Could Newsom have cleaned up homeless encampments? And will
he?
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 28 that banning homeless encampments is NOT cruel and unusual punishment, some Democrat Party big-city mayors – who’ve coddled transients for years – have finally said, “OK, the homeless encampments have got to go!”
One of them is San Francisco’s Democrat Party Mayor London Breed, who, on July 18, announced her “very aggressive” sweep of San Francisco homeless encampments will begin in August.
But will they? Earlier this year in Florida, Ron DeSantis and his Republican state legislature prohibited local governments from permitting camping or sleeping on public property.
The State of Florida will oversee local governments that set up new homeless encampments where transients can camp “up to a year.”
This is how to do it: Ban encampments on public property (streets, sidewalks, parks, etc.) and provide temporary group shelters where no alcohol or illegal drugs are permitted, but counseling and drug abuse treatment are required. (Yet Bible-based counseling and salvation would be the ultimate healer.)
Will Big Democrat Gavin Newsom do what Florida’s done, by calling a special legislative session or invoking his “emergency powers” he’s so fond of?
Nope — which is why banning homeless encampments statewide just won’t happen. We’ll have to see which cities actually do it. Because the Democrat Party mayor of Los Angeles won’t, and the Democrat Party mayor of Sacramento probably won’t either.
All Newsom did on July 25 was “order” his administration to clean away homeless encampments on state-owned property (state buildings, state freeways and highways, forests and wilderness areas, along waterways, etc.), which is just a drop in the bucket.
And this isn’t just my opinion. Liberal UCLA professor Chris Herring, who the Big Media likes quoting, said, “Newsom could have issued this order before the (Supreme Court) decision. The only difference now is that states and localities are free to confine and arrest people even when there is no shelter available.”
Bottom line, you can expect most Democrat Party politicians to continue allowing homeless encampments, because it fits their philosophy that people aren’t responsible for their behavior, and advances their New Communist agenda to burden the middle class.
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. The Bible, 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
A woman claiming she was sexual abused by a Catholic priest points to his photo among other accused abusers at Dec. 6, 2018 news conference in Orange County
SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
Yes, Kamala Harris sided with alleged sex abusers.
In 2004, when Harris became San Francisco’s district attorney, she inherited a collection of personnel files involving allegations of child sexual abuse by priests and employees of the San Francisco Archdiocese. And despite the cries of purported victims, Harris refused to share these files with those wanting to file civil lawsuits.
In her seven years as district attorney, Harris’s office did not proactively assist in civil cases against clergy sex abuse and ignored requests by activists and survivors to access the cache of investigative files that could have helped them secure justice, according to several victims of clergy sex abuse living in California who spoke to The Intercept.
“It went from Terence Hallinan going hundred miles an hour, full speed ahead, after the Catholic Church to Kamala Harris doing absolutely nothing and taking it backwards hundred miles an hour,” said Joey Piscitelli, a assault survivor, who a jury found had been molested as a student while attending Salesian College Preparatory, a Catholic high school in Richmond, California.
Here’s another article, from 2020, blowing the whistle on Kamala Harris ignoring victims of Catholic Church sexual abuse:
Years ago, a man named Joey Piscitelli wrote to Kamala Harris, who was then San Francisco’s District Attorney, about the plight of the catholic clergy sex abuse survivors. However, it fell on deaf ears.
According to Piscitelli, Kamala Harris never responded to him when he wrote to her about the abuse he had suffered at the hands of a local Catholic priest. Five years later, he wrote to her again urging her to release records on clergymen accused of sexual abuse to not only get justice for himself but also to help other survivors who were filing lawsuits, but Harris never responded.
“She did nothing”, said Piscitelli, who is now the Northern California spokesperson for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
These facts should inform any Californian or American who is considering the character of Kamala Harris.
After delaying a few days so that Newsom & Co.’s fake “crime bill” could get on the ballot (it didn’t), California’s Secretary of State late on July 3 assigned proposition numbers to the 10 measures officially on the November 2024 ballot.
Here’s your first look at them with SaveCalifornia.com’s draft descriptions (you’re going to really want to vote NO on Prop. 3 and really want to vote YES on Prop. 36):
NO Prop. 2 wasting more taxpayer money on the wasteful, dumbing down, politically-correct K-12 government schools and community colleges. This $10 BILLION bond would cost much more than that with high interest, and is more expensive than a direct tax.
NO Prop. 3 permitting polygamy, bigamy, child marriages, incestuous marriages (and even people-animal and people-object marriages) by superseding all marriage statutes with a very broad and subjective state constitutional amendment claiming a “fundamental right..to marry” whomever and whatever (the sky’s the limit). Prop. 3 won’t make any practical difference on same-sex “marriage,” yet by superseding all existing marriage definitions, standards, and limits, this radical constitutional amendment would open up “Pandora’s Box.”
NOProp. 4 funding another lie-based, subsidization of environmental wacko groups via a $10 BILLION bond, costing even more with interest, more expensive than a direct tax.
NOProp. 5 permitting higher property taxes (attacking Prop. 13 from 1978) by lowering the “vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local special taxes and bond measures to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.”
NO Prop. 6 calling it “slavery” to make prisoners do work they don’t wish to do.
NOProp. 32 increasing the state minimum wage to $18/hr. for all California employees (killing even more jobs and businesses).
NOProp. 33 permitting local governments to enact rent control (resulting in less available rental housing, as landlords seeking income sell their rental houses and duplexes).
YES Prop. 34 requiring the ultra-left-wing, politically-active AIDS Healthcare Foundation of Los Angeles “to spend 98% of revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care.”
NOProp. 35 taxing health care providers to pay for government the California state government’s “Medi-Cal” program (further increasing insurance rates for the rest of us).
YES Prop. 36 increasing penalties for theft and fentanyl possession, and repealing the worst parts of Prop. 47 from 2014.
RSS 2.0 Feed