San Diego Declares Housing A ‘Human Right’ Without A Plan To End Homelessness

San Diego Declares Housing A ‘Human Right’ Without A Plan To End Homelessness

By unanimous resolution last week, the city of San Diego declared that “housing is a human right.” But no one knows exactly what that means.

The city went on to reaffirm “its commitment to providing more housing services geared toward putting a roof over the head of every San Diegan.”

Quick to downplay the legal implications, city attorney Dan Eaton said of the resolution, “it’s pretty clear it doesn’t have any legal effect.” So, what does the declaration mean?

The city council rightly values housing as “a component of a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.” The resolution affirms that “housing provides stability and security” and that individuals “should have a secure, peaceful, and dignified place to live.” Nearly everyone agrees on the central importance of housing for human dignity. But if declaring housing to be a human right means that the government is obligated to provide housing with no strings attached, won’t that result in human disempowerment rather than security, peace, or dignity?

Protecting something of value, regardless of “human right” status, differs greatly from providing that object of value. When the government protects human rights such as life, speech, and marriage, it prevents those rights from being wrongfully stripped from us. It does not provide them for us. For example, the government is not responsible for keeping us alive, platforming our speech, or offering us suitable spouses. This is a good thing. Maybe the real question, then, is not whether housing is a human right but whether the government is responsible for providing things, like housing, that are central to dignity and quality of life.

Many things add dignity and quality to human lives — safe homes, fulfilling jobs, healthy relationships, and nourished bodies. The government allows human lives to flourish when it acts to protect the pursuits of these things, not when it becomes the provider of them. With over half of the unsheltered-homeless population citing mental illness or substance abuse as a cause for their loss of housing, the narrative that more affordable housing will solve the problem is tired and untrue.

Commendably, at the end of their resolution, the council members acknowledge that ensuring their neighbors are housed requires “policies that address the root causes of homelessness.” Yet nowhere in the resolution do they name the root causes of homelessness nor provide a plan to address them. Governments that use excessive amounts of taxpayer money to create free housing with no requirements for treatment or training fail to address the root causes of homelessness. Worse, free housing with no responsibility isolates suffering individuals and deprives them of ownership and accountability.

The people of San Diego, whether housed or unhoused, gain nothing from the city council’s resolution that “housing is a human right.” At best, it is an empty promise of an unclarified ideal: housing for those who have none. At worst, it obligates the government to spend millions on rooms that leave those suffering from addiction, mental illness, and the traumas of homelessness isolated and alone to continue suffering.

Source

Court Slaps Down California’s Attempt To Muzzle Doctors Who Dissent From Covid Groupthink

Court Slaps Down California’s Attempt To Muzzle Doctors Who Dissent From Covid Groupthink

A federal judge halted California’s attempt to censor doctors when, last Wednesday, the court enjoined the state statute that banned medical professionals from spreading purported “misinformation” or “disinformation” to their patients about Covid-19. The decision represents the latest victory against the authoritarian edicts that quickly followed the outbreak of the pandemic three years ago but continue to this day.

In August of 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098), adding a new provision to California’s extensive regulations governing the professional and ethical conduct of physicians — regulations that ban practices ranging from human cloning to performing a pelvic exam on an unconscious or anesthetized female patient without her knowledge or consent.

The new statute sought to stop what the legislature called a “pernicious” threat to public health — doctors who spread “misinformation” or “disinformation” to their patients about Covid-19. Specifically, AB 2098 provides:

It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

The California law defines “disinformation” as “misinformation the [physician] deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead,” while “misinformation” is “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

In passing the law, the California legislature made multiple “findings,” including facts purveyed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that there is a much higher risk of death for unvaccinated individuals from Covid-19 than the vaccinated. The legislature also found that “the spread of misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines has weakened public confidence and placed lives at serious risk” and that “major news outlets have reported that some of the most dangerous propagators of inaccurate information regarding the COVID-19 vaccines are licensed health care professionals.”  

Soon after Newsom signed AB 2098, a group of doctors and organizations representing doctors filed suit in federal court in California. The plaintiffs in Høeg, et al. v. Newsom, et al. argued the statute violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and their constitutional right to due process. The plaintiffs in Høeg then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent the state from enforcing AB 2098 until the resolution of the doctors’ constitutional challenges.

