Of course, in the political verbiage of the 21st century, the session will “protect California values” such as “fundamental civil rights, reproductive freedom, climate action, immigrant families and more.”

These things, the governor declared, are threatened by the election of Donald Trump.

The first step of this special legislative session will be to “shore up California’s defenses against an incoming federal administration that has threatened the state on multiple fronts.”

Apparently, he has in mind secession from the union. But first, some more rhetoric:

“The freedoms we hold dear in California are under attack – and we won’t sit idle.” And then Newsom borrows from Winston Churchill: “California have faced this challenge before and we know how to respond. We are prepared to fight in the courts, and we will do everything necessary to ensure Californians have the support and the resources they need to thrive.”

He does not mention what constituted the previous challenge, or how a vote of the American people threatens residents of California, but he involved California’s attorney general, who declares, “No matter what the incoming administration has in store, California will keep moving forward.”

The governor’s handout also involves Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, quoted as saying, “I’m ready to fight harder than ever for opportunity, equality and a Golden State that works for each and every resident.” Completing the great wall of California is a similar endorsement from State Senate President Mike McGuire with a declaration that “We learned a lot about former President Trump in his first term – he’s petty, vindictive and will do what it takes to get his way no matter how dangerous the policy may be. California has come too far and accomplished too much to simply surrender and accept his dystopian vision for America.”

So much danger and so little time.

The first duty of this special legislative session is to issue public statements. What President Trump says will be refuted. The special session will focus on women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights. The special session will appropriate more money to the attorney general to file litigation against the Trump administration.

Once would surmise from Newsom’s press release that he already has rescued California from the dark ages: “Since 2019 Governor Newsom and the California Legislature have defended progress, expanded civil rights, and protected California values.” One wonders how the Golden State survived from the gold rush days of 1849 to the coming of Gavin.

His bragging points to sustain his modest appraisal of his accomplishments then cite 25 legislative bills and $200 million consumed to “protect reproductive rights” and $45 billion spent on climate change energy policy. That is, by the way, a gross understatement of the state’s climate expenditures.

With the change in administration coming in Washington, D.C., Newsom suddenly has discovered states’ rights, so much so he is one step away from secession. In fact the similarities are so strong, Newsom studiously avoided the race issue in this media blitz.

The announcement had to be covered by local media, and so Newsom was able to campaign against Donald Trump even before Trump assumed office. Setting aside the issues Newsom raised, the Democrat Party is not going to consider any policy changes or moderations. They are right on all issues. The Republicans are not only wrong, they are repugnant, and the voters, well, they screwed up, partly because freedom of speech was not corrected by the managers of “mis” and “dis” information.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.

Republicans in the liberal state have pushed for Prop 36, which seeks to increase penalties for retail and drug crimes in California, which has struggled with rising crime. Speaking to a pool of reporters just two days before Election Day, Harris was asked if she had cast her ballot, and how she voted on the stricter crime measure. \

“So my ballot is on its way to  California and I’m going to trust the system that it will arrive there. I’m not going to talk about the vote on that because, honestly, it’s the Sunday before the election. I don’t intend to create an endorsement one way or another around it, but I did vote,” Harris said.

In 2014, Proposition 47 was introduced in the state and allowed the reclassification of some felonies as misdemeanors, hitting the state’s businesses and retailers as the measure reclassified offenses such as shoplifting and grand theft. As a result of local residents’ pushback, Proposition 36 campaign was introduced and backed by California District Attorneys Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, the Republican Party of California and Democratic San Francisco Mayor London Breed.

Since mid-September, Harris has remained silent on Prop 36, declining to state whether she would vote in favor of the measure. Notably, Harris also avoided publicly disclosing her vote on Prop 47 while serving as California’s attorney general. The vice president has faced criticism for recently flip-flopping on left-leaning policies she previously supported before 2020.

