Tag: california

‘Big losses’: Study confirms Newsom’s $20-an-hour minimum wage decimated industry

Gavin Newsom, California’s far-left Democrat governor, is known to have presidential aspirations.

If he chooses that path, one of issues on which he will face a grilling will be economics.

And a new study has revealed it won’t look good.

It’s because since he imposed a $20-an-hour minimum wage for fast food workers in his state, California has lost close to 20,000 such jobs.

“That’s nearly 25% of the country’s fast-food job losses during that same period, according to an analysis of quarterly data released this month from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,” charged a report in the Washington Examiner.

“These grim statistics should be a wake-up call for Newsom and other policymakers pushing for drastic wage hikes that will cause unintended consequences,” said Rebekah Paxton, if the Employment Policies Institute.

The Examiner report noted Newsom “was all smiles two years ago when he signed the FAST Recovery Act, creating a $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers in his state. He called the legislation a win-win-win that would benefit restaurant owners, their employees, and customers alike.”

But it’s actually left behind “big losses.”

Besides job losses, there have been staff cuts, huge menu price increases and a turn to automation, the report said.

“California made national headlines when two large Pizza Hut franchises laid off more than 1,200 in-house delivery drivers to cut costs, while others, such as Mod Pizza and Foster’s Freeze, decided to close up shop entirely,” the report noted.

Paxton said, “Newsom’s $20 wage has turned out to be nothing more than a boost to his own ego at the expense of fast food workers. His consistent claim that the law is a ‘win’ is out of touch with reality, and lawmakers looking to mirror his job-crushing policies should think twice.”

Further, the analysis found even workers who kept working lost.

“The law has cost nontipped restaurant workers 250 hours of work annually, according to the EPI analysis, which represents $4,000 in lost income under the state’s previous minimum wage for fast-food workers.”

And, according to the American Cornerstone Institute, it’s hit small businesses hardest.

Keep reading

California Marijuana Tax Cut Officially Takes Effect, With Planned Increase Delayed Through At Least 2028

Three months into a major marijuana tax hike in California, a new law putting a pause on the increase has officially taken effect.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed the tax relief legislation from Assemblymember Matt Haney (D) late last month. Now, as of Wednesday, consumers will not be paying the increased excise tax—at least until October 2028.

“We’re rolling back this cannabis tax hike so the legal market can continue to grow, consumers can access safe products, and our local communities see the benefits,” Newsom said at the time of the bill signing.

Haney said that “California’s cannabis economy can bring enormous benefits to our state, but only if our legal industry is given a fair chance to compete against the untaxed and unregulated illegal market.”

“AB 564 helps level the playing field,” he said. “It protects California jobs, keeps small businesses open, and ensures that our legal cannabis market can grow and thrive the way voters intended.”

State officials announced in June that the cannabis excise tax rate would increase from 15 percent to 19 percent on July 1, prompting concern from industry stakeholders and consumer advocates.

Newsom previously supported including a tax freeze in a budget trailer bill, but that didn’t come to fruition. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D) also backed the delay, but Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire (D) reportedly blocked it from the budget legislation.

Before being amended in committee, the newly enacted legislation’s pause of the cannabis tax increase would have been in effect until June 30, 2030. After that, on a biennial basis, regulators would adjust the tax rate “by a percentage that will generate an amount of revenue that would have been collected pursuant to the cultivation tax imposed prior to its discontinuation, as specified, not to exceed 19 percent,” according to a summary.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, moved to shorten the period that the reduction will be in effect, to October 2028.

The new law will make it so the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), working with the Department of Finance, will be required to “adjust the cannabis excise tax rate upon purchasers of cannabis or cannabis products” based on the “additional percentage of the gross receipts of any retail sale by a cannabis retailer that the department estimates will generate an amount of revenue equivalent to the amount that would have been collected in the previous fiscal year,” the text says.

The department will need to “estimate the amount of revenue that would have been collected in the previous fiscal year pursuant to the weight-based cultivation tax” and “estimate this amount by projecting the revenue from weight-based cultivation taxes that would have been collected in the previous calendar year based on information available to the department.”

