The State of California has banned singing in any indoor religious services, even with masks on, under new guidelines issued by the Department of Public Health to control the spread of the coronavirus. Places of worship must therefore discontinue singing and chanting activities and limit indoor attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. A choir practice without masks was blamed for an acute outbreak of coronavirus in Washington State in March.
The State of California has banned singing in any indoor religious services, even with masks on, under new guidelines issued by the Department of Public Health to control the spread of the coronavirus.
Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and chanting negate the risk- reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing.
*Places of worship must therefore discontinue singing and chanting activities and limit indoor attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. Local Health Officers are advised to consider appropriate limitations on outdoor attendance capacities, factoring their jurisdiction’s key COVID- 19 health indicators. At a minimum, outdoor attendance should be limited naturally through implementation of strict physical distancing measures of a minimum of six feet between attendees from different households, in addition to other relevant protocols within this document.
California had begun re-opening places of worship a few weeks ago, as the state had succeeded in slowing the spread of the disease. But a surge of cases since early June — coinciding with the eruption of the Black Lives Matter protests — has caused the state to reinstate many restrictions.
Peggy Hall, a California Educator, Shows Why COVID Lockdown Is Unlawful
Peggy Hall, a community-college health professor, says a federal law relegates authority over health and welfare to the most local political entity in question. Local agencies have the responsibility and the authority to safeguard public health. The governor can declare a state of emergency only in response to natural disasters and epidemics. Furthermore, the threat must be of such magnitude that adequate response is beyond the ability of any single county or city.
She explains that, according to the law, an epidemic is defined as a a disease rate above the normal. Since the COVID-19 death rate is only one-third the normal death rate for seasonal flu, it does not have a disease rate above the normal. Therefore, California does not have an epidemic, and a declaration of lockdown is in violation of California law. [Does anyone in government care about laws when they stand in the way of power and wealth?] -GEG
Federal Judge Nullifies California Law Requiring Background Checks to Buy Ammo
US District Court Judge Roger Benitez nullified a California law requiring citizens to pass background checks before they can purchase ammunition. The judge wrote: “Maintaining Second Amendment rights are especially important in times like these. Keeping vigilant is necessary in both bad times and good, for if we let these rights lapse in the good times, they might never be recovered in time to resist the next appearance of criminals, terrorists, or tyrants.” -GEG
A federal judge has shot down a California law requiring citizens to pass background checks before they are allowed to purchase ammunition.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert Benitez in San Diego called the state’s law “onerous and convoluted” before he granted a preliminary injunction in favor of a lawsuit filed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) and six-time Olympic medalist shooting champion Kim Rhode, NBC News reported.
Californians voted for Proposition 63 in 2016, thereby banning “high-capacity magazines” and mandating background checks for ammunition sales.
The checks have been in effect since July of 2019.
Benitez issued his 120-page opinion on the ruling on Thursday, according to the Associated Press.
“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured,” he wrote.
“In this action, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining California’s onerous and convoluted new laws requiring ammunition purchase background checks and implementing ammunition anti-importation laws,” Benitez said, according to NBC News.
He argued that background checks negatively affect legal ammunition buyers, but that they essentially do nothing to stop criminals from getting their hands on rounds.
“Criminals, tyrants and terrorists don’t do background checks,” the judge noted.
The coronavirus pandemic also serves as a reminder for why the right to bear arms is paramount, he continued.
“Presently, California and many other states sit in isolation under pandemic-inspired stay-at-home orders,” Benitez wrote, according to The Washington Free Beacon. “Schools, parks, beaches, and countless non-essential businesses are closed. Courts are limping by while police make arrests for only the more serious crimes.”
“Maintaining Second Amendment rights are especially important in times like these. Keeping vigilant is necessary in both bad times and good, for if we let these rights lapse in the good times, they might never be recovered in time to resist the next appearance of criminals, terrorists, or tyrants,” the judge opined.
CRPA President Chuck Michel praised Benitez’ decision in a statement on Thursday.
“This is a devastating blow to the anti-gun-owner advocates who falsely pushed Prop 63 in the name of safety,” Michel wrote. “In truth, red tape and the state’s disastrous database errors made it impossible for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians to purchase ammunition for sport or self-defense.”
