Democratic Sacramento lawmakers, led by far-left senator Scott Wiener (D-CA), killed a bill that would have banned registered sex offenders from running for public office in California.
The legislation, <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2691">AB 2753</a>, would have expanded the list of felony convictions that disqualify people from running for elected office to include sexual assault and human trafficking. Current law covers felonies involving bribery (accepting, giving, or offering), embezzlement or theft of public funds, extortion, perjury, and conspiracy to commit any of those offenses.
On Tuesday, the State Senate&#8217;s Elections Committee rejected the proposal in a 2-1-2 vote, <a href="https://www.kcra.com/article/california-senators-kill-bill-barring-registered-sex-offenders-from-running-for-public-office/71787622">according to the local KCRA outlet.</a> The push for the bill followed an attempt by registered sex offender Rene Campos to run for Fresno City Council. He pleaded no contest in 2018 to a misdemeanor charge of possessing child sexual abuse material, KCRA reported.
Voting yes were Democratic San Diego State Sen. Sabrina Cervantes and Republican State Sen. Steven Choi; the committee’s chairman, Democratic San Francisco State Sen. Scott Wiener, voted no, while two other Democrats abstained.
The proposal passed the State Assembly unanimously before reaching the State Senate, according to <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2691">legislative records</a>. 
Wiener, who is on track to replace former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Congress, blocked the legislation. 
“There are a lot of people who go in the sex offender registry for lower-level offenses, who I don’t know that everyone would believe they should be banned from running for office if they want to. This is potentially a very dangerous road we’re going down to say that ‘minor crimes’ are going to ban you for life for running for office,” Wiener told local <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPZQDnrjcxc">ABC10 outlet. </a>
“We live in a democracy where people get to run for office, including people who have a lot of flaws,” he added. 
The bill, introduced by Fresno Democratic Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria, would have barred all individuals on California’s sex offender registry from seeking office under the state’s three-tier system, which keeps Tier One offenders on the registry for up to 10 years, Tier Two for up to 20 years, and Tier Three for life.
&#8220;I&#8217;m extremely disappointed, and I feel like I&#8217;m still trying to process what we just saw,&#8221; Soria <a href="https://www.kcra.com/article/california-senators-kill-bill-barring-registered-sex-offenders-from-running-for-public-office/71787622">said to KCRA</a> after the failed committee vote. 
Wiener’s objection comes after a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-lgbtq-activist-politician-gets-run-out-of-trans-march?author=Catherine+Maxwell&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=WATCH%3A+LGBTQ+Activist+Politician+Gets+Run+Out+Of+Trans+March">viral clash</a> with the community he most often champions in the California Legislature. Over the weekend, San Francisco leftists screamed obscenities and chased Wiener out of the city’s transgender march — all because of his stance on Israel.
“You stopped being queer the moment you started supporting Israel, you piece of sh*t!” one of the march attendees shouted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Scott Wiener showed up to the trans march and for the first time we kicked his ass out. It&#8217;s sad because while he&#8217;s written some good legislation for queers, hes ultimately a genocidal-supporting center right shill. Trigger warning: broken man walking away defeated. Vote Connie! <a href="https://t.co/TXIB7omxde">pic.twitter.com/TXIB7omxde</a>
— Dimitry Yakoushkin (@decadimitry) <a href="https://x.com/decadimitry/status/2070677434845077698?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2026</a></blockquote>

Rally On Steps Of California State Capitol Protests Passage Of Prop 8

Dems Kill Bill To Ban Sex Offenders From Public Office

Scott Wiener Kills Bill To Ban Sex Offenders From Running For Office

California

News

Sacramento

Scott Wiener

After hosting Major League Baseball’s (MLB) Athletics for a third of their season with plans to do so until 2028, Sacramento announced its wager of one billion dollars of taxpayer money to bring an MLB team to the city for good.
In what is being called “The Sacramento Pitch,” the city plans to raise $ 1.8 billion to fund a stadium and team. $800 million of the proposition would come from land and tribal investments, while the remaining billion would come from tax-increment financing from the stadium, parking, and hotels currently or soon to be in the area. 
West Sacramento Mayor Martha Guerrero seemed unbothered by the large-scale gamble when discussing the plan.
“Over 40 years, the ballpark district will lead to $1.77 billion in new revenue for the entire city, Yolo County, and our schools,” Mayor Guerrero stated in the announcement of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtqEyI4OPwI">bid</a>. “One billion of that will be dispersed to the City of West Sacramento and reinvested into the ballpark district. This one billion investment would be generated solely by activity in the ballpark district.”
The area around the proposed stadium will use taxpayer dollars to fund the tax-increment financing that is discussed in “The Sacramento Pitch.” While Mayor Guerrero mentions that they will not tap into the general fund and no taxpayer vote will be necessary, concerns are still being raised about whether public resources are being committed indirectly. Future increases in property taxes may be used for stadium upgrades down the line if the ballpark is built in West Sacramento.
This tension between economic development promises and the public’s part in the project is what led officials to propose the stadium initiative in the first place, as they attempt to structure financing in a way that appears fiscally neutral while still making the project viable.
West Sacramento’s proposition was born after the current MLB commissioner expressed his desire to expand the league to 32 teams before he retires in January of 2029. Sacramento is among Salt Lake City, Nashville, and Portland as potential cities looking to add a team. 
Currently, the capital region is home to the San Francisco Giants’ Triple-A affiliate, the Sacramento River Cats, as well as the former Oakland Athletics, who are waiting to relocate to Las Vegas in 2028. The support for baseball for a major league team that isn’t even theirs sparked the plan.
“The momentum around the team is growing, attendance is increasing, and community enthusiasm is building because people are starting to think that if we do a lot for the Athletics, we&#8217;re also demonstrating to Major League Baseball that Sacramento is ready,” president and CEO of the Greater Sacramento Economic Council Barry Broome told <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/sports/sacramento-makes-case-mlbs-next-expansion-city-calling-market-big-ignore">Fox News</a>.
Regardless of how ready Sacramento believes they are for a baseball team, gambling close to $1 billion in tax-increment financing is not always the safest way to spend a city’s money.

