassinated in 1968. Anyone who was politically savvy at the time understood that since Ted Kennedy had been a Senator since 1962, it was unlikely that Massachusetts voters (yes, even Massachusetts voters) would elect Robert Kennedy to serve alongside his brother. The Kennedy family did have some roots in New York State, but had much deeper roots in Massachusetts. In the 1970’s when you walked into the house of a good Massachusetts Democrat, there were two pictures over the fireplace in the living room–the Pope and John F. Kennedy.

Fast forward to California in 2023.

Breitbart reports:

Laphonza Butler has apparently removed her “Maryland” residence from her X account as well as her professional biography after Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) appointed her to the U.S. Senate seat in California, which was vacated on September 29 upon the death of Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

After news broke of her appointment, reporter Elex Michaelson captured a screenshot of her X bio, which had Maryland as her location as recently as Sunday:

However, by Monday morning, Maryland was missing from her bio. (Screenshot in article).

The article notes:

According to the website of the pro-abortion EMILYs List organization, where Butler is president, she also served as the president of the biggest union in California, SEIU Local 2015. Additionally, she served as its international vice president and president of the SEIU California State Council. Her bio indicates that she grew up in Magnolia, Mississippi.

According to the Washington Examiner, on Sunday night, the bio on the website said, “She lives in Maryland with her partner Neneki Lee and their daughter Nylah,” but by Monday morning, that line was removed.

Butler served as a senior adviser to Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, according to the bio.

Article I Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states:

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Admittedly, she was chosen, not elected, but she was not a resident of California when chosen. I guess the Constitution only matters to Democrats when it is convenient.

About That Article V Convention

Posted on by

Many Americans have espoused the idea of an Article V Convention as a way to add two amendments to the United States Constitution–a balanced budget amendment and a term limits amendment. When those of us who are skeptical of the ability of our political class to do the right thing question the idea of holding an Article V Convention, we are told that the checks and balances would prevent any mischief. I am not convinced. We have checks and balances built into our government, and we have had a lot of mischief in spite of those checks and balances.

On Friday, The Western Journal reported the following:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is eyeing a change to the United States Constitution.

The state’s legislature on Thursday approved a resolution in support of Newsom’s call for a 28th Constitutional amendment, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The amendment would enshrine a list of Democratic gun-control policy priorities into federal law.

…The proposed “Right to Safety Amendment” would limit legal gun ownership to adults 21 and older, enact universal federal background checks on gun sales, create a mandatory “reasonable waiting period” for gun purchases, and ban the purchase of many forms of semiautomatic rifles.

The article notes:

The governor claims the new amendment would co-exist with the Second Amendment despite the proposed amendment’s changes to the American legal understanding of gun ownership.

“The Right to Safety Amendment would preserve the integrity of the Second Amendment, while enshrining in our Constitution commonsense safety provisions that are supported overwhelmingly by the American people,” the progressive governor said in a news release.

…Three-fourths of state legislatures need to approve any amendment to the Constitution before it becomes law, and Republicans control a majority of state houses.

Many of the amendment’s provisions already are law in California, but that state experienced the most mass shootings in the nation between 1982 and August of this year, according to Statista. However, the nation’s most populous state had the eighth-lowest gun-death rate among the 50 states in 2021, according to Giffords Law Center.

I don’t want to let this man anywhere near amending the U.S. Constitution.

Additional Information About The Battle For The Republican Party

Posted on by

On Friday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the battle between the Republican Club and Republican voters.

The article notes:

The Republican Club has no interest in Ron DeSantis becoming President of the United States.  The Republican Club has interest in Donald Trump NOT becoming President of the United States.  Ron DeSantis is the foil, nothing more.  It’s not about Ron DeSantis, it’s about the Club, the mechanism behind Ron DeSantis – the same mechanism that put $200 million into his campaign as enticement for his usefulness.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis -vs- California Governor Gavin Newsom in 2024 is simply two clubs playing the illusion of choice game.

Ultimately, using history and modern politics as the perspective, if you really boil down the political sauce to its reduced state, what you find is… With DeSantis the DNC Club needs less ballot collection to defeat him. However, that’s irrelevant to the intent of his usefulness for the GOP club.

The article concludes:

For the professional GOP Club, as openly expressed by the establishment politicians within it, the donors behind it and the media who promote it, the goal is to remove the populism within the club and bring back the multinational Club alignment with the corporations.  That alignment was severely damaged by President Trump and the America First economic agenda.

The core of the Big Ugly battle is a Club motive based on money, power and boardroom affluence, in essence, GREED.

For ten plus years on these pages, I have written extensively about how there was always, always, going to be a point where the Big Ugly battle was going to have to be waged.  We have waited and waited, looking at each moment, each conflict, each disparagement, each slight and snub, in hope the spark would ignite.

If the Big Ugly arrives in a contest between President Trump and Governor DeSantis, well, great; it needs to happen.

The bottom line is we need this Big Ugly fight.  Not only does the future of the GOP reside in the outcome, the future of a constitutional republic free from corporatism is contingent upon it.

Yes, this fight is going to be big, and it’s going to be ugly… and in the aftermath, hopefully lots of free footballs.

Bring it!

Keep all of this in mind as you watch the media and the Republican Club promote Ron DeSantis as the answer to America’s and the Republican Party’s problems.

Cherry Picking The Facts

Posted on by

I belong to a few liberal groups on Facebook–it helps me understand some of the thinking that is going on among liberal Americans. Sometimes I am amazed by what I read. Today was one of those times.

The following comment appeared:

Proof positive that leftist policies and socio-cultural norms (both legislatively and socially)are not only ideal, but a proven success.
That’s right republicans, states you run are economic failures , that’s a proven fact.
Toss that bible and take a lesson from the left coast. We moving on up to 4.

The comment was in reference to an article that appeared in Bloomberg with the following headline:

California Poised to Overtake Germany as World’s No. 4 Economy

Contrary to popular belief, the Golden State has proven resilient, outperforming its US and global peers.   

Note–the article at Bloomberg is an opinion piece–not a news article!

The article notes:

Gavin Newsom is as familiar as anyone with the media narrative of earthquakes, persistent wildfires, droughts, homelessness and companies fleeing California to Texas for a tax- and regulation-free lifestyle. This is nothing new. California’s governor recalls a 1994 Time Magazine cover story citing “a string of disasters rocks the state to the core, forcing Californians to ponder their fate and the fading luster of its golden dream.”

And yet, “the California dream is still alive and well,” the state’s 40th governor said in a Zoom interview a month before his probable reelection.

Attention–gaslighting alert!

Please follow the link if you choose to read the rest of the article. Meanwhile, here are a few facts.

The California Department of Justice reports:

Facts for 2021:

Crime Rates per 100,000 Population
* The violent crime rate increased 6.7
percent in 2021 (from 437.0 in 2020 to
466.2 in 2021) (Table 2).
* The property crime rate increased 3.0
percent in 2021 (from 2,114.4 in 2020 to
2,178.4 in 2021) (Table 2).
*The homicide rate increased 9.1 percent
in 2021 (from 5.5 in 2020 to 6.0 in 2021)
(Table 2).
* The burglary rate decreased 5.3 percent in
2021 (from 365.4 in 2020 to 346.2 in 2021)
(Table 2).
* The rape rate increased 8.6 percent in 2021
(from 33.8 in 2020 to 36.7 in 2021) (Table
2).
* The motor vehicle theft rate increased 8.2
percent in 2021 (from 422.4 in 2020 to
457.1 in 2021) (Table 2).
* The arson rate decreased 4.4 percent (from
29.6 in 2020 to 28.3 in 2021) (Table 2).

In January 2022, Channel 10 News in San Diego reported:

A story you may have seen claims so many people are leaving California that U-Haul ran out of trucks in our state.

It’s apparently true.

U-Haul put out a news release in which it said California was the state that saw the biggest loss of one-way U-Haul trucks in 2021.

…California’s population has been steadily declining as more people leave the state while the number of people moving here has dropped.

The California Health Care Foundation reported the following in June 22:

The number of people experiencing homelessness served by California’s homelessness response system (Continuums of Care) increased from 188,000 in 2017 to 255,000 in 2020.

The Public Policy Institute of California reports:

The gap between high- and low-income families in California is among the largest in the nation—exceeding all but four other states in 2020. Families at the top of the income distribution earned 11 times more than families at the bottom ($270,000 vs. $25,000 for the 90th and 10th percentiles, respectively).

None of this sounds like a great place to live. Between crime, homelessness, and the income gap, it doesn’t sound like a socialist paradise. California is beautiful and has a wonderful climate–why do you think so many people are leaving?

When The Political Left Can’t Win At The Ballot Box, They Go To The Courts

Posted on by

Yesterday Politico posted an article about the recall of California Governor Gavin Newsom.

The article reports:

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California argues that the state’s recall provision violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing sitting governors to be replaced by candidates who have received fewer votes. The plaintiffs, Rex Julian Beaber and A.W. Clark, want a court order either prohibiting the recall election or adding Newsom’s name to the replacement candidate list. Elections officials have already sent millions of ballots ahead of a state deadline today.

…Constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, raised that precise scenario in a New York Times op-ed last week arguing California’s recall process is unconstitutional. Chemerinsky and law and economics professor Aaron Edlin argued for altering the rules to allow governors stand as candidates on the second question and advocated for a legal challenge compelling the courts to intervene.

“The court could declare the recall election procedure unconstitutional and leave it to California to devise a constitutional alternative,” Chemerinsky wrote. “Or it could simply add Mr. Newsom’s name on the ballot to the list of those running to replace him. That simple change would treat his supporters equally to others and ensure that if he gets more votes than any other candidate, he will stay in office.”

Beaber, a Los Angeles attorney and clinical psychologist, would not say in an interview if he’s a Democrat.

“I would prefer not to say, simply because I think it’s irrelevant,” he said Monday. “To me it would be unfortunate if party politics was the driving force behind the consideration of this lawsuit. This lawsuit seeks on its face to declare a current California remedy as unconstitutional and it would apply regardless of whether it was a Democrat or a Republican already in office.”

I wonder if there would be all of this constitutional concern if a Democrat were leading in the election to replace Governor Newsom.

The article concludes:

Elected Democrats have not publicly embraced Chemerinsky’s reasoning or backed such a legal challenge. But Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday that he was monitoring both the lawsuit and the underlying legal debate.

“We’re aware of that argument and some of the other concerns and we’ll be making sure we stay abreast of this issue and monitoring it,” Bonta said, adding of the lawsuit, “We’ll be coordinating with the secretary of state’s office to determine next steps.

The recall process has been used in California on elected officials since 1913. According to the California Secretary of State website, there were four attempts to recall Governor Newsom in 2020. Only one qualified to move forward. In 1968 and 1972, there were attempts to recall Governor Ronald Reagan. Those attempts did not qualify to move forward. It’s interesting that this time the process is being challenged in court.

The First Amendment Under Attack

Posted on by

Yesterday WND posted an article about California Governor Newsom’s lockdown of churches during the coronavirus.

The article reports:

Just as California Gov. Gavin Newsom was being ordered to pay $1.35 million for the legal fees of a church whose members sued him over his coronavirus-related lockdown orders, another fight has erupted over the same problem.

…The case that just was settled was brought by Liberty Counsel on behalf of Harvest Rock Church of Pasadena, whose leaders were “threatened with daily criminal charges” for staying open and claiming constitutional protection for their actions.

The case went to the Supreme Court where the justices decided 6-3 that the church could allow larger crowds.

The other, and continuing, fight concerns Santa Clara’s war against Calvary Chapel San Jose.

Most recently, a decision denied the county’s demand that it be allowed to see the church’s financial information.

Now both sides have submitted a letter to a judge hearing the case asking for guidance on the looming fight.

Santa Clara County is insisting on access to “Calvary’s sources of revenue, loans, and budgets, claiming these requests are relevant to determine how much Calvary ‘profited’ during the pandemic,” according to a statement from Advocates for Faith & Freedom, which is working on the case.

The article notes:

The county already had sent “two threatening letters” to the church’s bank, which “coerced the bank to temporarily sever the relationship.”

“The first letter informed the bank that Pastor (Mike) McClure had been held in contempt of court and that he and the church were facing fines and sanctions of over $1 million. The second letter was to inform the bank that Santa Clara County Superior Court had set a contempt hearing and that the county would seek further fines and sanctions against the church. The letters made no mention of an appeals process, that the church was challenging the constitutionality of the fines, or the recent Supreme Court decisions vindicating California churches,” the legal team explained.

The article concludes:

The church charges that the county’s goal is to assess “excessive and burdensome fines” against the church.

“The county falsely equates a church to a commercial enterprise, revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of a church’s distinct purpose and unique legal protections,” the letter said. “Unlike a business, churches do not function to earn a profit.”

The church has not claimed it lacks funds to pay the county’s fines; it alleges the fines “are altogether illegal or, at best, the amount of the fines is excessive considering the nature of the offense and the fact that it was the county, not the Calvary, that broke the law.”

The county claims the church “profited” during the pandemic and so its revenue is pertinent to “the fines.”

Unfortunately the taxpayers of California will be the ones who are hurt by this action. They will pay the legal fees for the county. The county (or the state) has no business looking into the finances of a church. If a private citizen wants to do that, I suspect they could–most churches are fairly transparent about their finances. However, it is not a county or state matter.