On Wednesday, presiding Judge William Shubb, a George H.W. Bush appointee, granted the motion and entered an injunction barring California from enforcing the law.  

In his ruling, Shubb first held that the plaintiffs had “standing” or the right to sue because, if allowed to go into effect, the doctors faced an actual injury in the form of disciplinary action. The court then held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim — “likelihood of success on the merits” is the controlling standard at the preliminary injunction stage — because the terms “misinformation” and “contemporary scientific consensus” were unconstitutionally vague, making it impossible for a reasonable person to know what the law prohibited.  

The court further stressed that the phrase “contemporary scientific consensus” lacks an understandable meaning because it has no technical meaning within the medical community and was left undefined in AB 2098. Covid-19 is a “quickly evolving area of science that in many aspects eludes consensus,” the court noted, reasoning that while the phrase “contrary to the standard of care” is a clearly defined term in law, by adding the undefined language, “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus,” the California legislature made the statute “grammatically incoherent.”

Because the court concluded the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their due process claim given the vagueness of AB 2098, Shubb held he did not need to reach the plaintiffs’ argument that the California law violated the First Amendment by preventing medical professionals from openly discussing issues with Covid-19 shots, alternative treatments and therapies for Covid-19, or the merits of universal masking with their patients. Shubb, however, added that AB 2098 “clearly implicates First Amendment concerns.” 

Following Wednesday’s decision in Høeg, the corporate press quickly coalesced around the vaccine-denier narrative by highlighting that one of the plaintiffs in the case was the Children’s Health Defense, an “advocacy organization” connected to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Then, rather than focus on the significance of the court’s decision and California’s blatant violation of doctors’ constitutional rights, the left-leaning media intoned that the Children’s Health Defense has “long promoted false information about standard childhood vaccines.”

This tact tracks the media’s approach to AB 2098 following its enactment, when the legacy press reported favorably on the new law, claiming the California legislature was “trying to strike a balance between free speech and public health” while highlighting laws passed in other countries that criminalized the “spread of vaccine misinformation.”  

The reporting at the time also quoted supposed experts who, while admitting the law likely would not survive First Amendment scrutiny, nonetheless opined that it “doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea.” “People have died because they made choices based on false information spread by people in a position to know better,” one so-called expert said.

The court’s decision enjoining California’s AB 2098 represents a solid victory in the fight against the authoritarianism pushed under the auspices of protecting the public from Covid-19, but the sentiments voiced by the legislature and experts — that they know better — should nonetheless trouble Americans.


Anne Courchaine is an attorney, formerly in private practice but now a stay-at-home mom, who lives with her husband and soon-to-be three children in Phoenix, Arizona.

Source

What Did Election Integrity Laws Achieve In 2022? New Report Details What Worked And What Didn’t

What Did Election Integrity Laws Achieve In 2022? New Report Details What Worked And What Didn’t

In the interim between the major 2022 and 2024 election cycles, Republican lawmakers are focusing on how they can strengthen election laws to ensure key federal and state races are conducted securely and fairly. A new report released by the House Election Integrity Caucus highlights the successful election integrity reforms made this past cycle and makes future recommendations for policymakers.

“A look at what went right and what went wrong in election administration is the first step to securing our elections and restoring voter confidence,” Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., told The Federalist. “The Election Integrity Caucus’ 2022 Midterm Review is a look at the positive efforts of states like Georgia, Texas, and Florida, which are working to implement policies that promote fair, free, and transparent elections. It is also a look at what went wrong in states like New York and California, which implemented policies that encouraged chaos at the ballot box and undermined voter confidence.”

Tenney launched the House Election Integrity Caucus in 2021 to restore “faith in the democratic process,” especially as Democrats tried to diminish and destroy safeguards for administering elections through bills such as HR 1, which sought to federalize American elections, or the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would overturn voter ID requirements.