MLB: JUN 02 Orioles at Giants

West Sacramento Makes A Billion Dollar Tax-Payer Gamble To Keep Major League Baseball Around

Baseball

Entertainment

Major League Baseball

In every country where firearms have been banned, there&#8217;s been an &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; that&#8217;s been used to justify the crackdown. And very often, this &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; is either overblown, manufactured, or misconstrued in some way. In Canada back in 2022, for example, Justin Trudeau used a mass shooting in the United States — specifically, the shooting at the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas — to justify a national ban on handgun sales in Canada.
Yes, he used a shooting in a foreign country, which was committed with a rifle, to justify a ban on handguns in Canada. And of course, Canadians went along with it. They didn&#8217;t even complain because, after all, they&#8217;d been conditioned, over many years, to accept an increasing number of restrictions on their right to own firearms. Bit by bit, they allowed the government to whittle away their rights. So eventually, when it came time for Justin Trudeau to suspend handgun sales entirely, based on a pretext that was obviously ridiculous, everyone just kind of rolled over. We&#8217;ve seen similar stories all over the world, in places like Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and so on.
Every conservative — everyone who wants the United States to continue to exist as a functional country, where all of these other nations have failed — has to be mindful of similar efforts to undermine our Second Amendment rights here at home. We have to pay attention when government officials attempt to use some kind of fake &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; to suspend our right to possess firearms. And we certainly have to pay attention when these efforts gain traction — when they appear to be working.
That&#8217;s the case right now. Lawsuits and political pressure by various states — particularly California — have successfully intimidated the weapons manufacturer Glock into dismantling virtually its entire product line. One of the most popular handgun manufacturers in the world, with probably the most recognizable brand, has been beaten into submission.
This is a story that hasn&#8217;t received anywhere near the attention it should be receiving. It&#8217;s obviously the first domino among many. If Glock doesn&#8217;t reverse this decision — if Democrats win this fight — then many, many more dominoes will fall in short order. Just like we saw in Canada, once you give these people any ground whatsoever, they will walk all over you.
So let&#8217;s begin with the &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; of this particular power grab. It was the worst mass shooting in the history of Sacramento, according to the local media, and it took place in April 2022. Several shooters were involved, as part of some kind of gang warfare. Six people were fatally wounded. Twelve others were injured.
One of the men who was apprehended was named Smiley Martin (the brother of Dandrae Martin, another suspect in the case). Smiley Martin was found in possession of a Glock 19 handgun with a &#8220;switch&#8221; attached to it, which is a device that enables it to fire rapidly, like a machine gun. Switches are illegal, but they can be obtained very easily or created with a 3D printer.
And it was determined that Smiley was one of the main shooters in this particular incident. Watch: 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Downtown Sacramento" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4FhuYdV4phc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You heard in that report that Smiley Martin had a very long criminal record prior to this shooting. But they don&#8217;t explain why he was allowed out of prison, if that&#8217;s the case. Nor do they provide more detail on what exactly Smiley Martin did when he committed his other crimes. 
But that&#8217;s a pretty big part of the story. So here&#8217;s <a href="https://apnews.com/article/covid-health-shootings-prisons-arrests-f713eff2a31b66e5740eb96f60392baa">The Associated Press</a>, with some more background.
<blockquote>A suspect arrested in connection with last weekend’s mass shooting outside bars in Sacramento served less than half his 10-year sentence because of voter-approved changes to state law that lessened the punishment for his felony convictions and provided a chance for earlier release. Smiley Allen Martin was freed in February after serving time for punching a girlfriend, dragging her from her home by her hair and whipping her with a belt, according to court and prison records. Those count as nonviolent offenses under California law, which considers only about two dozen crimes to be violent felonies — such as murder, rape, arson and kidnapping. &#8230; Proposition 57 credits include good behavior while behind bars, though corrections officials declined to release Martin’s disciplinary report.</blockquote>
If you follow my show or read my articles, you know this is all sounding very familiar. It&#8217;s similar to what happened in Kentucky, with the child killer Ronald Exantus. As we discussed, Exantus brutally murdered a young boy and assaulted his father (and the boy&#8217;s sister). But his crimes were deemed &#8220;nonviolent&#8221; under Kentucky law, so he was let out of prison after serving just a few years. Even though the parole board didn&#8217;t want to release Smiley Martin, they had no choice under the law — just like they had to release Ronald Exantus.
In this case, just like Ronald Exantus, Smiley Martin obviously committed violent offenses. He punched a woman and whipped her with a belt. But because these offenses are somehow considered &#8220;nonviolent&#8221; in California, under the law that was passed in 2016, Smiley Martin was allowed out of prison after serving a fraction of his sentence. And he then used that opportunity to commit a mass shooting.
So how has the government of California responded to this development? Have they suggested that maybe they should amend the law so that the word &#8220;nonviolent&#8221; doesn&#8217;t refer to crimes that are obviously violent? Have they suggested any changes whatsoever that would prevent violent felons from getting out of prison after serving less than half of their sentences?
You probably know the answer to that question. Democrats in California reacted to this mass shooting by pushing yet another law — one that will effectively ban all Glock handguns in the state. For many years, Glocks have had special restrictions in places like Canada and California. And now the government, in the wake of this mass shooting, has decided to go for a total ban. 
This is from a video posted by &#8220;<a href="https://x.com/fixingcali/status/1968266193808277561">Vince for California</a>,&#8221; the only account I&#8217;ve seen on X that has pieced all this together. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 CA Glocks" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uf-r0btKIq4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yes, you heard that correctly. Government officials in California cited the mass shooting in Sacramento as proof that we need a new law banning Glocks. That&#8217;s not because there&#8217;s anything wrong with Glocks, by themselves. It&#8217;s because career criminals — overwhelmingly young black men who pose with their illegally modified Glocks on TikTok all the time, and who constantly commit violent felonies and then get out of jail in five seconds — might modify the Glock to make it more dangerous. Because this relatively small demographic is breaking the law, therefore the most popular handgun in the world should be outlawed in California. (Technically, you can keep your current Glock, but you can&#8217;t buy a new one.)
That&#8217;s what they&#8217;re saying. That&#8217;s their plan. And it&#8217;s working. It&#8217;s almost as if the entire reason they let these violent thugs out of prison is so that they can commit more crimes, which Democrats will then, in turn, use to justify more crackdowns on our civil liberties. This is from a local news station in California.