Police In California Plan To Use Drones To Enforce Quarantine Lockdown
Surveillance and tracking have been made possible by cellphone data, CCTV cameras, and drones. Drones were used during the lockdown in China to monitor neighborhoods to ensure that residents stayed indoors. Police in Spain are also using drones for the same purpose after the country’s 47 million citizens were ordered to stay indoors. While most Americans doubted that these types of measures would happen at home, police in California have already announced a plan to use drones equipped with cameras and loudspeakers to enforce the recently imposed quarantine orders.
In the months since the COViD-19 pandemic began, governments around the world have been utilizing a wide range of technological devices to enforce quarantines. Advanced surveillance and tracking have been made possible by cellphone data, CCTV cameras, and drones.
Surveillance drones were used during the lockdown in China to monitor neighborhoods to ensure that residents were staying indoors. Drones were also used to spray disinfectants during the outbreak as well.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has urged additional governments to use similar tactics to enforce quarantines. Police in Spain have been using drones to patrol the streets and order citizens to stay home during the lockdown.
Most Americans doubted that these types of measures would happen at home, but police in California have already announced a plan to use drones equipped with cameras and loudspeakers to enforce the recently imposed quarantine orders.
In Chula Vista, a town just outside of San Diego, police purchased at least two drones from the Chinese company DJI for $11,000 each.
Vern Sallee, one of the city’s police captains, told the Financial Times that the drones could be used to “disperse crowds” without the need for a human officer to be involved.
“We have not traditionally mounted speakers to our drones, but . . . if we need to cover a large area to get an announcement out, or if there were a crowd somewhere that we needed to disperse – we could do it without getting police officers involved,” Sallee said.
“The outbreak has changed my view of expanding the program as rapidly as I can,” he added.
‘Fleeing California’ Mini-Documentary Compares California Collectivism with Texas Free Enterprise
PragerU presents a short documentary that compares California’s collectivist policies with the the individualist policies of Texas and shows that California’s cost of living is 40% to 50% higher, its poverty rate is the highest in the US, and has 49% of the nation’s homeless population. [Collectivists say they care about the common man but, because of their ignorance of human nature and economics, they are the common man’s greatest enemy.] -GEG
A mini-documentary released Wednesday by PragerU highlights the mass exodus of Californians who are escaping the liberal state in search of jobs, homes and lower taxes.
PragerU’s Will Witt gets to the bottom of how California was ruined by the left and what specific policies and regulations have crippled the once great state.
Meanwhile, Witt contrasts California’s left-leaning policies with the great state of Texas’ conservative agenda.
As citizens of The Golden State flee en masse, the majority of them head for The Lone Star State largely due to the substantial amount of jobs, the booming economy, rising wages, low taxes, low regulations and free enterprise.
Sacramento: Police Enforce Quarantine on Residential Block After a Man Reportedly Dies from the Coronavirus
Sacramento County sheriff’s deputies and Rocklin police officers wearing protective gloves shut down a street following the death of a 71-year old man who reportedly died from the coronavirus. The entire block was placed under quarantine amid chaos and confusion, as the health department withheld information from neighbors subjected to the quarantine. There is no evidence so far that the man actually died of the coronavirus.
Law enforcement officers enforced the first-known quarantine of a block where a man lived after he died of coronavirusRocklin, CA – Dozens of law enforcement officers swarmed a residential neighborhood in Placer County on Thursday and enforced a quarantine order on the entire block.
“Head back inside,” a sheriff’s deputy ordered residents via loudspeaker when people started poking their heads out to investigate the chaos happening on their street on March 5, KMAX reported.
Sacramento County sheriff’s deputies and Rocklin police officers wearing protective gloves shut down the street as a sheriff’s department helicopter buzzed overhead.
“Law enforcement partners are currently responding to enforce a health officer’s order. We cannot share any additional information to protect patient confidentiality,” the Placer County Health Department said shortly after news of the police-enforced quarantine broke in the local press.
Although officials refused to provide any additional details on the abrupt move, KMAX reported that the 71-year-old man who died of coronavirus on Wednesday in Placer County had lived on the block that was placed under quarantine.
Second Amendment Under Fire in California: Santa Clara Forms Gun Confiscation Team
Santa Clara County is forming what they call a “county gun team” – a unit of lawyers, analysts, and prosecutors authorized to seek out and confiscate firearms from those the state feels shouldn’t have them. The list of people targeted by the Santa Clara County Gun Team could include disarming anyone with a record of mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, who might be suspected of some crime – violent or otherwise – or even parents who simply didn’t lock up their guns while the kids were home.