The report documents several election integrity laws recently passed by Georgia, Texas, and Florida that strengthened the security of each state’s election process. Georgia’s SB 202 strengthened voter ID requirements and banned the private funding of elections. Despite Democrats’ characterization of the bill — which also expanded early voting — as “Jim Crow 2.0” and other slurs, the report notes that Georgia experienced “historic early turnout that rivaled presidential cycles,” especially among minority voters.

“The Lone Star State gets five stars for election administration!” the report declares, noting that Texas’ SB 1 gave poll watchers more access to “salient aspects of the elections process,” in addition to legalizing ballot curing.

The report also highlights Florida’s SB 90, which strengthened voter ID requirements, barred unsolicited mail-in balloting, and prohibited “ballot harvesting by political operatives.”

“Between Hurricanes Ian and Nicole, Florida organized and executed a safe and secure midterm election,” the report reads. “Preliminary numbers have Florida turnout of over 7.5M or 49.3% of their voting-eligible population.”

Next the report details problematic election-related legislation passed by both New York and California. New York’s SB 1046 is a state version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, requiring “covered jurisdictions” to “preclear” any changes to election-related laws or policies that could potentially have a disparate impact on racial minorities. In California, automatic mail-in voting was established via AB 37, making California a permanent mail-in ballot state.

The report ends with several recommendations for policymakers on the national and state level, including strengthening photo ID requirements, maintaining accurate state voter rolls, ensuring Election Day does not become “Election Month,” and passing the American Confidence in Elections Act, “a comprehensive legislative package that would provide states with tools to boost election integrity, prohibit non-citizens from voting, ban Zuckerbucks, and end Biden’s Executive Order 14019 turning federal agencies into partisan get-out-the-vote operations.”

While the work of the House Election Integrity Caucus has just begun, Tenney told The Federalist she “applaud[s] the work of the legislatures, chief election officers, and executives who [before the 2022 cycle] got it right by prioritizing election integrity — guaranteeing our elections are secure by making it harder to cheat and more accessible by making it easier to vote.”


Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

Source

California Would Disbar Ted Cruz And 18 Attorneys General If It Could

California Would Disbar Ted Cruz And 18 Attorneys General If It Could

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and the attorneys general from 17 additional states should all be disbarred, according to the reasoning of the disciplinary complaint the State Bar of California filed Thursday against former Trump campaign attorney John Eastman. That detail is one of many buried in the 35-page, 11-count disciplinary complaint made public yesterday in the latest lawfare attack on attorneys who deigned to represent Donald Trump. 

State Bar of California’s Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona announced on Thursday the filing of disciplinary charges against Eastman, allegedly arising from Eastman’s engagement “in a course of conduct to plan, promote, and assist then-President Trump in executing a strategy, unsupported by facts or law, to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states.” The press release announcing the disciplinary charges further claimed that Eastman “made false and misleading statements regarding purported election fraud,” that provoked a crowd into assaulting and breaching the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The 11 charges against Eastman prove troubling throughout, with the State Bar of California proposing to discipline Eastman for presenting legal analyses to his client, Trump, and for speaking publicly on his views about the election, with the bar even attempting to hold Eastman responsible any violence that occurred on Jan. 6. The disciplinary complaint also misrepresents numerous arguments Eastman and others made concerning the 2020 election, falsely equating claims of violations of election law with fraud.

But it is count two of the disciplinary complaint, charging Eastman with “seeking to mislead a court,” that exposes the California State Bar as a kangaroo court.

“On or about December 7, 2020, the State of Texas filed a Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint in the United States Supreme Court, initiating the lawsuit Texas v. Pennsylvania,” begins count two of the complaint against Eastman. The complaint then explains that in that lawsuit, Texas argued the defendant states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin “usurp[ed] their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their States’ election statutes.” As a remedy, Texas sought an order from the Supreme Court to “enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the Defendant States’ legislatures and remand to the Defendant States’ respective legislatures to appoint Presidential Electors in a manner consistent with the Electors Clause.”

Eastman, on behalf of then-President Trump, sought to intervene in the Texas v. Pennsylvania case, and in that motion, Eastman “expressly adopted the allegations contained in the Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint filed by Texas.” In adopting the allegations Texas made, Eastman, according to the California State Bar, “misl[ed] the Supreme Court by an artifice or false statement of fact or law,” in violation of California’s “Business and Professions Code” that governs attorneys’ conduct in the Golden State.

Under the California State Bar’s reasoning, then, Texas’ attorney general who filed the motion likewise “misled” the U.S. Supreme Court, as did the attorneys general of the 17 other states that supported Texas’ motion for leave to file a bill of complaint. So too would have Sen. Ted Cruz, had the Supreme Court agreed to hear the motion, as he had agreed to argue the case on Trump’s behalf in that circumstance. 

While count two represents but one of the 11 distinct charges levied against Eastman, it most clearly exposes the logical conclusion reached when state bars use disciplinary proceedings to conduct lawfare against political opponents. 

To date, the bars have limited themselves to targeting just a few attorneys working for Trump, with the D.C. Bar pursuing Rudy Giuliani and Jeff Clark, in addition to the California State Bar’s attack on Eastman. But there is no limiting principle to prevent the bars in other states from pursuing any politician with a law license who happens to represent the wrong person. 

That is an extremely dangerous precedent, which is why tomorrow at a press conference called by Eastman’s legal team, some big legal names will condemn the move. The hastily called conference is expected to bring together former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III and John Yoo, a current professor of law at the University of California-Berkley, former general counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and former deputy assistant attorney general. Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman and former California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, among others, are also expected at the conference.

Whether the legacy media will cover Eastman’s detailed response to the State Bar of California’s disciplinary complaint or bother to report on his press conference remains to be seen. But if Cruz and the attorneys general impugned by the California State Bar speak out, the corrupt press may not have any choice but to report on the ridiculous theories underlying the disciplinary attacks on Eastman.


Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Source

Get Ready For Another Cynical, Useless, Gun-Control Push By Democrats

Get Ready For Another Cynical, Useless, Gun-Control Push By Democrats

The first question any reasonable person asks after a horrible crime is, “What could have been done to stop it?” Yet after every mass shooting, gun controllers suggest unworkable, unconstitutional, completely ineffectual ideas that target people who will never commit a crime. 

After the twin mass shootings in California last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom (flanked by armed guards) told CBS News that it was long past time to institute more gun-control laws because the Second Amendment is “becoming a suicide pact.” What he didn’t mention was that California has no functioning Second Amendment. It has passed not only every law Senate Democrats are proposing in Washington, but a slew of others. Anti-gun group Giffords gives California an “A” rating, noting that the state has the “strongest gun safety laws in the nation and has been a trailblazer for gun safety reform for the past 30 years.”

California already has “universal” background checks. California has a 10-day waiting period limit for handgun purchases, a microstamping system, a personal safety test, the ability to sue gun manufacturers even if they haven’t broken any law, an age hike on the purchase of certain firearms including rifles from 18 to 21, “red flag” laws that allow police to confiscate guns without genuine due process, a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (and legislation held up in courts to confiscate those magazines), among many other restrictions. Short of letting cops smash down the doors of gun owners and take their weapons, California has a law for it. And all it’s done is leave people attending dance halls defenseless.

The day of the Monterey Park shooting, President Biden again called on Congress to pass a federal “assault weapons” ban. So-called assault weapons have been banned in California since 1989. Last year, the state passed another bill making them super-duper illegal: SB 1327. From 1989 until today, gun trends in California mirror those of the nation at large. Which is unsurprising. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, despite Biden constantly claiming otherwise, did nothing to alter gun violence trends. Homicide rates began to ebb nationally before the ban was instituted. When the ban expired in 2004, and the AR-15 became the most popular rifle in the country, gun violence continued to precipitously fall — by 2014, gun homicides were the same as they were in 1963 — until the appearance of Covid.

Now, America’s gun death rates have reached a 28-year high as of 2021 “after sharp increases in homicides of Black men and suicides among white men, an analysis of federal data showed,” according to The Wall Street Journal. There are likely numerous societal reasons for this change — since about 45 percent of American households had guns 10 years ago and the number is the same today — but Democrats are busy worrying about stopping gun owners from having barrel shrouds.