<blockquote>Glock handguns, among the most popular pistols on the market, will no longer be available for purchase in California starting July 1, 2026. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed into law AB 1127, which prohibits the sale of Glocks because a small part can be modified or replaced to convert the gun into an automatic weapon. Although illegal, this modification is becoming increasingly popular among lawbreakers. Tyler Thompson, a Glock dealer at Redding Guns, said the impending ban has left him with only one Glock in stock.</blockquote>
Along with this law (which was subsidized by Soros and Mark Zuckerberg), there have been various lawsuits filed against Glock by Democrats — including cities like Seattle and Chicago, and states like Minnesota and New Jersey — which essentially blame the manufacturer for illegal modifications that people make to their firearms. It&#8217;s like when Democrats blamed Toyota for supposedly making their cars too easy to steal.
For about a million reasons, conservatives should fight these laws (and these lawsuits) with everything they have. The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation are doing their part, and filing lawsuits, but there needs to be a much bigger effort. For one thing, <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1127/id/3209201">here&#8217;s the law</a> that California just passed.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-990593 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-824x576.jpg" alt="" width="824" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-824x576.jpg 824w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-300x210.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-768x537.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel.jpg 987w" sizes=" (max-width: 824px) 100vw, 824px" /></div>
Credit: LegiScan/California Assembly Bill 1127
The bill reads:
<blockquote>This bill would prohibit a licensed firearms dealer to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol, except as specified. For these purposes, the bill would define “machinegun-convertible pistol” as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machine gun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, meaning any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semiautomatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.</blockquote>
Among other problems, this law is obviously unconstitutional. 
To be clear, it doesn&#8217;t apply only to Glocks, but also to any handgun with a &#8220;cruciform trigger bar.&#8221; 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-990597 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-1024x428.webp" alt="" width="1024" height="428" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-1024x428.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-300x125.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-768x321.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar.webp 1280w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Credit: us.Glock.com
Here&#8217;s what that looks like. Some Smith &amp; Wesson firearms, along with some firearms from Shadow Systems and FMK Firearms, also have &#8220;cruciform trigger bars.&#8221; And yes, it&#8217;s true that, if they revamp their entire product lineup, Glock can get rid of these.
But Glock shouldn&#8217;t have to do that. Nor should any of these other companies. The Supreme Court has already held — correctly — that under our Constitution, Americans can own handguns that aren&#8217;t unreasonably dangerous. And there&#8217;s nothing unreasonably dangerous about a Glock. It&#8217;s about as vanilla as handguns get. If a handgun suddenly becomes &#8220;unreasonably dangerous&#8221; because someone makes an illegal modification to it, then every handgun will instantly become &#8220;unreasonably dangerous.&#8221;
And of course, that&#8217;s what California has in mind. We all know that, no matter what changes Glock decides to make to its handguns, in order to comply with this law, it will never be enough. It&#8217;s possible to modify any handgun (or rifle) to shoot &#8220;full auto&#8221;, within the meaning of this law. Probably ten days after Glock changes its handguns to comply with this law, someone will come up with a switch for the new model. It&#8217;s not going to be difficult. Many firearms experts have already made that point.
This is clearly, unambiguously, the first major step in a larger effort by Democrats to ban handguns. The only appropriate response is to fight it, right now. There is no limiting principle here. It&#8217;s like saying it should be illegal to own a car, because car bombs exist. The fact that someone can come in after the fact and make a product more dangerous by committing a felony does not mean that we should ban the product.
But Glock isn&#8217;t fighting back on principle. They&#8217;re not running ads in California, pointing out that Gavin Newsom let this mass shooter out of jail early, or that California already outlaws switches, or that the mass shooter was a felon who shouldn&#8217;t have been allowed to possess a firearm in the first place, or that he had a high-capacity magazine that&#8217;s also illegal in California. Glock isn&#8217;t running 24/7 ads, which makes the extremely obvious point that California could solve its gun problem overnight by actually enforcing its existing laws and by punishing violent criminals.
Instead, Glock is caving. They&#8217;re punishing every law-abiding gun owner in the country. They just announced that they&#8217;re ditching Gen 5 and starting to make a whole new &#8220;V series&#8221; of handguns that are supposedly compliant with this new law. They just sent this marketing material around.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-990599 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-460x576.jpeg" alt="" width="460" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-460x576.jpeg 460w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-240x300.jpeg 240w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-768x961.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi.jpeg 1029w" sizes=" (max-width: 460px) 100vw, 460px" /></div>
Credit: us.Glock.com
It reads: &#8220;As part of GLOCK&#8217;s commitment to future innovations, we are making necessary updates to our product lines to align with upcoming offerings.&#8221;
So they don&#8217;t even mention why they&#8217;re doing this. They don&#8217;t demonstrate a shred of interest in defending Americans&#8217; Second Amendment rights or contesting this flagrant overreach by Democrats in California, New Jersey, Minnesota, and so on. They don&#8217;t even provide any indication as to whether this new &#8220;V series&#8221; will be compatible with Gen 5 parts, including performance triggers and so on. Nor do they explain how they can possibly make a handgun that&#8217;s impossible to turn into a machine gun, under the law passed in California. They&#8217;re just hoping for the best, I guess.
And meanwhile, where is the Republican Party on this? Has a single prominent Republican made an issue out of the fact that Democrats just strong-armed Glock into dismantling its entire product line? If so, I&#8217;m not aware of it.
This is a total capitulation. There&#8217;s no other way to understand what&#8217;s happening here. It&#8217;s capitulation on Glock&#8217;s part. And it&#8217;s capitulation on the part of our elected representatives.
That would be unforgivable in normal times. It&#8217;s especially egregious now, after we&#8217;ve seen — again and again, in country after country — where total capitulation leads. Glock&#8217;s decision is going to embolden Democrats to do exactly what Leftists have done in Canada, Australia, and so on. They didn&#8217;t release Smiley Martin from prison, or fund these massive new changes to the law, so that Glock would release slightly-altered versions of its existing handguns. They released Smiley Martin from prison, and they passed this law, so that no one can buy a handgun ever again. They want to disarm the entire country. That is their ultimate objective.
That&#8217;s always been their objective. And with this decision by Glock, without much fanfare, they&#8217;re one very important step closer to achieving it.