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, however, came out against the measure in September, claiming it would take “millions from what’s proven to actually keep us safe,” according to Politico. However, as support for the measure has continued to rise, the governor has begun to highlight his administration’s efforts to curb retail theft, noting that while he believes the measure will pass, he “hope[s] people take the time to understand what they’re supporting,” The Sacramento Bee reported.

Within a recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), the tough on crime measure is poised to pass within the state as 73% of those surveyed stated they will be voting “yes” on their ballots.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

This excludes those who illegally entered and evaded capture, known as gotaways. CBP doesn’t publicly report gotaway data. The Center Square first reported gotaway data in 2021 after obtaining it from a Border Patrol agent. In fiscal 2023, there were over 101,000 gotaways reported in California’s two sectors and nearly 413,000 apprehensions, The Center Square exclusively reported.

Fiscal 2024 gotaway data is forthcoming, but if trends continue as they have in the past, California’s total reported illegal border crossers, including apprehensions and gotaways, are expected to surpass 625,000 in fiscal 2024. That’s up from nearly 514,000 combined in fiscal 2023.

The data also excludes inadmissibles released into California through roughly a dozen parole programs created under the Biden-Harris administration that federal judges, roughly half of state attorneys general, and Congressional Republicans argue are illegal.

California shares the smallest international border with Mexico of the four southwest border states – 137 miles. It’s nearly evenly split in linear land mileage between the CBP sectors of El Centro and San Diego.

The San Diego Sector is the largest of the two sectors, covering nearly 57,000 square miles, including 931 miles of coastal border stretching to Oregon. It shares 60 linear miles with Mexico by land and 114 coastal miles along the Pacific Ocean. The area with the greatest foot traffic includes roughly 7,000 square miles that encompasses beaches, mesas, an inland mountain range, canyons and high desert.

The greatest number of apprehensions have historically been reported in the San Diego Sector. In fiscal 2024, San Diego Sector Border Patrol agents apprehended at least 324,260 illegal border crossers, representing a 40% increase from their fiscal year 2023 apprehensions of 230,941.

San Diego Office of Field Operations reported 183,890 encounters with illegal foreign nationals in fiscal 2024, according to the data.

Now retired San Diego Sector Chief Border Patrol Agent Aaron Heitke has testified before Congress about the hardships San Diego Sector agents faced resulting from what he described as Biden-Harris administration “open border policies.” He’s described the impact of having to close Border Patrol checkpoints when illegal entries peaked in July 2022 to roughly 16,000 knowing that miles of the border were left wide open and unpatrolled.

He’s also testified how agents were ordered not to report an alarming increase in “special interest aliens” and continue to grapple with unaccompanied minors believed to be drugged, smuggled and trafficked. California agents have also expressed alarm about the volume of fentanyl pouring through the sector as federal, state and local law enforcement officers have seized enough fentanyl in one year to kill billions of people.

In the El Centro Sector, Border Patrol agents apprehended 17,484 illegal border crossers in fiscal 2024. The sector lies in the Imperial Valley of Southern California and spans 71 linear miles along the U.S.-Mexico border. Much of it is remote and dangerous, including desert and mountainous terrain where summer heat regularly exceeds 120 degrees.

El Centro Sector Chief Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino has expressed alarm about unaccompanied children who agents rescue “from being exploited by smugglers. These criminals are not related to the children they smuggle. These traffickers go to extreme lengths to smuggle these children – giving them sleep aids to keep them quiet.”

El Centro Chief Border Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino also told members of Congress that a surge of more than 50,000 illegal border crossers in fiscal 2023 took agents away from their primary purpose to protect the homeland. “Any time there is a surge of individuals processing care, feeding and care of those individuals takes Border Patrol agents away from their primary job of preventing bad people and bad things from coming across the border,” Bovino said.

As Texas’ border security mission, Operation Lone Star, put pressure on cartel traffickers, illegal border crossers were moved west, with the San Diego Sector becoming the epicenter of the border crisis, The Center Square first reported in February and again in April as the crisis worsened.