Keep reading

Trump Admin Probes California State University System Over Anti-Semitism, Racial Bias Claims

The Trump administration has launched an investigation into all 22 campuses of the California State University (CSU) system over allegations of anti-Semitism and racial discrimination.

Chancellor Mildred Garcia said in a Sept. 26 letter to the Cal State community that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has launched “a systemwide antisemitism complaint” against Cal State. Garcia said investigators have already begun contacting faculty and staff to review allegations and speak with them about their experiences on campus.

Garcia also revealed that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has initiated a separate inquiry into Cal State. That probe centers on allegations of racial discrimination “due to interactions with the PhD Project,” a nonprofit organization created to diversify business education and the corporate workforce.

Garcia said that news of the investigations “may be unsettling” for faculty and staff, and she denied any misconduct and emphasized that Cal State intends to cooperate fully with the probes.

“The CSU does not discriminate against or give preference to any individual or group based on race, ethnicity, nationality, shared ancestry, religion or any other protected status,” Garcia wrote.

She added that the system is “firmly committed” to ensuring that admissions and hiring are based solely on merit.

Keep reading

California’s Orange County to Probe Voter Rolls for Dogs, Cats Ahead of Nov. 4 Election

Orange County officials have launched an unusual effort to verify no dogs or cats are registered voters, instructing the local elections chief to compare voting lists against animal licensing records in a bid to root out any fraudulent entries.

The Board of Supervisors voted on Sept. 23 to expand a review of pet registrations across the county, aiming to confirm no dogs, cats, or other pets are poised to cast ballots in the upcoming November special election.

This move was made after Laura Lee Yourex, a 62-year-old resident of Costa Mesa, was charged with five felonies for allegedly registering her dog, Maya Jean Yourex, to vote.

Prosecutors claim Yourex submitted registration forms for the pet and mailed in ballots during the 2021 gubernatorial recall and the 2022 primary contest. The 2021 vote was tallied under state rules that don’t mandate ID for such matters, but the 2022 federal-related ballot was flagged and discarded due to stricter identification requirements.

Yourex turned herself in after reportedly confessing the act on social media, where she posted images of her dog alongside an “I Voted” sticker and a ballot envelope. Her attorney argued the stunt was intended to highlight perceived flaws in the voting system, though authorities view it as a serious breach, carrying up to six years behind bars if convicted.

The incident has ignited debates among county leaders, particularly Republicans on the board who see it as evidence of vulnerabilities in registration procedures. Supervisor Don Wagner, a vocal proponent of ID verification, said the case illustrates how easy it is to cast fake ballots.

Keep reading

How Weed Surveillance Drones Destroyed the Lives of These Californians

The drone hovered low, whirring like a giant bug above the lush, green northern California fields. Its camera was trained on the curved roof of an aging dome home. Inside, Keni Meyer, a petite, ponytailed 54-year-old, didn’t know her property was under surveillance again. But the Sonoma County authorities were taking another step in a harassment campaign, ostensibly aimed at unpermitted cannabis grows.

Drone photos of the property spurred the county to allege a series of building code violations. Those citations drew Meyer into a doomed six-year fight to save her property, as Sonoma’s covert cannabis surveillance operation warped into an attack on less affluent residents. For dozens if not hundreds of people, a crackdown on unlicensed cannabis crops has led to six-figure fines, foreclosures, and evictions. The result has been tears and devastation—even for folks, such as Meyer, who did not grow cannabis at all.

In June, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of three other Sonoma County residents. The suit says the authorities’ “runaway spying operation” violates constitutional protections against unlawful searches. Officials, the lawsuit charges, deployed a fleet of high-powered drones that could hover at 50 feet and capture high-quality video footage with precision zoom cameras, all while concealing the surveillance from residents, the media, and local oversight bodies.

To the ACLU, this isn’t ultimately about codes, or even cannabis. It’s about the right to privacy.

“We all have the right to live a private life at home without having to worry about a government drone flying overhead and watching us without a warrant or our knowledge,” says Matt Cagle, an attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. “Sonoma County’s drone program demonstrates how technology further disrupts the power balance between governments and people, making it easy for agencies to warrantlessly sift through people’s private affairs at scale and levy charges and fines that upend lives and livelihoods. At the same time, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media.”