California Gov. Newsom Discusses State’s Economic Advancement And Growth

The Brazen Attack On Your Second Amendment Rights You Probably Haven’t Heard About

Gavin Newsom

Gun Laws

Guns

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Second Amendment

California’s current crime conundrum can be told as a story with (at least) three parts. Voters passed 2014’s <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_47,_Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_(2014)">Proposition 47</a>, 2016’s <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_57,_Parole_for_Non-Violent_Criminals_and_Juvenile_Court_Trial_Requirements_(2016)">Proposition 57</a>, and finally 2024’s <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_36,_Drug_and_Theft_Crime_Penalties_and_Treatment-Mandated_Felonies_Initiative_(2024)">Proposition 36</a>.
In the first two, voters went along with progressive policies — sold using feel-good language — that created more homelessness, crime, and human misery. In the third, though, voters overwhelmingly rejected the failures caused by these earlier policies.
But now, California Governor Gavin Newsom and his state-level legislative allies are trying to undermine voters calling for more criminal accountability — including time in prison for those who break the law — by <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/newsletter/2025-06-02/newsom-insults-california-voters-by-not-funding-proposition-36">refusing</a> to adequately fund Prop. 36’s proposals.
For those unfamiliar, Prop. 47 downgraded most types of theft under $950 from felonies to misdemeanors and made it impossible to charge most simple possession cases as felonies rather than misdemeanors.
Combined with the fact that California’s <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Rogue-Prosecutors/Zack-Smith/9781637586532">rogue prosecutors</a> in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Oakland — just to name a few — refused to prosecute most misdemeanor offenses, lawlessness flourished.
Amid this front-end problem, California voters approved Prop. 57 in 2016. Voters were told this proposal was designed to allow “nonviolent” offenders who had been rehabilitated to be released from prison early.
Sounds good. Right?
Here’s the problem: The California legislature had previously <a href="https://archive.ph/0n9SO">redefined</a> “nonviolent” offenses to include <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=667.5.&amp;lawCode=PEN">crimes like</a> assault with a deadly weapon, soliciting murder, intimidating a witness, resisting arrest that causes harm to a police officer, elder or child abuse, arson with injury, human trafficking, certain types of manslaughter, rape of an unconscious person (though this has since changed), sex trafficking, and trafficking of children.
Most people would agree that those are not “nonviolent” crimes. And yet, because the California legislature had declared it so, those who committed these heinous offenses began to be released under Prop. 57’s regime.
Sensing that something wasn’t quite right, and that these soft-on-crime policies were hurting their communities rather than helping them, Californians took action.
Not only did they vote out of office the rogue district attorneys in <a href="https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/recall-chesa-boudin-san-francisco-shows-rogue-prosecutor-movement">San Francisco</a>, <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/11/06/rogue-prosecutor-george-gascon-loses-reelection-as-la-county-district-attorney/">Los Angeles</a>, and <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/1811708">Oakland</a>, but they also passed — with almost 70% of the vote — Prop. 36, which rolled back many of Prop. 47’s soft-on-crime policies.
Under Prop. 36, repeat shoplifters can now be charged with a felony punishable by up to three years in state prison. Those convicted of certain drug-dealing offenses must serve their sentences in state prison rather than county jail. (This matters because in 2011, the California legislature passed <a href="https://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2019/06/violence-surging-in-ca-jails.html">AB 109</a>, which allows those who commit many types of crimes to serve their sentences in a county jail instead of a state prison. With jail overcrowding posing a real issue, many served far less time than they were supposed to.)
Those accused of certain drug possession offenses or who have multiple past convictions for drug crimes can be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony” — meaning that if a person completes a drug rehab program, his or her charges will be dismissed. If not, that person can face up to three years in state prison. Finally, Prop. 36 requires courts to warn those who come before them that if they provide illegal drugs to someone, they could be charged with murder if that person overdoses and dies as a result.
Governor Gavin Newsom opposed Prop. 36 and vigorously campaigned against it. Now that California voters have rejected his soft-on-crime policies, he’s pitching a temper tantrum and is actively opposing funding many of Prop. 36’s proposals.
In May 2025, Newsom <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article306495616.html">said,</a> “There were a lot of supervisors in the counties that promoted it &#8230; So, this is their opportunity to step up. Fund it!”
One state senator reacted, <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article306495616.html">saying,</a> “He is being absolutely recalcitrant because the voters didn’t vote the way he wanted them to and the way he told them to . . . He’s taking his football and going home.”
After <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/no-funding-allocated-for-prop-36-newsom-may-revise/">dragging his feet</a> for the first half of 2025, Newsom finally offered some funding for Prop. 36’s proposals. But <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article312272421.html">critics argue</a> that this money was already allocated and not enough to carry out the reforms in Prop. 36.
Newsom’s recalcitrance is unfortunate. Not only is he subverting the will of the voters, he’s also pushing back against commonsense policies designed to control California’s crime problem.
Californians know there needs to be accountability when someone breaks the law. They voted for it. And now Newsom and the California legislature need to fund it.
* * *
Zack Smith is a Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a></h3>

California Gov. Newsom Leads Democratic Redistricting Plan In The State

California’s Crime Crisis: Voters Took Action, Newsom Took His Football And Went Home

Crime

Democrats

Felony

Los Angeles

Oakland

San Francisco

shoplifting

Violent Crime

Voters

A man has been arrested after firing multiple shots at a window of an ABC News affiliate in Sacramento, California, following the network&#8217;s decision to pull late night host Jimmy Kimmel after he lied about the assassination of 31-year-old Charlie Kirk.
The suspect has been identified as 64-year-old Anibal Hernandez-Santana. He&#8217;s been arrested on charges of assault with a deadly weapon, negligent discharge of a firearm, and shooting into an occupied building.
An investigation into the shooting is still underway, however, a <a href="https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/abc-affiliate-sacramento-gunfire-kimmel-protest-1236524751/">report</a> from Variety says the suspect is a former legislative director for the California Federation of Teachers, and his social media is rife with &#8220;anti-Trump commentary.&#8221;
In one post, the suspect allegedly wrote in July, “The authoritarian oligarchy is now complete. CBS+ caving, big law firms in DC, the subservients FBI and AG, university presidents stepping down, fan boys SCOTUS, public radio, ICE goons. We are going to have to ‘fight like hell’. Rules don’t apply if election was stolen. FIGHT!”
&#8220;The man suspected of firing 3 shots into the window of an ABC affiliate in California after the Kimmel decision is a former teacher&#8217;s union legislative director whose X feed is full of far-left rhetoric encouraging escalation,&#8221; conservative account &#8220;AG&#8221; posted to X.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The man suspected of firing 3 shots into the window of an ABC affiliate in California after the Kimmel decision is a former teacher&#8217;s union legislative director whose X feed is full of far-left rhetoric encouraging escalation. <a href="https://t.co/rxwVi7cg4u">pic.twitter.com/rxwVi7cg4u</a>
— AG (@AGHamilton29) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1969479346801754532?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
KCRA showed footage of the damage from the bullets, as shown in the video, below:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW: The man who shot up the ABC affiliate in Sacramento following the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel, has been identified as Anibal Hernandez-Santana.
An X account that appears to belong to Hernandez-Santana is full of anti-Trump posts, as reported by Variety.
The man, 64,… <a href="https://t.co/4fZmyLZCkR">pic.twitter.com/4fZmyLZCkR</a>
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) <a href="https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1969498664625455276?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
On Wednesday, ABC pulled Kimmel’s late night show &#8220;indefinitely&#8221; after criticism erupted over comments the host made about Kirk&#8217;s assassination. Kimmel falsely claimed on air that the gunman who murdered Kirk was a member of the “MAGA gang” and mocked President Donald Trump for his response to Kirk’s death.
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel <a href="https://x.com/newsbusters/status/1967982924986487284" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
<div class="css-1lul109 ep1tdco1">
Andrew Alford, President of Nexstar’s broadcasting division, <a href="https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar-abc-affiliates-to-preempt-jimmy-kimmel-live-indefinitely-beginning-tonight/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement: “Mr. Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr. Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse, and we do not believe they reflect the spectrum of opinions, views, or values of the local communities in which we are located.&#8221;
“Continuing to give Mr. Kimmel a broadcast platform in the communities we serve is simply not in the public interest at the current time, and we have made the difficult decision to preempt his show in an effort to let cooler heads prevail as we move toward the resumption of respectful, constructive dialogue,” he added.
</div>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/suspicious-armed-man-arrested-outside-stadium-where-charlie-kirk-memorial-to-be-held?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Amanda+Prestigiacomo&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=UPDATED%3A+‘Suspicious’+Armed+Man+Arrested+Outside+Stadium+Where+Charlie+Kirk+Memorial+To+Be+Held">UPDATED: ‘Suspicious’ Armed Man Arrested Outside Stadium Where Charlie Kirk Memorial To Be Held</a>