California has also reported an increase in Chinese illegal border crossers as federal agents continue to target California-based Chinese-linked money laundering operations linked to the Sinaloa Cartel, The Center Square reported. California sheriffs have expressed their opposition to Vice President Kamala Harris’ border policies, saying, “we do not support her,” The Center Square reported. One sheriff told members of Congress that the policies of the Biden-Harris administration and Gov. Gavin Newsom turned California into “an open territory for the cartel to do whatever it wants.”

Combined, apprehensions in California’s two sectors totaled at least 525,634, excluding gotaways. Data for both sectors is consistent with nationwide data: the overwhelming majority of illegal border crossers are single adults coming from all over the world.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom appears to be taking actions to regulate gasoline on two fronts — through the legislature, and CARB, which consists of 14 voting members — 12 of whom are appointed by the governor without State Senate confirmation.

“In September of last year, CARB estimated that the change could lift gasoline prices 47 cents a gallon, or $6.4 billion a year,” reported the Los Angeles Times. “Other analysts put the price even higher — 65 cents a gallon, or $8.8 [billion] a year.”

It’s unclear how much the new refinery regulations — which would give the state power to tell refineries when they’re allowed to shut down for maintenance and repairs, and determine how much inventory of gasoline to maintain on hand in case refineries have to be shut down — would cost. However, a broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats, neighboring governors, and even labor unions is opposing the measure, which does seem ready to pass.

The small group of labor organizations that came out against the bill — employed in energy trades — shared a number of safety and even electoral concerns.

“This issue is readily being used against our candidate in those states and beyond,” wrote the coalition regarding the potential direct implications for the swing states of Arizona and Nevada that rely on California for gasoline, and the use of California’s climate positions as a tool to attack Democrats nationally more broadly. “If we cannot be heard and believed on issues that could jeopardize the lives of our members, something is very wrong in CA. Every member who votes for this bill should be prepared to answer if something goes wrong”

Assemblymember Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, said that he believes most legislators actually no longer support the bill but feel strong-armed by the governor.

“The legislature honestly needs to stand up for itself and tell [Newsom] no. I’m guessing the vast majority of legislators want this bill to die,” said Patterson on X. “We shouldn’t do it just because of the Governor’s strange obsession with this weird policy to give bureaucrats power over gasoline production.”

CARB will be voting on the new amendments to the state’s low carbon fuel standard on November 8, just days after the presidential election, on whether or not to adopt new, stricter standards that will make it harder to generate LCFS credits, and require more LCFS credits to be purchased.

As can be seen in CARB data, the LCFS has been so successful that as of April 2024, the most recent data point, the reduction in carbon intensity of the state’s fuel system is already past the goal for 2026. While the widespread availability of LCFS credits has reduced emissions, the rapid scaling of the desired LCFS credit-producing technologies has also reduced the value of individual credits.

Should the new, more strict LCFS requirements be adopted, fewer credits would qualify, and the cost of credits would go up, but much of the billions of dollars invested in existing infrastructure to generate LCFS credits could turn worthless overnight.

California’s gas taxes are already the highest in the nation, with federal, state, and local taxes and fees adding approximately $1.62 per gallon, which is significantly more than the difference between California and national gas prices. If the LCFS is approved, California gasoline could cost approximately $2.09 to $2.27 per gallon more than the national average, a move that could drive more consumers to electric cars, or out of the state entirely.

California officials have rejected further rocket launches by SpaceX, a company owned by Elon Musk. Some of the officials have cited his posts on social media platform 𝕏, which he owns.

According to the Los Angeles Times [emphasis added]:

SpaceX’s plans to launch more rockets from the California coast were rejected by a state commission this week, with some officials citing Elon Musk’s political posts on 𝕏 and raising concerns about the billionaire’s labor record at his companies.

The plan to increase the number of rocket blasts into space up to 50 a year was rejected by the California Coastal Commission on Thursday despite assurances from Space Force and Air Force officials that they would increase efforts to monitor the effects that rocket launches have on nearby wildlife.

The 1st Amendment protects American citizens from being silenced, censored, or otherwise punished over lawful speech. It was written specifically regarding laws passed by Congress, but applies to all levels of government and is not exclusive to the legislative branch.

Of course, the First Amendment also applies to the non-legislative branches of government—to every government agency—local, state, or federal. — Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 168 n.

In other words, it is blatantly unlawful for California officials to enact government policies against Musk or anyone else based in any way on their opinions of his speech. That didn’t stop California Coastal Commission Chair Caryl Hart from citing Musk’s politics in their decision.

“We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” Hart said.

It may not matter what the California Coastal Commission believes. SpaceX is a leading contractor for Vandenberg Space Force Base. Federal officials do not need a permit or permission from the commission to launch rockets as long as they agree to mitigate negative effects from their actions.

As free speech advocate Michael Shellenberger noted:

California regulators have blocked @SpaceX launches because they disagree with @elonmusk ‘s politics. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a gross abuse of power, even in increasingly totalitarian California.

California regulators have blocked @SpaceX launches because they disagree with @elonmusk's politics. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a gross abuse of power, even in increasingly totalitarian California. pic.twitter.com/T7YZdTb0xJ

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 12, 2024

Shellenberger went on to lambast politicians across the state, particularly Governor Gavin Newsom:

The California Coastal Commission rejected SpaceX’s proposal to increase rocket launches for political not environmental reasons. Just look at what they said

— “We’re dealing with a company, the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race,” said CCC Chair Caryl Hart.

— “This company is owned by the richest person in the world with direct control of what could be the most expansive communications system in the planet,” said another commissioner.

— “Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] while claiming his desire to help hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” said another one.

All California regulators take their cues from California Gov. @GavinNewsom.

As such, this could be payback by Newsom, who has been at war with @elonmusk ever since Newsom signed legislation that makes it easier for teachers to brainwash children into believing they are the opposite gender and can change their sex through drugs and surgery.

The governor of America’s richest and most populous state yesterday doubled down on his new law, which requires that schools hide a psychiatric disorder known as gender dysphoria from parents.

California Governor Gavin Newsom claims his law “protects the child-parent… pic.twitter.com/ntyEjyUcmO

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 17, 2024

That war escalated when @GavinNewsom got the legislature to ban AI parody videos relating to elections after @elonmusk shared one mocking @KamalaHarris

Ten days ago, a federal judge blocked the implementation of Newsom’s censorship law for being an obvious violation of the First Amendment:

California's recent ban on election-related "misinformation," including political parody, is unconstitutional, a federal court has just ruled. Free speech, not censorship, is the solution to bad info. Wonderful repudiation of totalitarians @GavinNewsom @KamalaHarris & @Tim_Walz pic.twitter.com/YiUmyChqu4

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 2, 2024

Having implemented policies that increased homelessness by 40%, and that increased violent crime so much that it is now 31% higher than the national average,
@GavinNewsom is spiraling into nihilism.

Since Newsom took office in 2019, California’s population saw a net decline of around 500,000 people, resulting in the loss of a Congressional seat.

Newsom’s radical lockdowns destroyed thousands of family-owned small businesses and stunted a generation of children.

Now, Newsom appears determined to chase California’s most successful entrepreneurs out of the state.

Newsom will go down in history as the worst, most destructive governor in California’s history.

RECEIPTS:

CRIMEhttps://t.co/Ftd5iAkNmc

HOMELESSNESShttps://t.co/QTDcdqWepq pic.twitter.com/WMEINd4dM7

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) August 13, 2024

Elon Musk tends to come out on top even when there is ambiguity surrounding an issue. This is a violation of his 1st Amendment rights prima facie, so he should have no trouble smacking it into the totalitarian abyss where it belongs.