California continues to proudly lead the charge toward a disarmed citizenry. In the latest attack on the Second Amendment, Santa Clara County is forming what they call a “county gun team” – a unit of lawyers, analysts, and prosecutors authorized to seek out and confiscate firearms from those the state feels shouldn’t have them.
Okay, Fine. We’re Coming For Your Guns
Remember when Democrats used to try to mollify armed Americans by saying, “No one’s coming for your guns” with every incremental gun control measure they proposed?
Well, it’s official: They’re coming for the guns – some of them, at least. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. As Liberty Nation’s Graham J. Noble once wrote, “Democrats have never come across a gun restriction they didn’t like.”
The Santa Clara Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve funding for the proposal, which was put forth by board president Cindy Chavez. The team will consist of seven people – three crime analysts, two lawyers, and two prosecutors. They will be tasked with identifying those who have been ordered to surrender their weapons and ensure these dangerous people aren’t still armed. If necessary, they’ll obtain search warrants for local law enforcement to go and take the guns.
Deputy District Attorney Marisa McKeown explained that “the very voluminous California laws on guns mean nothing if we don’t adequately and smartly enforce them.” She is correct, of course. Those who don’t care to follow the old laws aren’t likely to care much about the new ones. That’s why Second Amendment advocates say gun control doesn’t work.
“The law says that there are categories of people who are not allowed to have a gun,” McKeown said. “If you are a domestic abuser with a restraining order, you can’t have a gun. If you are a convicted felon, you can’t have a gun. If you are a repeated, mentally ill offender who is dangerous, you can’t have a gun.”
The List Grows Ever Longer
While the Board dressed the proposal up as simply a way to protect the victims of domestic abuse, consider the words of the deputy DA. Now let’s have a look at the ever-growing list of people who aren’t allowed to own guns in California – by no means did she disclose them all. According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, as of December 10, 2019, the following groups are considered prohibited persons:
Those convicted of a felony or certain domestic violence crimes.
Those addicted to narcotic drugs.
Those convicted of specific crimes (both felony and misdemeanor) involving violence, hate crime offences, or the unlawful misuse of firearms.
Those convicted of violating state laws regarding safe storage of firearms around minors and prohibited people. This usually results in a ten-year prohibition.
Anyone who knows they are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a firearm-prohibiting offense – not convicted, simply subject to a warrant.
Those prohibited as a condition of probation.
Wards of the juvenile courts due to the commission of an offense involving violence, drugs, or firearms. This prohibition remains in effect until age 30.
Anyone who knows they are subject to a protective order, restraining order, temporary restraining order, or injunction issued by a court pursuant to state law – including extreme risk protection orders, otherwise known as red flag laws.
Anyone prohibited because of a history of severe mental illness or chronic alcoholism.
This isn’t simply about disarming convicted felons – which is another issue in its own right. The Santa Clara County Gun Team might well be tasked with disarming anyone with a record of mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, who might be suspected of some crime – violent or otherwise – or even parents who simply didn’t lock up their guns while the kids were home. Will the squad also be used to hunt down any firearms or accessories the state manages to ban in the future? Which groups, exactly, deserve to be stripped of the right to self-defense?
California: ICE Starts Arresting Illegal Immigrants at Courthouses in Defiance of State Law
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested two repeat-offender Mexican nationals at the Sonoma County courthouse despite a California law prohibiting federal immigration authorities from making arrests at courthouses without a warrant from a judge. ICE claims it doesn’t matter what laws California put in place, because they don’t nullify federal immigration laws. -GEG
ICE agents arrested two illegal immigrants at the Sonoma County courthouse in direction violation of a California law.Santa Rosa, CA – California lawmakers are outraged that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested two repeat offender Mexican nationals at the Sonoma County courthouse on Tuesday.
California Governor Gavin Newsome signed a law in 2019 that prohibited federal immigration authorities from making arrests at courthouses without a warrant from a judge, the Associated Press reported.
But ICE said it doesn’t matter what laws California put in place because they don’t nullify federal immigration laws.
California law “will not govern the conduct of federal officers acting pursuant to duly-enacted laws passed by Congress that provide the authority to make administrative arrests of removable aliens inside the United States,” ICE said in a statement.
The arrests came a week after President Donald Trump’s announcement that he was sending federal SWAT teams to so-called “sanctuary cities” to help grab up wanted criminals, the Associated Press reported.