The lawsuit adds: “Never before has the government been able to deploy, at its convenience, an inexpensive and unobtrusive floating camera, controlled from afar, to surreptitiously monitor and record scenes from above a person’s private property.”

Drive around Sonoma today, and you’ll see plenty of housing that’s ramshackle and almost certainly unpermitted, with many egregious apparent violations. Many residents continue to erect out-buildings without permits, partly because the process is expensive and partly because many of them resent having to deal with Permit Sonoma as a point of principle: It violates their DIY ethos and their sense of rugged frontier freedom.

Keep reading

California’s Ministry of Truth: SB 771 is Gov. Newsom’s and Democrat’s Plan to Ban Speech They Hate

California Governor Gavin Newsom and Democrats in the Legislature claim they want to regulate social media over hate speech. Senate Bill 771 by Sen. Henry Stern (D-Los Angeles) claims this is about “Personal rights: liability: social media platforms.”

SB 771 is an “anti free speech” bill, comes entirely from California Democrats, and is designed to silence opposing opinions. The bill is not about moderating hate speech; it’s about banning speech Democrats hate. 

This isn’t California Democrats’ first rodeo. In 2018, Democrat California lawmakers pushed legislation to create jack-boot agents of government through a “Fake News Advisory Council” – an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” for the news they don’t like, I reported. “After having my Capitol Press Credential revoked in 2015 and only reissued after an Open Records Act request of 10-years of press credential applications, and viable threats of a First Amendment lawsuit, it appears Democrats in the California Legislature still don’t believe in making no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

That obviously stands today, 10 years later.

BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE!

In April 2022, the Biden administration announced it had created the Disinformation Governance Board – its own Ministry of Truth – a part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Americans from all walks of life were horrified. Fortunately for the potential enemies of the state, the board’s executive director and disinformation czar Nina Jankowicz had already beclowned herself in videos that went viral, demonstrating her stunning bias and partisanship. Within three weeks the Biden Disinformation Governance Board was shut down, and many Americans heaved a sigh of relief.

But not California Democrats.

Keep reading

Grand Jury INDICTS Three Women for STALKING ICE Agent and Livestreaming His Address

A federal grand jury has indicted three women accused of targeting a ICE agent in California, following him home from work and broadcasting his private information online. 

The case exposes the dangerous escalation of anti-ICE activism, where harassment and intimidation of law enforcement officers are now celebrated on social media.

According to the indictment, the three defendants—Ashleigh Brown, 38, of Aurora, Colorado; Cynthia Raygoza, 37, of Riverside, California; and Sandra Carmona Samane, 25, of Panorama City, California—face charges of conspiracy and illegally disclosing the personal information of a federal law enforcement officer. 

Prosecutors allege the women deliberately stalked the ICE agent on August 28, trailing him from his workplace in downtown Los Angeles all the way to his residence.

During the pursuit, prosecutors say, the women livestreamed the chase on Instagram. The streams were shared across multiple accounts with names such as “ice_out_of_la,” “defendmesoamericanculture,” and “corn_maiden_design.” 

By the end of the broadcast, the women had posted the agent’s home address online, essentially turning him and his family into targets.

This is not protest—it is criminal intimidation of a federal officer. 

The indictment reflects a growing problem: left-wing activists using digital platforms to expose and endanger law enforcement officers. 

The trend mirrors the tactics of extremist groups who claim to fight for “justice” but resort to doxing, harassment, and threats against those tasked with enforcing America’s immigration laws.

Federal prosecutors have made it clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. 

Publishing the personal address of a federal law enforcement officer is a felony, one intended to prevent exactly this type of reckless endangerment. 

The three women could face years in prison if convicted.

Keep reading

Trump administration orders federal authorities to ignore California mask law

The Trump administration ordered federal authorities Friday to ignore new legislation in California banning law enforcement officers from wearing masks to conceal their identity. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last Saturday signed the bill — which is slated to take effect Jan. 1, 2026 — making face coverings of local, state and federal officials a misdemeanor crime and imposing a civil penalty against officers for “tortious conduct.”