Jimmy Kimmel

Shots Fired At ABC Affiliate By Suspected Leftist After Network Pulls Jimmy Kimmel

ABC Affiliate Shot At By Suspected Leftist After Network Cancels Jimmy Kimmel

ABC News

Media

Shooting

U.S.

Every year, millions of high school students across the country dream of attending America’s most selective colleges. In California, that goal may be harder to reach as pro-affirmative action lawmakers push for new ways to give certain groups a leg up in admissions.
As a high school junior in San Jose, I will be applying to college next year. Students like me are taking AP classes, building their profiles, and doing everything we’ve been told to help us get into the schools of our choice.
The system is far from perfect but the basic premise is that colleges will then, in good faith, try to weigh each applicant based on merit and context. No group receives an unearned advantage at the expense of others.
<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB7/id/3029617">California Assembly Bill 7</a> (AB7) blows a hole in that idea.
The bill, which recently passed in the Assembly by a 54–17 vote, would allow California public universities to consider whether an applicant is “a descendant of a chattel enslaved person of American chattel slavery.” It’s part of <a href="https://blackcaucus.legislature.ca.gov/news/california-legislative-black-caucus-introduces-2024-reparations-legislative-package">a broader reparations push</a> and now headed to the state Senate.
The bill’s author, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, says it’s not about race but historic harm. “For decades, universities gave preferential admission treatment to donors, and their family members, while others tied to legacies of harm were ignored and at times outright excluded,” Bryan <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-universities-slavery-descendants-admissions-4b0e84c27b40725a9f7929b230a591ca">told the Associated Press</a>. 
He’s right about history. The legacy of slavery has shaped socioeconomic outcomes for Black Americans. But that doesn’t mean all descendants of slavery are disadvantaged — or that ancestry should now serve as some kind of admissions shortcut.
That distinction seems to be missing from the conversation. What we’re left with is a bill that awards preference based on ancestry.
This bill proposes an eligibility line drawn by lineage. To be clear, the text does not use the words “Black” or “African American” but rather delineates a specific historical category, “descendants of U.S. chattel slavery,” without using racial language. It’s designed to sidestep Proposition 209, which banned racial preferences in 1996, and the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions that struck down affirmative action nationwide.
Legal scholars describe such policies as “race proxies”: mechanisms that dodge explicit racial language but preserve race as the decisive factor in practice. Courts have repeatedly scrutinized such end-runs: in Parents Involved v. Seattle, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-908">the Supreme Court warned</a> against policies that look constructive but act as racial stand-ins.
The legal system has long treated ancestral classifications with the same suspicion as racial ones. In Hirabayashi v. United States, the 1943 case on Japanese-American internment, <a href="https://edge.sagepub.com/epsteinpowers11e/student-resources/chapter-5-interbranch-interactions/hirabayashi-v-united-states">the Court held</a> that “distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Moreover, the express text of Proposition 209 includes “ethnicity” in its enumeration of protected categories as well as race.
The bill defines a “descendant of slavery” as someone whose ancestors were enslaved specifically in the United States, meaning it would exclude many Black students whose families came from Africa or the Caribbean after abolition. Meanwhile, someone who identifies as white but has traced a distant enslaved ancestry through DNA testing could, in theory, qualify. And we know these terms circle a ridiculously arbitrary line. African American activist Angela Davis <a href="https://www.today.com/popculture/tv/angela-davis-finding-your-roots-mayflower-ancestors-rcna71700">went on PBS’s</a> ancestry show Finding Your Roots only to find out she’s a descendent from Mayflower colonists. She was mortified.
But even if Bryan turns out to be right on the legal question, does the technical distinction between race and ancestry suddenly make it fair to those it excludes?
No. Ancestry-based preferences would still have effectively all the same downsides as other affirmative action policies: lack of individual assessment, blunt group categorization, and fairness concerns for everyone else. As Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf">wrote in the SFFA majority opinion</a>: “College admissions are zero-sum. A benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former group at the expense of the latter.”
Even if preference is framed as reparative, someone else is paying the price.
There are better options to help marginalized students. California lawmakers could index Cal Grants to local cost of living. They could strengthen the UC/CSU admission guarantees for top students at public high schools. They could improve outreach around community college transfer guarantees or pass bills like <a href="https://www.padilla.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/BASIC-Act-One-Pager.pdf">the BASIC Act</a>, which would give colleges resources to help students cover food, housing, and health care.
This bill, by contrast, like other affirmative action-adjacent legislation before it, assumes inherited identity stands in for “lived struggle.” It doesn’t.
We don’t need another lecture on systemic inequality. We see the results of it in classmates of all backgrounds who stop aiming high because they don’t think college is for them, or can’t imagine paying for it.
The California Senate should reject this bill and pursue fairer solutions, rather than advancing a measure the Supreme Court is likely to strike down.
* * *
William Liang is a student journalist living in San Jose, California.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Stanford Graduate School of Business

I’m Preparing For College. California’s New Slavery Bill Could Change Everything.

I’m Preparing for College. California’s New Slavery Bill Could Change Everything.