However, the Sonoma County arrests did not appear to be part of that enforcement action.
Sonoma County Sheriff Mark Essick confirmed that sheriff’s department was notified by ICE at about 7:45 a.m. on Feb. 18 that agents would be in the area conducting enforcement but said his office did nothing to assist them, Healdsburg Patch reported.
ICE said that both men they arrested at the courthouse in Santa Rose had been arrested and deported multiple times between 2004 and 2010, according to the Associated Press.
“The two individuals were previously arrested by local law enforcement and later released back into the community,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security Public Affairs Specialist Jonathan Moor told the Healdsburg Patch in a statement.
Moor identified Antonio Hernandez Lopez as one of the arrestees and said the man had been arrested most recently in December of 2019 by Santa Rosa police and charged with inflicting corporal injury to spouse, DUI, and preventing a witness from reporting.
“Those charges are pending,” Moor told the Healdsburg Patch. “He has a 2005 DUI conviction and a 2009 local ordinance conviction. He has been apprehended by U. S. Immigration officers four times between 2004 – 2007 and voluntarily returned to Mexico. He is in ICE custody pending immigration proceedings.”
He said ICE agents also arrested Pedro Romero Aguirre.
“[Aguirre] has five criminal convictions spanning more than a decade, including: misdemeanor trespassing, driving without a license, misdemeanor DUI/alcohol, illegal entry, and most recently, Feb. 28, 2019 conviction for misdemeanor battery,” Moor said. “In 2010, he was apprehended six times by U. S. Immigration officers. He voluntarily returned to Mexico three of those times and was order to be removed three subsequent times. He is in ICE custody pending removal.”
Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch, Public Defender Kathleen Pozzi, and County Counsel Bruce Goldstein were outraged by the arrests at the courthouse and issued a statement condemning them, the Healdsburg Patch reported.
California: President Trump Signed Order Allowing Water to Flow to Farmers Instead of the Pacific Ocean. Governor Newsom Sues Trump.
Trump announced his administration had finalized an order removing regulatory roadblocks and enabling the giant Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta pumps to open the floodgates so that millions of gallons additional water can flow to urban Southern California and the Valley that supplies two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts and more than a third of its vegetables. The state should have control over its water resources that have been rationed by the feds. In response, Governor Newsom, following a repressive Agenda 21 environmental plan, sued the Trump administration to block new rules that would let farmers take more water, claiming it would push endangered populations of delta smelt, chinook salmon and steelhead trout to extinction.
Update: the headline was changed to reflect that Trump signed an order instead of a bill.
California sued the Trump administration on Thursday to block new rules that would let farmers take more water from the state’s largest river systems, arguing it would push endangered populations of delta smelt, chinook salmon and steelhead trout to extinction.
The federal rules govern how much water can be pumped out of the watersheds of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, which flow from the Sierra Nevada mountains to the San Francisco Bay and provide the state with much of its water for a bustling agriculture industry that supplies two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts and more than a third of its vegetables.
But the rivers are also home to a variety of state and federally protected fish species, whose numbers have been dwindling since humans began building dams and reservoirs to control flooding and send water throughout the state.
Two massive networks of dams and canals determine how much water gets taken out, with one system run by the state and the other run by the federal government.
Historically, the federal government has set the rules for both systems. But recently, state officials have complained the Trump administration’s proposed rules don’t do enough to protect endangered species. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration threatened to sue the federal government in November, but delayed action in the hopes he could work out a compromise.
But the federal government finalized the new rules this week. Trump traveled to Bakersfield on Wednesday to celebrate them before a jubilant crowd.
“We’re going to get you your water and put a lot of pressure on your governor,” Trump told the crowd. “And, frankly, if he doesn’t do it, you’re going to get a new governor.”
Newsom responded on Thursday with a lawsuit, filed in partnership with state Attorney General Xavier Becerra.
“California won’t silently spectate as the Trump Administration adopts scientifically-challenged biological opinions that push species to extinction and harm our natural resources and waterways,” Becerra said.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, challenges the actions of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
U.S. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, who oversees the bureau, warned Thursday night of unpredictable consequences that could result from the lawsuit.
“The governor and attorney general just launched a ship into a sea of unpredictable administrative and legal challenges regarding the most complex water operations in the country, something they have not chartered before,” Bernhardt said in a statement. “Litigation can lead to unpredictable twists and turns that can create significant challenges for the people of California who depend on the sound operation of these two important water projects.”
Wednesday, the U.S. Department of the Interior touted the new rules for pledging $1.5 billion of federal and state funds over the next 10 years to restore habitat for endangered species, scientific monitoring of the rivers and improvements to fish hatcheries.
But state officials say the rules would mean less water in the rivers, which would kill more fish. In particular, the low flows would hurt chinook salmon and steelhead trout, which once a year return to the freshwater rivers from the Pacific Ocean to spawn.
Tucker Carlson Names the Wealthy Elites Who Are Responsible for Wrecking California
Tucker Carlson criticized a small group of left-wing mega-donors who are following the George Soros model of replacing prosecutors with leftist radicals across the country. They are drowning local elections with tidal waves of cash and overthrowing the justice system.
In San Francisco, Chesa Boudin was narrowly elected to the office of district atorney; he dismisses the prosecution of gang members as ‘racist’, advocates for no-cash bail and plans to legalize public urination. He was funded by Silicon Valley’s ruling class, including billionaire Kaitlyn Krieger, the wife of the founder of Instagram, and Elizabeth Simons, the daughter of a billionaire hedge fund manager.
Carlson says the destruction of California has been paid for by the very rich, and in 2014, California passed Prop 47 that downgraded a long list of felonies to misdemeanors. Crime has surged, and violent crimes such as murders, assaults and rape have jumped by 115%! Soros contributed nearly $2 million to pass Prop 47, and other contributors to this malicious legislation include B. Wayne Hughes Jr, a storage container fortune heir, Netfix CEO Reed Hastings, Nick Pritzker, former Facebook president Sean Parker, and Cari Tuna, the wife of Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz.
California’s New ‘Red Flag’ Gun Law So Extreme Even ACLU Calls it “Significant Threat To Civil Liberties”
California adopted 15 firearms-related bills last Friday, including a controversial ‘red flag’ gun-confiscation law that expands an existing law that allows law-enforcement and immediate family members to initiate a process to temporarily confiscate citizens’ firearms. The new law adds co-workers, employers, and teachers to the list. All that is needed now is for any of these people to file a “gun-violence restraining order” on those they say are a danger to themselves and others. The bill is so broad that the ACLU says it “poses a significant threat to civil liberties” because guns can be seized from owners before they have an opportunity to contest the charges against them.” Also, those making the charges may be unqualified to to make such an assessment or may even do so out of malice. -GEG
California adopted 15 firearms-related bills last Friday, including a controversial ‘red flag’ gun confiscation law which adds co-workers, employers and educators to the list of who can file a gun violence restraining order on those they say are a danger to themselves and others. Currently, only law enforcement and immediate family members can apply to temporarily confiscate peoples’ firearms. Most of the new laws take effect January 1, according to the LA Times.
Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) after being vetoed twice by his Democratic predecessor Jerry Brown (who said that educators can work through family members or law enforcement if a restraining order is required), the gun confiscation bill is so broad that the ACLU said it “poses a significant threat to civil liberties” since guns can be seized from owners before they have an opportunity to contest the requests, and those making the requests may “lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment,” NBC San Diegoreports.
All that’s needed for a co-worker or educator to file a complaint is to have had “substantial and regular interactions” with gun owners, along with permission from their employers or school administrators. Those seeking the orders will be required to file a sworn statement outlining their concerns.
The author of the bill, Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco, said that “With school and workplace shootings on the rise, it’s common sense to give the people we see every day the power to intervene and prevent tragedies,” citing a recent study which found that 21 mass shootings may have been prevented by a gun restraining order.
Meanwhile, a companion bill signed by Newsom and written by Democratic Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks allows gun violence restraining orders to last one and five years, though gun owners would be allowed to petition the state to get their guns back earlier. In another Ting-authored companion bill, gun owners who agree to voluntarily surrender their firearms can notify the court via a form, vs. a hearing which Ting says wastes time and resources.
California’s New Vaccine Law Against Medical Exemptions Puts Vulnerable Children in Danger
A new law in California bans medical exemptions for vaccines, putting thousands of vulnerable children in harms way. The law prevents doctors from exempting children who are at risk of life-threatening reactions to vaccines. California is one of three states, including West Virginia and Mississippi, that reject exemptions for religious and philosophical reasons. Three women are seeking to place a referendum to repeal the new law on the next ballot. They need 623,000 signatures on a petition within 90 days of the bill being enacted to have their repeal put on the 2020 ballot. -GEG