“Governor Newsom is confused about his role under the U.S. Constitution,” Bill Essayli, acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said in a Friday post on social platform X. “He oversees California, not federal agencies. He should review the Supremacy Clause.”

“California’s law to ‘unmask’ federal agents is unconstitutional, as the state lacks jurisdiction to interfere with federal law enforcement. I have directed federal agencies to disregard this state law and adhere to federal law and agency policies,” Essayli wrote in the post, which also featured a screenshot of his letter to agency heads. 

Essayli wrote in the letter that any official or individual who attempts to impede or interfere with operations will be prosecuted by his office.

The Hill has reached out to Newsom’s office for comment.

The Department of Homeland Security also publicly rejected Newsom’s bill on Monday in a social media post.

Trump officials and Newsom clashed over the summer after the president sent National Guard soldiers and Marines to quell Los Angeles’s protests against deportation tactics.

A series of targeted raids and arrests have been carried out throughout the Golden State, which local lawmakers have said are sparking fear for families of color about their future in the United States.

Newsom said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers are using masks in an effort to be “hidden from accountability” alleging that face coverings prevent “transparency” for citizens and hinder “oversight.” 

“Unmarked cars, people in masks, people quite literally disappearing. No due process, no rights—no rights in a democracy where we have rights, immigrants have rights,” Newsom said Saturday. 

Keep reading

Secret Service now on case of bloodthirsty California man who proudly called for murder of Donald Trump

The Secret Service said it is looking into a video of a California man who openly called for the murder of President Donald Trump on camera. 

The shocking clip was shared by Shane Ginsberg, who runs The Street Poller, to his X profile showing his interaction with the unknown man. 

‘F*** Donald Trump, he’s racist and he’s a pedophile’, the man said to Ginsberg who  informed him that Trump would remain in power for the next three years. 

Unfazed, the man shockingly continued: ‘We already killed his friend, and the next one is Donald Trump. You’ll be next to for doing that weird a** s***.’

The crass remark about his friend clearly referred to conservative debater Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated earlier this month in Utah.  

The unidentified man walked away from the camera, and when asked to return continued on his way while he lobbed threats at Ginsberg. 

The camera man then said: ‘you walk away buddy’, causing the man to turn around on the spot and walk back towards him – again making verbal threats. 

‘You want to get your a** kicked? I have a gun license to protect myself, I’ll beat your a** up bad.’

Keep reading

Fired women’s coach saw male player ‘wink’ at opponent after endangering female teammate: lawsuit

San Jose State University committed employment and sex discrimination and retaliation by firing women’s volleyball associate head coach Melissa Batie-Smoose for exposing a secretly recruited male on the team, according to a new lawsuit by the Child and Parental Rights Campaign on her behalf against the California State University system.

“Punishing coaches for raising concerns about the fairness and integrity of women’s sports not only harms the individual advocate but also undermines the enforcement of Title IX’s mandate and has a chilling effect on those who seek to protect sex equality in collegiate athletics,” the suit says.

Batie-Smoose was suspended, then fired “not based on her job performance” – the suit includes her Feb. 28, 2024, reappointment letter – but “in direct retaliation for her opposition to sex discrimination and her advocacy for the fairness and equal access to programs, services, and activities for female athletes.”

She has “suffered and continues to suffer lost wages, loss of professional reputation and opportunities, emotional distress, and other damages,” and seeks reinstatement, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages.

Batie-Smoose also wants an injunction against CSU to stop future, possible Title VII and Title IX violations and implement policies, training and monitoring to “protect advocacy for the statutory rights of female athletes” and prevent retaliation against employees for raising concerns about sex-based discrimination.

The university declined to comment other than acknowledging the lawsuit.

It’s been a long and winding journey for the ex-coach, whose home was shot at days before she spoke at a state Capitol rally in February for legislation pitched as protecting girls, women and parental rights, shortly after her firing. CPRC’s Vernadette Broyles told Just the News at the time “the wheels are spinning rapidly in this process” of litigation preparation.

Keep reading