Affirmative Action

American Universities

College

High School

Slavery

The Oakland A’s are officially moving to Sacramento starting in the 2025 season for three seasons with an option for a fourth before making their expected move to Las Vegas.
Vivek Ranadivé, the owner of the NBA’s Sacramento Kings, joined Athletics owner John Fisher to announce the move on Thursday. The team will play its home games at Sutter Health Park, where the Triple-A Sacramento River Cats currently play.
“I’m thrilled to welcome the A&#8217;s to Sutter Health Park, where players and fans alike can enjoy a world-class baseball experience and create unforgettable memories,” Ranadivé <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/sports/article287381405.html#campaignName=sacramento_breaking_newsletter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stated</a>. “Today marks the next chapter of professional sports in Sacramento. The passion of our fans is second to none, and this is an incredible opportunity to showcase one of the most dynamic and vibrant markets in the country.”
“We look forward to making Sutter Health Park our home through our move to Las Vegas,” Fisher added. “We extend our appreciation to the Kings and the City of West Sacramento for hosting the A’s while we work to complete our new ballpark in Las Vegas.”
“We explored several locations for a temporary home, including the Oakland Coliseum,” Fisher continued. “Even with the long-standing relationship and good intentions on all sides in the negotiations with Oakland, the conditions to achieve an agreement seemed out of reach. We understand the disappointment this news brings to our fans, as this season marks our final one in Oakland. Throughout this season, we will honor and celebrate our time in Oakland, and will share additional details soon.”
The Athletics were founded in 1901 as the Philadelphia Athletics, the American League’s counterpart to the National League Philadelphia Phillies. The majority owner, Ben Shibe, was actually a minority owner in the Phillies; the legendary manager Connie Mack was not only the team’s initial manager (and would be for the next 50 years)  but also owned 25% of the team. The name was taken from the Athletic Base Ball Club of Philadelphia, which had been one of the original members of the National League when it was founded in 1876 but folded after one season.
The early years for the franchise were halcyon days, as the team won pennants in 1902, 1905, 1910, 1911, 1913, and 1914 and won the World Series in 1910, 1911, and 1913. In the late 1920s, the Athletics fielded one of the finest teams ever assembled, winning pennants from 1929-1931 and winning the World Series in 1929-1930.
Fallow decades followed, and at the end of 1954, the Athletics were sold and moved to Kansas City for the 1955 season. In the years that followed, the Athletics were often accused of acting like a farm team for the New York Yankees; between 1955 and 1959, the A’s and Yankees made 16 trades involving 61 players. The Yankees procured many star players, including Roger Maris (who would break Babe Ruth’s single-season home run record and win two MVP awards with the Yankees), third baseman Clete Boyer, and pitcher Ralph Terry.
Charlie Finley bought the team in 1960, and later moved them to Oakland in 1968, paving the way for the Oakland dynasty of the early 1970s. They became one of the few teams in baseball history to win three consecutive World Series championships (1972-1974) with a star-studded lineup that included an indomitable starting rotation of Catfish Hunter, Ken Holtzman, Vida Blue, and Blue Moon Odom along with reliever Rollie Fingers. They also boasted Reggie Jackson, Sal Bando, and Joe Rudi. The team later won the World Series in 1989 with a team featuring Jose Canseco, Mark McGuire, and Hall of Fame pitcher Dennis Eckersley.
“When I saw that this morning, it kind of hit me in the gut,” Eckersley said of the move to the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/athletics/article/dennis-eckersley-former-a-s-saddened-19386125.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener">San Francisco Chronicle</a>. “Ugh. That’s my true reaction.”

Oakland Athletics v Milwaukee Brewers

Oakland Athletics To Move To Sacramento Starting In 2025

Oakland Athletics

Sacramento&#8217;s city council unanimously approved a resolution on Tuesday declaring it a &#8220;sanctuary city&#8221; for trans-identifying people.
The resolution declares the city a &#8220;place of safety&#8221; for trans-identifying people and says Sacramento will not cooperate with states seeking to enforce laws relating to transgender medical services.
&#8220;California has been a leader in protecting the rights of transgender individuals to access care, but many states across the nation are moving in the opposite direction,&#8221; the resolution <a href="https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/item-07-2024-00772-resolution-declaring-the-city-of-sacramento-a-sanctuary-city-for-transgender-people-66025b56a648c.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reads</a>. &#8220;In preparation of future legislation that may criminalize those providing or seeking gender-affirming care and given the Council’s stated values of equity and inclusion, it is important for the City of Sacramento to be proactive in reiterating our commitment to transgender rights and equal protections for transgender people by declaring ourselves a sanctuary city and a place of safety for transgender people.&#8221;
The resolution states that &#8220;no city resources — including staff time — would be used to detain individuals seeking care, or otherwise to cooperate with jurisdictions seeking to enforce laws criminalizing gender affirming care in other jurisdictions.&#8221;
&#8220;The City of Sacramento is already a sanctuary city for immigrants; this proposed resolution would enact the same protections for transgender individuals,&#8221; the resolution notes.
More than 30 people showed up at City Hall, some supporting and some opposing the resolution during more than an hour of public comment.
“We cannot be giving children cross-sex hormones. We can’t give them surgeries to change their sex,” Beth Bourne, a member of a Sacramento chapter of Moms for Liberty, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/sacramento-sanctuary-city-transgender-people-rcna145287" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> KCRA 3. “This sanctuary city is saying that we will promote the idea that people can be born in the wrong body.”
Councilmember Katie Valenzuela, who introduced the resolution and is a <a href="https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/mayor-council/district-4/About" target="_blank" rel="noopener">member</a> of Sacramento&#8217;s Democratic Socialists of America, said it is &#8220;the sort of thing that you hope is never necessary,&#8221; but &#8220;it&#8217;s important to be realistic.&#8221;
&#8220;You hope it never gets triggered. That there&#8217;s never anyone coming to Sac who is potentially fleeing law enforcement for the sole reason of looking for health care,&#8221; said Valenzuela.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1711715436621000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3HlpYohxaUP7Tuuj0jIFHu">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The same day the resolution passed, Valenzuela <a href="https://fox40.com/news/local-news/sacramento/katie-valenzuela-concedes-sacramento-city-council-race-to-phil-pluckebaum/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">conceded</a> her race for re-election to her opponent.
So far, 24 states have enacted restrictions on children accessing transgender medical services like puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender surgeries like double mastectomies and genital surgeries.
Those states <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ban-gender-affirming-care-minors-allowed-effect-indiana-107612984#:~:text=The%20states%20that%20have%20enacted,Oklahoma%2C%20South%20Dakota%2C%20Tennessee%2C">are</a> Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The city adopted the resolution just days before &#8220;Transgender Day of Visibility&#8221; on March 31.