Not that it matters to Democrats, but the shooter at Monterey Park didn’t use an assault weapon. He used a Cobray M11 9mm semi-automatic gun — one of the most useless handguns in existence” — which some reporters referred to as an “assault pistol.” It’s a scary looking, if antiquated gun (out of production since 1990) that, in this iteration, fires one cartridge with a single trigger squeeze like almost every other gun owned by civilians — including AR-15s. The gun was already illegal in California. As is carrying any gun into a no-gun zone. As is murder.

After the killers of Monterey Park (72 years old) and Half Moon Bay (67) struck, Biden, naturally, called on Congress to pass legislation to raise the minimum purchase age for “assault weapons” to 21. Many mass shooters are young men, but the average age of mass shooters is 35. The number of ARs used in the commission of murder in the hands of a person under 21 is a fraction of 1 percent. Like all things Democrats are pushing these days, it’s another incremental way of eliminating gun ownership that has only a tenuous connection to the events that supposedly precipitated the action.

All mass shooters obtain guns illegally, or legally before having any criminal record (or because of a mistake by the police, as was the case in Charleston and elsewhere). Most incidents are perpetrated by young men who have exhibited serious anti-social behavior. In many, if not most, cases, the shooter is already on the cops’ radar because he has threatened others, as was the case from the Parkland shooter to the Highlands Park shooter to the Half Moon shooter and many, many others. In a study of mass shootings from 2008 to 2017, the Secret Service found that “100 percent of perpetrators showed concerning behaviors, and in 77 percent of shootings, at least one person — most often a peer — knew about their plan.” The best thing we can do is uphold laws that already exist.

None of this is to argue that simply because some people ignore laws, they are unnecessary or useless. It’s to argue that laws which almost exclusively target innocent people from practicing a constitutional right, and do nothing to stop criminals, are unnecessary and useless. The central problem in this debate is that Democrats believe civilian gun ownership itself is a plague on the nation, so it doesn’t really matter to them what gun is being banned or what law is being passed, as long as something is being “done.” Only this past summer, Congress supposedly passed the most vital gun bill in history, yet Democrats are back to acting like nothing has been done.

The other side believes that being able to protect themselves, their families, their property, and their community from criminality — and, should it descend into tyranny, the government — is a societal good. They see gun bans as autocratic and unconstitutional, and, also, largely unfeasible. And they’re right.


Source

67-Year-Old Zhao Chunli in Custody After 7 Shot Dead in Gun-Controlled California

67-Year-Old Zhao Chunli in Custody After 7 Shot Dead in Gun-Controlled California

Sixty-seven-year-old Zhao Chunli was taken into custody after seven people were killed in shootings on two separate farms in Half Moon Bay, California, Monday.

Breitbart News noted initial reports, which indicated four were dead and three were wounded as a result of the shootings.

However, ABC 7 now reports that seven were killed and one is wounded.

ABC 7 reports that Chunli worked on one of the two mushroom farms and that all the shooting victims were Chunli’s coworkers.

On June 5, 2022, Breitbart News reported California was number-one in gun control and number-one in “active shooter incidents” as well.

The FBI indicated that California led the nation in “active shooter incidents” in 2021.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. AWR Hawkins holds a Ph.D. in Military History, with a focus on the Vietnam War (brown water navy), U.S. Navy since Inception, the Civil War, and Early Modern Europe. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Source

Biden Blames Climate Change for Storms While Visiting California, Experts Disagree

Biden Blames Climate Change for Storms While Visiting California, Experts Disagree

President Joe Biden blamed the latest storms in California on climate change while visiting the damaged Golden State on Thursday.

Though California has been through a series of droughts and wildfires in recent years, during which the left cited climate change as the catalyst, the left now charges that climate change helped cause the rainstorms in recent weeks that led to mudslides and flooding in certain areas. The president said as much during his visit to the Seacliff State Beach along the Santa Cruz coastline on Thursday.

“If anybody doubts that the climate is changing, then they must have been asleep during the last couple of years,” Biden said.

The president said this while traveling with Deanne Criswell, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), after arriving south of San Francisco where he was greeted by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

The Associated Press

A helicopter drops water on the Fairview Fire burning on a hillside Thursday, Sept. 8, 2022, near Hemet, California. (AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu, File)

“California has really experienced some unprecedented storms,” Criswell told reporters.

Per Reuters:

Biden then flew by helicopter over other storm-stricken locations in Santa Cruz County, where flash floods, pounding surf and runoff from local mountains had forced thousands of residents to evacuate from low-lying communities.

He also paid a personal visit with residents and business owners along the waterfront in Capitola, where the picturesque coastal enclave’s wharf lay in ruins, then stopped in nearby Seacliff for brief remarks promising that FEMA teams would stay “until it’s all fixed and done.”

As many as 20 deaths have been attributed to the storms.

Interestingly enough, the Los Angeles Times actually argued the opposite of President Biden on Thursday, charging that the storms were not the results of climate change despite their severity.

“As California emerges from a two-week bout of deadly atmospheric rivers, a number of climate researchers say the recent storms appear to be typical of the intense, periodic rains the state has experienced throughout its history and not the result of global warming,” noted the Times.

The Associated Press

Rocks and vegetation cover Highway 70 following a landslide in the Dixie Fire zone on Oct. 24, 2021, in Plumas County, California. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)

“Although scientists are still studying the size and severity of storms that killed 19 people and caused up to $1 billion in damage, initial assessments suggest the destruction had more to do with California’s historic drought-to-deluge cycles, mountainous topography and aging flood infrastructure than it did with climate-altering greenhouse gasses,” it added.

Alexander Gershunov, a climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, told the Times that scientists have not yet made the connection between climate change and the latest storm.

“We know from climate models that global warming will boost California storms of the future, but we haven’t made that connection with the latest storm systems,” said Gershunov. “Assuming that these storms were driven by global warming would be like assuming an athlete who breaks a record was on steroids.”

Mike Anderson, California’s state climatologist, said the atmospheric rivers were a reminder that a dry state like California can turn to instant flooding in the right conditions.

“Each of the recent atmospheric rivers were within the historical distribution of sizes of atmospheric rivers,” Anderson said, “It will take further study to determine how warming temperatures influenced the sequence or the sudden transition from dry to wet and soon back to dry.”

Source

‘Cartel-Style Execution’ Kills 6, Including Baby, In California

‘Cartel-Style Execution’ Kills 6, Including Baby, In California

At least six people, including a 17-year-old mother and her six-month-old baby, were killed in what California’s Tulare County Sheriff’s Office described to CNN as a “cartel-style execution” early Monday morning.

“While investigators cannot confirm the shooters were from a cartel, the sheriff thinks it appears to be a ‘cartel-style execution,’” CNN reported. “Drug cartels have notoriously engaged in deadly violence, including the deployment of hit squads against perceived enemies and members of law enforcement that threaten their drug trafficking efforts.”

In a Facebook post, the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office said deputies responded to a shooting in Goshen, a community of just more than 5,000 people in central California, during the early hours of Monday morning and found two deceased victims in the street.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the crime scene, Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux said investigators “believe that this is not a random act of violence.”

“We believe that this was a targeted family,” Boudreaux said. “We believe that there are gang associations that [are] involved in this scene as well as potential narcotics investigations.”

The sheriff’s office even executed a narcotics search warrant for the residence where the shootings took place just one week prior, Boudreaux added.

The tragic episode marks the deadly presence of Mexican drug cartel violence that has begun to spill over the border along with the flood of migrants into the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data show federal law enforcement has “recorded more than 4 million apprehensions” in a year and a half, “more than the previous four fiscal years combined,” according to the Heritage Foundation.

[WATCH: Cartel Country: The Untold Story Of America’s Black Market On The Border | FULL DOCUMENTARY]

The surge in migration, and the ensuing violence that comes with it, led House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy to demand Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ resignation.

“He cannot and must not remain in that position,” McCarthy said in November, just more than a month before his election to House speaker. “If Secretary Mayorkas does not resign, House Republicans will investigate every order, every action, and every failure [and] will determine whether we can begin an impeachment inquiry.”

McCarthy’s district borders the community where the six individuals were executed Monday. The speaker’s office did not immediately respond to The Federalist’s request for comment.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)