Transgender flags holding by people on a demontration

Sacramento Declares Itself Sanctuary City For Trans-Identifying People

Gender

Politics

Social Issues

Transgender

California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom canceled the annual live public Christmas tree lighting that had been scheduled for Tuesday because of “protests across the country.”
Although Newsom’s office didn’t specify which protests had triggered the decision, the likelihood is that pro-Palestinian protests which have sometimes <a href="https://www.today.com/video/pro-palestinian-protest-outside-dnc-headquarters-turns-violent-198008389843" target="_blank" rel="noopener">turned</a> violent or disrupted the annual lightings of the giant Christmas trees at Rockefeller Center <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/which-one-of-yall-want-to-get-derek-chauvind-anti-israel-activists-attack-nypd-at-ny-christmas-tree-lighting" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in Manhattan</a> or in <a href="https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/11/anti-israel-protesters-disrupt-christmas-tree-lighting-in-ypsilanti-michigan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michigan</a> had catalyzed the decision, especially as the Sacramento Regional Coalition for Palestinian Rights had planned to march to the state Capitol Tuesday night. The pro-Palestinian group told <a href="https://www.kcra.com/amp/article/california-capitol-christmas-tree-lighting-ceremony-virtual/46042922" target="_blank" rel="noopener">KCRA 3</a> it wanted to &#8220;out Gov. Gavin Newsom for hiding from the public because he doesn&#8217;t want to face their anger at his shameful stance in regard to the genocide in Gaza.&#8221;
&#8220;As we continue to see protests across the country impacting the safety of events of all scales – and for the safety and security of all participating members and guests including children and families – the ceremony this year will be virtual,&#8221; a Newsom spokesperson had stated on Tuesday afternoon. &#8220;The program is unchanged and viewers can tune in Wednesday evening to watch this year’s festivities.&#8221;
KCRA 3 spoke with sources who said Newsom had been planning to host the event, at which a market featuring small businesses and musical performances would be present. On November 29, the Midtown Business Association posted that the event would be virtual, stating, &#8220;As we continue to see protests across the country impacting the safety of events of all scales, we have decided not to continue with the holiday market as planned on Tuesday, December 5. We will provide updates on our holiday plans and family-friendly festivities at a future date.”
On Monday, the California Highway Patrol erected barriers over much of the building&#8217;s west side lawn, where the tree stands, along with signs reading, &#8220;KEEP OUT, NO TRESPASSING&#8221; and warnings that the area was under 24-hour video surveillance.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
In mid-November, pro-Palestinian demonstrators <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/19/california-democratic-party-pro-palestinian-protesters-00127964" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pushed past security guards</a> and stormed into the convention center in Sacramento where the California Democratic Party was having a meeting; the party had to cancel planned caucuses. Chair Rusty Hicks said Jewish attendees “were openly intimidated and harassed.”

38E3B8B9-2A60-4954-81F7-F3DA0B91FFB3_1_201_a

Newsom Cancels Public Christmas Tree Lighting, Avoids Scheduled Palestinian Protest

Christmas Tree

Palestinians

A top <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/california" target="_blank" rel="noopener">California</a> Democrat said on Sunday that there would be consequences for any delegate who helped a group of anti-Israel protesters that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-israel-protesters-disrupt-california-democratic-convention" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interrupted a party convention</a> in Sacramento on Saturday.
Rusty Hicks, a <a href="https://cadem.org/team/rusty-hicks/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">former union leader</a> who is now chairman of the California Democratic Party (CDP), said an investigation is underway into the disruption that led officials to nix some events the night before for security reasons, <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/ceasefre-democrats-convention-18496428.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Premium)&amp;utm_source=t.co&amp;utm_medium=referral" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to the San Francisco Chronicle.</a>
POLITICO <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/19/california-democratic-party-pro-palestinian-protesters-00127964" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that Hicks told members, &#8220;Any delegates who actively participated in or aided the furtherance of those activities or events in violation of our party’s code of conduct will be held accountable.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Protesters have entered convention hall. ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/CA_Dem?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CA_Dem</a>⁩ chair ⁦<a href="https://twitter.com/rustyhicks?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@rustyhicks</a>⁩ counters “ceasefire now!” chants with “organize to win!” <a href="https://t.co/HK0QbWlGMs">pic.twitter.com/HK0QbWlGMs</a>
&mdash; Jeremy B. White (@JeremyBWhite) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyBWhite/status/1726013470913761546?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Hundreds of demonstrators pressed their way into the SAFE Credit Union Convention Center and disrupted events as they called for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, where Israeli forces are fighting Hamas after terrorist attacks in Israel last month.
Hicks said he was &#8220;deeply saddened and disappointed&#8221; by the chaos, noting two security guards sustained injuries and acknowledging Jewish attendees &#8220;were openly intimidated and harassed,&#8221; per POLITICO.
He emphasized, &#8220;Every delegate, volunteer, staff person and attendee has the right to be safe and to feel safe in the peaceful expression of their own voice and viewpoint.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/black-friday-gift-guide" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE BLACK FRIDAY SHOPPING GUIDE</a>
Violations of the <a href="https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Code-of-Conduct-UPDATED-7-10-2022.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CDP&#8217;s code of conduct</a>, which explicitly prohibits harassment, &#8220;may result in sanctions including but not limited to private censure, public censure, being prohibited from attending Party events, and removal from a CDP office and/or delegate status.&#8221;
Members of the Jewish community explained their objections to the behavior of the demonstrators at the convention at a time when there has been a <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gaza-crisis-antisemitism-us-hamas-israel-palestine-rcna123163" target="_blank" rel="noopener">spike in anti-Semitic incidents</a> across the United States.
&#8220;Anti-Israel protesters stormed the Sacramento Convention Center and shut down the grassroots California Democratic Party Convention. In doing so, they chanted, among other things, ‘from the river to the sea,’ which is a call for the eradication of the State of Israel. They also chanted ‘resistance is justified when people are occupied,’ an apparent reference to Hamas’s October 7 attack — the largest mass murder, rape, and kidnapping of Jews since the Holocaust,&#8221; said the California Legislative Jewish Caucus in a <a href="https://jewishcaucus.legislature.ca.gov/press-release/2023-11-18-california-legislative-jewish-caucus-condemns-storming-democratic-party" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>.
“A number of Jewish delegates — who were already very anxious attending the convention, given the spike in antisemitism since the October 7 massacre by Hamas — now believe it is unsafe to participate at all. We must never allow the Democratic Party to be unsafe for anyone,&#8221; the group added. “We fully support the right to protest loudly and vociferously. But storming through security and shutting down a democratic process — particularly with chants calling for the destruction of Israel and appearing to justify the Hamas attack — is completely unacceptable.”

Rusty Hicks

California Dem Leader Vows Punishment For Any Delegate Who Aided Disruptive Anti-Israel Protesters

Anti-Semitism

Gaza

Global Politics

Hamas

Israel

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/sacramento" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sacramento&#8217;s</a> top prosecutor sued the city this week over its homeless encampments, accusing city officials of allowing the homeless population to become a public nuisance.
Sacramento County District Attorney Thien Ho announced his lawsuit on Tuesday, two months after he first threatened legal action. A companion lawsuit was also filed by residents and business owners.
&#8220;We have an erosion of everyday life,&#8221; Ho <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/21/prosecutor-sacramento-homelessness-lawsuit/70914753007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> Tuesday during a press conference announcing the lawsuit. &#8220;We forget what it feels like to be safe and that brings us to this lawsuit &#8230; because we need to get people off the streets.&#8221;
Sacramento&#8217;s homeless population has soared over the last several years.
Last year, the city had a record nearly 9,300 homeless people, up 67% from just three years earlier in 2019, <a href="https://sacramentostepsforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/PIT-Report-2022.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to last year&#8217;s Point-In-Time Count. The count also reported more than 1,600 tents and 1,100 vehicles being used for shelter, up five times from 2019.
“Enough is enough,” Ho <a href="https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/homeless/article279071054.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> the Sacramento Bee. “We need to address this public safety crisis for both the housed and the unhoused.&#8221;
In his suit, Ho alleged that Sacramento failed to enforce local laws and allowed the city&#8217;s “descent into decay and this utter collapse into chaos.”
Ho has asked the city to enforce city ordinances on problems like sidewalk obstructions, unlawful storage, dumping, fires, and camping, the lawsuit says. He has also asked the city to audit the millions of dollars spent on the homeless crisis, according to the suit.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Camping is not allowed during the day on City Hall property, the lawsuit says, and Ho has asked the city &#8220;to extend that same protection that they give to themselves to the rest of the City,&#8221; but to no avail.
&#8220;The unhoused deserve to feel and be safe,&#8221; the lawsuit states, adding that nine out of 10 women who are chronically homeless have been victims of sexual assault.
&#8220;It&#8217;s not compassionate to let someone die in the sweltering summer sun or freeze to death in the cold winter night. It&#8217;s not compassionate to allow unsafe conditions to fester so badly that a 14-year-old boy cannot ride his bike to school or a group of little girls can&#8217;t play soccer on a field littered with needles. It&#8217;s not compassionate when someone in a wheelchair cannot use a sidewalk blocked by tents or a small business is forced to close forever due to repeated broken windows and vandalism,&#8221; the lawsuit says.
Other California cities have been struggling with a homeless crisis as well.
San Francisco has been in the throes of a homelessness crisis for years now, and it has only gotten worse since before the pandemic.
About 38,000 people <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rising-crime-homelessness-leave-residents-of-san-francisco-and-oakland-on-edge">are homeless</a> in the Bay Area on a given night, up 35% since 2019. More than 7,000 people are homeless in San Francisco itself.
In August, San Francisco Mayor London Breed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/san-francisco-mayor-joins-hundreds-of-protesters-urging-9th-circuit-to-scrap-ban-on-city-clearing-homeless-encampments">joined</a> more than 200 protesters to call for an end to a federal restriction on the city’s ability to clear homeless encampments.
Nearly a third of the country&#8217;s homeless people live in California, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2023/06/20/california-accounts-for-nearly-one-third-of-the-nations-homeless-people/70340309007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to a June statewide study from a research group at the University of California, San Francisco.

Coronavirus Pandemic 2022 –  Homelessness California

Sacramento’s Top Prosecutor Sues City Over Homeless Encampments

Sacramento's Top Prosecutor Sues City Over Homeless Encampments

Drugs

General

Homeless

Homelessness

On Friday, September 1, the California assembly’s appropriations committee held a <a href="http://cferfoundation.org/posts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hearing</a> in which they <a href="http://billtrack50.com/billdetail/1576426" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voted</a> to move forward with a bill that would strip California’s Constitution of its protections against racial discrimination. 
Currently, California’s Constitution asserts:
<blockquote>“The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” </blockquote>
The  bill, called ACA-7, seeks to amend this section of the State Constitution by adding: 
<blockquote>“The State may use state money to fund research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific programs in any industry, including, but not limited to, public employment, public education, and public contracting, if those programs are established or otherwise implemented by the State for purposes of increasing the life expectancy of, improving educational outcomes for, or lifting out of poverty specific groups based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or marginalized genders, sexes, or sexual orientations.” </blockquote>
In short, California Democratic lawmakers don’t like the simple yet unequivocal ban on discrimination in the State’s Constitution. They want to replace it with a system where all the California government has to do is find an academic paper or professor claiming that their race-based programs and affirmative action initiatives do, in fact, “improve educational outcomes” or “lift out of poverty” certain minorities, and they can go on discriminating based on race, forcing Californians’ tax dollars to support race-based preferential treatment in perpetuity.
It is quite ironic and very sad that California Democrats have gotten to a point where they are so convinced that they are the ones fighting for justice and individual rights while openly championing a bill that would destroy the protections that grant every American the same rights and opportunities, the protections that allow every American to be assessed based on their own merit and character, regardless of the color of their skin. Of course, the supporters of ACA-7 believe that certain groups — blacks, for example — have been so marginalized by past discrimination and by current institutional racism, that treating everyone the same and providing everyone with the same opportunities regardless of race is actually a form of injustice. Yes, there are real income and achievement gaps for blacks and Hispanics in this country. But racial discrimination will not solve those problems. Racial discrimination should never be the answer in any context. It will create a country divided into groups constantly fighting over which group gets to be raised up and which group has to be pushed down. ACA-7 is a morally abhorrent bill because it would enshrine that kind of division.
California Democrats likely won’t find my arguments above convincing, but they should still drop ACA-7. Why? Because it’s a losing issue for them. First and foremost, it’s unpopular with voters. According to the Wall Street Journal, ACA-7 is deeply unpopular with <a href="http://wsj.com/articles/california-racial-discrimination-state-constitution-amendment-aca7-d1577878" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Asian Americans</a>, who have been waking up to the fact that race-based preferential treatment that throws merit out the window seriously hurts them and their futures. If Democrats go forward with this bill, they will alienate even more of their Asian American voters, who have already begun to shift away because of Democrat policies on crime.
And it’s not just Asian Americans who dislike affirmative action. The same Wall Street Journal op/ed cites a Pew Research survey conducted back in June which found that the majority of Americans believe that considering race and ethnicity in college admissions makes college admissions less fair than more fair. If ACA-7 manages to pass in the state Senate, it will still have to be voted on by Californians in a referendum. The people of California don’t want state-sponsored racial discrimination. That’s why they enshrined anti-discrimination into California’s Constitution in the first place. In all likelihood, ACA-7 will fail in the referendum, and California Democrats will have wasted millions of dollars campaigning for it and gained nothing except disdain from their constituents.
And if somehow Democrats do convince enough Californians to pass this amendment, all that work will eventually come to nothing anyway, because the Supreme Court, which ruled decisively against affirmative action back in June, will strike it down.
California Democrats should abandon ACA-7 immediately. Not only is it racist and unjust, but it is political poison.
Emmie Lo is a Latin teacher and staff writer for <a href="http://colorusunited.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://colorusunited.org&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1689870524844000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1swFnvQLYWXgsaX1kKg1Tc">Color Us United</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu