The Zebra Murders: When Anti-White Serial Killers Terrorized California


The “Zebra” murders happened from 1973 to 1974 in California, committed by Black Muslims against innocent White victims. This group, which called themselves “Death Angels” may have murdered more than 70 people, but their crimes have been downplayed and buried, with most people now never even having heard about these serial killers.


Spic Militia Pillages San Diego


What will it take for more Whites to wake up? What will be the event or condition that finally causes Whites en masse to begin fighting for their survival? The strategy of cowardice promoted by the alien, semitic mind-virus of cucktianity to “love your enemy” was insane to begin with, and has been proven beyond all doubt to be nothing more than an exhortation for self-eradication. It only takes one side to wage a race war, and pretending that the genocide of our people is “vibrancy” and “enrichment” is not going to prevent the destruction of the White race.

In the California failed state, even the invasion of an armed, hostile Aztexican militia cannot spur the remaining debased Whites to action. In a live-action, modern AmeriCuck re-enactment of the sack of Rome, sullen sewage colored savages pour over undefended, meaningless borders to loot without fear of opposition from a retrograde, degenerate population. As a precursor to wiping out the last few legacy Whites from the emerging mestizo state of Aztlan being carved out of a land once called California, a multi-national motorcycle gang claims Jeeps as war trophies.

Federal and state law enforcement authorities said they have broken up a sophisticated auto-theft ring run by a Tijuana-based motorcycle club that swiped 150 Jeep Wranglers in San Diego County over the past several years. The Jeeps were later sold in Mexico or stripped for parts that were then sold in Mexico. Total value of the vehicles stolen was $4.5 million”

In what could be a post-apocalyptic scene from a Mad Max movie, the cowed people of a once-prosperous society are the victims of multi-year depredations by mestizo monsters on motorcycles from the open pit latrine of Tijuana. The corrupt, ineffectual, and astronomically expensive law enforcement authorities finally took time away from handing out food, water, and “assistance” to illegal alien invaders as they cross our border, to make an embarrassingly flaccid “indictment.”

Nine members of The Hooligans bikers club were indicted in the scheme and face charges of conspiracy to transport stolen vehicles in foreign commerce. Six men remain fugitives in Mexico, [Assistant U.S. Attorney] Mark Conover said.”

A multi-year, coordinated federal and state law enforcement operation, likely costing tens of millions of dollars, results in three arrests. Never mind the connections to organized crime, the repeated violations of what remains of our national sovereignty, and the actual smuggling of stolen cars to Aztexico. The best our highly diverse and inclusive law enforcement agencies can do after years of allegedly gathering evidence is a conspiracy charge. Safe across the one-way border in a country that takes its sovereignty seriously, six of the savage invaders are undoubtedly laughing at the “charge” levied against them by the careerist cucks in the USSA. Maybe after another multi-year operation, they’ll actually catch a couple more people.

Of the nine people named in the indictment, seven are U.S. citizens, though the club is based in and operates in Mexico.”

Natural conservatives, here to vote elephant party and save “muh GDP.” Or steal Jeeps.

The hollowness of Weimerican citizenship is on display. The ultimate outcome of the “proposition” nation is the prostitution of its citizenship. A nation either has a racial foundation, or it will not be a nation for long.

Prosecutors said law enforcement gained a huge break when a homeowner’s security system captured the theft of the owner’s car on tape.”

Luckily a homeowner’s private surveillance system exposed the hispanic heist; something that years of investigation by the law enforcement “professionals” at massive public expense was unable to do.  In all likelihood, the California Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Assistance will soon launch an Orwellian hate crime prosecution against this hapless homeowner whose surveillance cameras recorded the looting and pillaging by malformed brown aliens.  The charge: wrongful use of truth to the detriment of an immigrant.

The thieves were cocky about their success, according to the indictment. In an exchange on April 4, 2015, on Facebook, defendant Adan Esteban Sanchez Aguirre wrote to a co-conspirator identified as “J.C.” about a planned theft of multiple cars:
“They’re going to say ‘damn hooligans,’” the indictment said.
“We’re a plague,” J.C. responded. “They can’t finish us off.”
“Mexico v. usa,” Sanchez responded.”

Aztexico versus the USSA. It isn’t much of a fight when one side has drunk deep the semitic poison of moral equivalency, and espouses a survival strategy based on cucktian drivel such as “turn the other cheek.” By their own admission they are a plague, but the jews and their good goys tell us that they’re here for a better life and to steal the Jeeps Americans don’t want to steal. The kosher lies of multi-culturalism and political correctness have killed off the systems that a healthy society would otherwise use to resist its destruction. White homelands are collapsing under the endless tides of genetic refuse from failed branches of humanity, brought here because the rat-faced men said that it was “the right thing to do” and that “diversity was our greatest strength.” Your civilization is collapsing, White man. It’s time to turn off the talmudvision, and stop watching the negro ball. There is no melting pot. There is no multi-culturalism. There are only cultures and races that survive and those that don’t.

Source Article:

Tuna Recalled in California, Oklahoma and Texas over Hepatitis A Fears

On May 1, the Hawaii Department of Health notified the FDA that a sample of frozen tuna cubes from Indonesia tested positive for the hepatitis A virus. On May 2, the FDA contacted the Tropic Fish Hawaii LLC, a subsidiary distributor of Hilo Fish Company, to obtain additional information related to the positive tuna sample. Tropic Fish Hawaii LLC initiated a product recall because the affected product had been distributed to its customers in Oahu, Hawaii (U.S. mainland and other Hawaiian Islands were not affected by the recall). The state of Hawaii embargoed the lot that tested positive and the FDA confirmed the sample was positive.

On May 16, Hilo Fish Company notified the FDA that it had submitted samples of additional shipments held in its cold storage facility in Hawaii to a private laboratory for testing and received additional positive results for the hepatitis A virus. Imported tuna products from this facility were sourced from Sustainable Seafood Company and Santa Cruz Seafood and were distributed to restaurants and other retail locations in CA, NY, OK, and TX. The New York State Department of Health and the FDA verified that product shipped to New York was not sold to the public. The FDA’s investigation in connection with these firms is ongoing.

  • On May 18, Hilo Fish Company began recalling tuna sourced from Sustainable Seafood Company and Santa Cruz Seafood, Inc. that tested positive for the hepatitis A virus.
  • While the CDC is not currently aware of any illnesses linked to these products, it is advising post exposure prophylaxis (PEP)for unvaccinated persons who may have consumed the potentially contaminated tuna within the past two weeks.
  • The FDA is providing a list of establishmentsin TX, OK, and CA that may currently have potentially contaminated tuna in commerce to help alert consumers that may be at risk of the hepatitis A virus. Contact your health care professional if you believe you have been exposed to contaminated tuna.
  • The current recall resulted from follow-up after the Hawaii Department of Health notified the FDA of a frozen tuna sample, sourced from PT Deho Canning Co.,which tested positive for hepatitis A on May 1, 2017. The initially recalled product has been removed from circulation and the newly recalled frozen tuna lots were not shipped to Hawaii, but were shipped to the mainland U.S.

Consumers may be at risk of contracting a hepatitis A infection due to the consumption of potentially contaminated frozen tuna distributed by Hilo Fish Company and sourced from Sustainable Seafood Company (Lots F5-6 Soui Dau Industrial Zone, Can Lam Khanh Hoa Province, Vietnam) and Santa Cruz Seafood, Inc. (General Santos Fishport Complex Tambler, General Santos City, 9500, Philippines). The CDC reports no illnesses to date.

The FDA is collecting additional frozen tuna samples and increasing its screening measures and testing for imported seafood for these companies.

In addition, the agency has prepared a list of restaurants and other retail locations that received the recalled frozen tuna. The agency will continue to update this list as its investigation continues. To protect the health of consumers who may have eaten contaminated tuna and require post-exposure prophylaxis, the FDA has determined that it is necessary to make public the names of these businesses as part of the recall.

Hepatitis A is a contagious liver disease that results from infection with the hepatitis A virus . It can range in severity from a mild illness lasting a few weeks to a severe illness lasting several months. Hepatitis A can be spread when a person ingests the virus from contaminated food or water. The virus can also be easily passed from an infected person to other unvaccinated family members, sexual partners, and close contacts.

Symptoms in adults include fatigue, abdominal pain, jaundice, abnormal liver tests, dark urine, and pale stool. People with hepatitis A may not have symptoms until 15 to 50 days after consuming a contaminated food or drink. CDC reports that while the hepatitis A vaccine is recommended for all children, vaccination rates are lower than for other recommended childhood vaccines. Unvaccinated children can become ill and not have symptoms.

Marler Clark, The Food Safety Law Firm, is the nation’s leading law firm representing victims of Hepatitis A outbreaks. The Hepatitis A lawyers of Marler Clark have represented thousands of victims of Hepatitis A and other foodborne illness outbreaks and have recovered over $600 million for clients.  Marler Clark is the only law firm in the nation with a practice focused exclusively on foodborne illness litigation.  Our Hepatitis A lawyers have litigated Hepatitis A cases stemming from outbreaks traced to a variety of sources, such as green onions, lettuce and restaurant food.  The law firm has brought Hepatitis A lawsuits against such companies as Costco, Subway, McDonald’s, Red Robin, Chipotle, Quiznos and Carl’s Jr.  We proudly represented the family of Donald Rockwell, who died after consuming hepatitis A tainted food and Richard Miller, wo required a liver transplant after eating food at a Chi-Chi’s restaurant.

If you or a family member became ill with a Hepatitis A infection after consuming food and you’re interested in pursuing a legal claim, contact the Marler Clark Hepatitis A attorneys for a free case evaluation.

14 Poisoned By Wild Death Cap Mushrooms In California


Death cap mushrooms foraged in Northern California have severely poisoned 14 people in the last few months, three so seriously that they needed liver transplants. One victim is a toddler who will have “permanent neurological impairment,” according to a medical report.

The high number of poisonings has alarmed officials. The mushrooms, often mistaken for a benign variety, have flourished this year in heavy rains. Mushroom experts first noticed a particularly large bloom of death caps in November.

News of the string of poisonings that began in December came to light this week in a “Morbidity and Mortality” report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Besides the toddler, ages of the victims ranged from 19 to 93 years old, according to the CDC statistics. The poisonings occurred in five counties, and hospital stays ranged from six to 36 days.

The worst case involved an entire family in Salinas. A woman who was given the mushrooms by a forager cooked them for herself, her husband, her 18-month-old daughter, her sister and a friend. They all became ill, and the toddler and the woman’s sister needed liver transplants. “It was like a bus accident happening right in front of the hospital,” Dr. Todd Mitchell told The Santa Cruz Sentinel as he described the life-and-death demands of treating mushroom poisoning.

Mitchell, one of the authors of the CDC report, is conducting a clinical trial to determine the effectiveness of a treatment protocol.

The Amanita phalloides is one of the deadliest mushrooms on Earth and is responsible for 90 percent of mushroom poisonings around the world. Once the mushroom’s amatoxin is ingested, it begins to  kill cells, eventually shutting down organs.

The mushrooms are most abundant during rainy fall and winter months, but they can survive throughout the year in coastal fog in California. The CDC report urges extreme caution when hunting for wild mushrooms, adding that “inexperienced foragers should be strongly discouraged from eating any wild mushrooms.”

The mushrooms are a serious threat in remote areas around the globe where medical help is too far for quick treatment.

“These mushrooms continue to wipe out entire families each and every year in Nepal, South Africa, Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam and India as well as China,” Mitchell told the Sentinel. “Amatoxin mushroom poisoning is an unrecognized worldwide public health crisis. Literally, hundreds die every single year.”

The Numbers Are In: A Single-Payer Health System in California Would Cover Everyone and Save Tens of Billions a Year

Almost all Californians and California businesses will see lower health care costs under a single-payer system, according to a fiscal analysis presented Wednesday by the bill’s sponsor and the California Nurses Association. The exceptions are the top 10 percent, individuals making $340,000 or more annually; and the most profitable firms, where a proposed tax surcharge on earnings could exceed savings from no longer paying for their employees’ health plans.

The analysis was done by a team led by Robert Pollin, the co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts and a former UC Riverside faculty member. At a Sacramento press conference, he explained how a single-payer system would enable all Californians to be completely covered. That includes 3.7 million currently uninsured residents and another 12 million who are underinsured, meaning they cannot afford their policy’s co-pays and deductibles.

The universal coverage would be paid for by combining all government healthcare subsidies, which accounts for about 70 percent of California’s current spending, and by two proposed tax increases: a 2.3 percent gross receipt taxes on businesses (which kicks in after the first $2 million in earnings and which exempts small businesses); and a 2.3 percent increase in the sales tax, with exemptions for necessities such as food, housing, utilities, and other services.

Those combined revenue streams would raise an estimated $400 billion annually to pay for universal coverage under a single-payer system. Today, Californians spend about $370 billion annually in an insurance-dominated system that leaves 40 percent of the state’s  population underinsured or without any insurance at all.

“The good news is that California can get a lot more for our money,” said state Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, the bill’s co-sponsor. “When the legislature passes the Healthy California Act, we will actually spend less than we do on health care. Families will pay less for health care. The average middle-class family will see their out-of-pocket costs fall by 9 percent.”

Most businesses will also save money, Pollin explained, because they will no longer be paying for their employees’ health care. Even with the proposed gross receipts tax exempting the first $2 million, typical California businesses employing 10 to 19 people would see costs fall by 13.8 percent, he said. Businesses employing 20 to 99 people would see costs fall by 6.8 percent, he said. Businesses employing up to 500 would see costs fall by 5.7 percent, and the 500-plus businesses would see costs fall by 0.6 percent.

Indeed, the financing framework Pollin laid out would be a major shift from today’s system, in which employers include health insurance as part of an employee’s compensation. Until this press conference Wednesday, the only other analysis of how universal coverage would be paid for was in a Senate staff analysis that envisioned raising the state’s payroll tax by 15 percent.

“This measure is good for businesses. It is also good for households,” Pollin said.

How It All Works

The basic approach of SB-562, which must be passed by the state senate by Friday to meet a legislative deadline, is to replace the billing and price-setting bureaucracies at the core of the health care industry with a state rate-setting panel. It would pay hospitals and providers based on the prices paid under the federal Medicare program, which is about 22 percent less than what private insurers pay, and also negotiate for bulk purchases of drugs, and wresting other administrative efficiencies from a streamlined system.

Pollin’s presentation had four sections: what the state’s current health care costs and the cost of “bringing full coverage to everyone in California under the existing system;” where savings in a state single-payer approach would emerge and why; how the program could be financed; and the impact on the “financial situation of individuals and businesses at all levels.”

“Right now, the health care system in California, the total number of expenditures is $368.5 billion—roughly $370 billion,” he began. “I know you heard these reports, this study that came out last week by the [Senate Appropriations Committee] staff saying that this would cost $400 billion. Well, keep in mind that we are already spending $370 billion. We are not going from zero to $400 billion.”

The next step is asking what it would take to bring the uninsured and the underinsured up to full insurance.

“The answer is it would add about 9.6 percent to total costs,” Pollin said. “So the system that now costs roughly $370 billion would cost $400 billion or actually slightly more—if everybody was fully insured under the existing system… Our analysis is basically on track with the [Senate] staff report, in saying that if we were going to operate our present system, giving everybody full coverage, it would cost $400 billion. That would represent an increase from $370 billion to $400 billion, not zero to $400 billion—a critical point.”

But the single-payer system will not be the same as the current system, in which private insurers, hospital finance operations and pharmaceutical firms stand between the public and the health care they need. It has built-in features that will save tens of billions annually, which fall under two categories, he said: structural changes and what service providers are paid. Pollin said his team at the University of Massachusetts used numbers from reams of industry data and widely accepted government and scientific research.

“We are talking about reducing administrative costs across the board. By having a single-payer system, you will save on administration for hospitals, for physicians, for clinics and in insurance itself,” Pollin said. “Secondly, we’re talking about lowering pharmaceutical prices. And by that we are looking at both the VA [Veterans Administration] type model for setting pharmaceutical prices and the Canadian model [a country with a population akin to California’s]. And so we think, through some combination of something like that, we can reduce pharmaceutical costs in the range of 30 percent.”

“Third, we suggest setting all service provision at Medicare rates,” he said, which pays 22 percent below what insurers now pay hospitals and doctors. “So, right now, we have three tiers. We have Medicare rates; we have private insurance rates; and we have MediCal [the state’s Medicaid program] rates. MediCal rates are lower than Medicare rates. Private insurers are higher. We are saying move everything to Medicare rates.”

“If you combine those three things, conservatively we estimate that you can get 13 percent savings out of what we do with our present system… through administrative efficiency, pharmaceutical prices and setting [payment] rates through the Medicare rates,” Pollin said. “Now on top of that, we also look at inefficiency or waste in service provision [unnecessary services, inefficiently delivered services, missed prevention opportunities and fraud]… the [federal] Institute of Medicine said we are wasting about 19 percent of all expenditures. Now what we are assuming, quite conservatively, is that we can only get 5 percent.”

So by combining their two sources of savings, structural savings of 13 percent and service provisions savings of 5 percent, that takes the current estimated cost of covering all Californians under today’s system, which is $400 billion, and lowers it to roughly $330 billion—the 18 percent savings. When you subtract the $225 billion now spent by the federal and what the state government spend on all of their health care programs, that means that Californians will have to find another $105 billion to pay for universal coverage—because nobody would be buying health insurance plans.

“Again, we’re not going from zero to $330 billion,” Pollin said. “We are going from what it is costing now, $370 billion, and going to go down to $330 billion, plus everybody gets covered. That’s it. Now, how do we pay for that $330 billion? Obviously it’s a completely restructured system.”

The bill’s sponsors suggested that two tax increases could completely pay for the $105 billion gap and eliminate every Californian and state business having to buy health insurance and then pay deductibles. They have looked at the fine print of federal laws like Obamacare, Medicaid and Medicare and said they allow states to pursue options like single payer “and we assume that funding will still be there… and that amounts to $225 billion.”

“Where do we get the $106 billion extra? As Sen. Lara said, there are various ways to think about it,” Pollin said. “We propose… two new taxes. A gross receipts tax, at 2.3 percent of gross receipts, and a sales tax increase, also at 2.3 percent of sales. Now both of those have exemptions and a tax credit to maintain equity in the system… The first $2 million of gross receipts for all businesses are exempt from the tax. The effect of that is small businesses will pay no gross receipts tax.”

Pollin said poor households on Medicaid would also get a 2 percent tax credit “so that the people who are getting Medicaid now will effectively not have to pay the sales tax; their costs will be zero.” The 2.3 percent gross receipts tax raises $92.6 billion and the sales tax raises $14.3 billion. “I think it works really well. It’s tight,” he said.

The Impact

The impacts on businesses and individuals vary with income. The poorest Californians, on MediCal, would see costs go down 5.5 percent, because they would no longer be making out-of-pocket payments anymore. Families who earn $35,800—putting them at 40 percent or the top of the second tier of five for all Californians by income—will see health care costs go down by an average of 1.2 percent.

“We’re looking at how much they are paying now in healthcare and we are matching that against a family that will have to pay sales tax for non-necessities,” Pollin said. “This is a windfall for middle-income families because they’re paying a lot for health care now. The range is for families that are underinsured now, the net gain is 8.7 percent of their income. For individually insured families, the gain is 9.1 percent. And for those middle-income families that are getting health care from their employer, it’s more modest, but still a gain of 2.6 percent.”

The wealthy will pay more, he explained. “Right now, wealthy families [in the top 20 percent of earners, which is $227,000 a year, or top 10 percent, which is $340,000] are getting a net subsidy—because of the tax benefits they are able to write off their health care costs,” Pollin said. “One percent of their income is being paid to them by the health care system. Under Healthy California, yes, they will pay. But look, they will only have to pay 0.6 percent of their net income.”

“Businesses will have to pay the gross receipts tax after the first $2 million of expenditure—so what do we see,” he continued. “The small businesses that are not covering their workers, they will still not pay anything… The businesses that are small and are paying for health care for employees—also a huge windfall. Their health care expenditures will go down by 22 percent as a share of their payroll. This is a huge benefit for these businesses.”

Middle-sized businesses will also see payroll net savings, he said, from 13.8 percent for businesses between 10 and 19 employees, to 5.7 percent for businesses between 100 and 500 employees. Only the largest businesses, with more than 500 employees, would see slight savings, less than 1 percent. “They will, of course, have to pay a large chunk of gross receipts, because they will have a large chunk of gross receipts, but nevertheless their [payroll] costs will also go down, we estimate, by an average of 0.6 percent.”

“So businesses at all levels come out at least as well,” Pollin said. “Most of them in the middle come out much better. This measure is good for business. First and foremost, it’s really good for business.”

Sen. Lara, the bill’s sponsor, said the goal was to pass the measure in the Senate by Friday, and then begin discussions with “stakeholders” on the revenue and taxation elements. While the state’s health insurers, hospital chains, drug companies and some physicians’ groups are all opposed to a single-payer system, this analysis is likely to take the political fight to a new orbit. Even if it contains spending, savings and revenue estimates that are slightly off, it brings new specificity to the debate.

The University of Massachusetts analysis portrays a system where the vast majority of residents and businesses could do better than the status quo. As Republicans in Washington seek to destroy Obamacare and underfund Medicaid in their 2018 budget, the pressure on California to protect and insulate its citizens will only grow.

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America’s democracy and voting rights. He is the author of several books on elections and the co-author of Who Controls Our Schools: How Billionaire-Sponsored Privatization Is Destroying Democracy and the Charter School Industry (AlterNet eBook, 2016).

Fighting Trump on Climate, California Becomes a Global Force

LOS ANGELES — The environmental ministers of Canada and Mexico went to San Francisco last month to sign a global pact — drafted largely by California — to lower planet-warming greenhouse pollution. Gov. Jerry Brown flies to China next month to meet with climate leaders there on a campaign to curb global warming. And a battery of state lawyers is preparing to battle any attempt by Washington to weaken California’s automobile pollution emission standards.

As President Trump moves to reverse the Obama administration’s policies on climate change, California is emerging as the nation’s de facto negotiator with the world on the environment. The state is pushing back on everything from White House efforts to roll back pollution rules on tailpipes and smokestacks, to plans to withdraw or weaken the United States’ commitments under the Paris climate change accord.

In the process, California is not only fighting to protect its legacy of sweeping environmental protection, but also holding itself out as a model to other states — and to nations — on how to fight climate change.

“I want to do everything we can to keep America on track, keep the world on track, and lead in all the ways California has,” said Mr. Brown, who has embraced this fight as he enters what is likely to be the final stretch of a 40-year career in California government. “We’re looking to do everything we can to advance our program, regardless of whatever happens in Washington.”

Since the election, California has stood as the leading edge of the Democratic resistance to the Trump administration, on a range of issues including immigration and health care. Mr. Trump lost to Hillary Clinton here by nearly four million votes. Every statewide elected official is a Democrat, and the party controls both houses of the Legislature by a two-thirds margin. Soon after Mr. Trump was elected, Democratic legislative leaders hired Eric H. Holder Jr., the former attorney general, to represent California in legal fights with the administration.

But of all the battles it is waging with Washington, none have the global implications of the one over climate change.

The aggressive posture on the environment has set the stage for a confrontation between the Trump administration and the largest state in the nation. California has 39 million people, making it more populous than Canada and many other countries. And with an annual economic output of $2.4 trillion, the state is an economic powerhouse and has the sixth-largest economy in the world.

California’s efforts cross party lines. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who served as governor from 2003 to 2011, and led the state in developing the most aggressive pollution-control programs in the nation, has emerged as one of Mr. Trump’s biggest Republican critics.

Mr. Trump and his advisers appear ready for the fight.

Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency chief, whom Mr. Trump has charged with rolling back Obama-era environmental policies, speaks often of his belief in the importance of federalism and states’ rights, describing Mr. Trump’s proposals as a way to lift the oppressive yoke of federal regulations and return authority to the states. But of Mr. Brown’s push to expand California’s environmental policies to the country and the world, Mr. Pruitt said, “That’s not federalism — that’s a political agenda hiding behind federalism.”

“Is it federalism to impose your policy on other states?” Mr. Pruitt asked in a recent interview in his office. “It seems to me that Mr. Brown is being the aggressor here,” he said. “But we expect the law will show this.”

In one of his earliest strikes, Mr. Trump signed an executive order in March aimed at dismantling the Clean Power Plan, President Barack Obama’s signature climate policy change. Much of the plan, which Mr. Trump denounced as a “job killer,” was drawn from environmental policies pioneered in California.

Mr. Brown has long been an environmental advocate, including when he first served as governor in the 1970s. He has made this a central focus as he enters his final 18 months in office. In an interview, he said the president’s action was “a colossal mistake and defies science.”

“Erasing climate change may take place in Donald Trump’s mind, but nowhere else,” Mr. Brown said.

The leadership role being embraced by California goes to the heart of what has long been a central part of this state’s identity. For more than three decades, California has been at the vanguard of environmental policy, passing ambitious, first-in-the-nation legislation on pollution control and conservation that have often served as models for national and even international environmental law.

Driving on a smog-filled street in Los Angeles in 1958. CreditBettmann/Getty Images

“With Trump indicating that he will withdraw from climate change leadership, the rest of the global community is looking to California, as one of the world’s largest economies, to take the lead,” said Mario Molina, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist from Mexico who advises nations on climate change policy. “California demonstrates to the world that you can have a strong climate policy without hurting your economy.”

The Senate leader, Kevin de Leon, introduced legislation this month that would accelerate, rather than retrench, California’s drive to reduce emissions, requiring that 100 percent of retail electricity in the state come from renewable sources by 2045. Mr. de Leon said it was “important that we send a signal to the rest of the world” at a time of what he described as “blowback” from Washington.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, who tangled with Mr. Trump after the president mocked him for receiving low ratings as his replacement on “The Apprentice,” described Mr. Trump’s environmental policies as a threat to the planet.

“Saying you’ll bring coal plants back is the past,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “It’s like saying you’ll bring Blockbuster back, which is the past. Horses and buggies, which is the past. Pagers back, which is the past.”

He said California had shown it was possible to adopt aggressive environmental policies without hurting the economy. “We’re outdoing the rest of the country on G.D.P.,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said.

Even before Mr. Trump took office, California’s tough regulatory rules had stirred concern among business leaders, who said it had increased their costs. They warned that the situation would become worse if California stood by its regulatory rules while Washington moved in the other direction.

“We’re very concerned about that,” said Robert C. Lapsley, the president of the California Business Roundtable. “If we are 1 percent of the problem, and we have the most far-reaching climate policies on the planet while all the other states are slowing down because Washington is slowing down, that is going to create an absolute imbalance.”

“Washington will create a less competitive environment for California businesses here because businesses in other states will not have to meet the same mandates,” he added. “There is no question that businesses are going to move out.”

The precise contours of this battle will become clear in the months ahead, as Mr. Trump’s environmental policies take shape. For now, the critical questions are whether the United States will withdraw from the Paris agreement, an international compact to reduce greenhouse pollution, and whether the Environmental Protection Agency will revoke a waiver issued by President Richard M. Nixon that permits California to set fuel economy standards exceeding federal requirements.

Revoking the waiver, which was central to a policy that has resulted in noticeably cleaner air in places like Los Angeles, would force the state to lower its tough fuel economy standards, which are also intended to promote the rapid spread of electric cars. As they stand, the rules would force automakers to build fleets of cars that would reach mileage of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

California is preparing for a legal challenge.

“You have to be concerned when anybody talks about going backward,” said Xavier Becerra, the state attorney general. “In this case we think we have a strong case to be made based on the facts and the history.”

Mr. Trump is already moving to weaken federal auto emission standards that were influenced by California’s tougher standards. Automakers, who met with the president in the Oval Office days after he assumed the presidency, have long complained that the standards forced them to build expensive electric vehicles that consumers may not want.

And the companies have lobbied for years to stop the federal government from allowing California to set cleaner tailpipe regulations than the rest of the nation, arguing that the double standard necessitates building two types of cars. In Detroit, those companies see President Trump as their best chance for finally ending onerous California car requirements. But in the meantime, over a dozen other states have adopted California’s auto emissions standards — and Mr. Brown is betting that the sheer size of that market will be enough to make the Trump administration reconsider any effort to roll back the California waiver.

“Because we’re such a big part of the car market, and places like New York and Massachusetts are tied in with the U.S., our standard will prevail,” he said.

Beyond pushing to maintain its state climate laws, California has tried to forge international climate pacts. In particular, Mr. Brown’s government helped draft and gather signatures for a memorandum of understanding whose signers, including heads of state and mayors from around the world, pledged to take actions to lower emissions enough to keep global temperatures from rising over two degrees Celsius. That is the point at which scientists say the planet will tip into a future of irreversible rising seas and melting ice sheets.

That pact is voluntary, but California, Canada and Mexico are starting to carry out a joint climate policy with some teeth.

California’s signature climate change law is the cap-and-trade program. It places a statewide cap on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions, and then allows companies to buy and sell pollution credits. The California measure was the model for a national climate law that Mr. Obama tried unsuccessfully to have passed in 2010.

An oil refinery near homes in Los Angeles. California’s cap-and-trade program restricts carbon dioxide emissions. CreditMelissa Lyttle for The New York Times

Given the setbacks in Washington, California environmental officials are working with Mexico and Canada to create what is informally called the “Nafta” of climate change — a carbon-cutting program that spans the region.

“Canada’s all in when it comes to climate action, and we’ll partner with anyone who wants to move forward,” said Catherine McKenna, Canada’s environment minister.

Already, California’s cap-and-trade market is connected to a similar one in Quebec, now valued at about $8 billion, and the Province of Ontario is linking with the joint California-Quebec market this year. Climate policy experts in Sacramento and Mexico City are in the early stages of drafting a plan to link Mexico with that joint market.

In April, a delegation from California traveled to Beijing to meet with Chinese counterparts to help them craft a cap-and-trade plan. “We have people working in China, in their regulatory agencies, consulting with them, speaking fluent Mandarin, working with the Chinese government — giving them advice on cap and trade,” Mr. Brown said.

The Clean Power Plan was central to the United States’ pledge under the 2015 Paris agreement, which commits the nation to cut its emissions about 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. Now that Mr. Trump has moved to roll back the plan, it will be almost impossible for the United States to meet its Paris commitments.

That has resonated powerfully in China. The heart of the Paris agreement was a 2014 deal forged by Mr. Obama and President Xi Jinping of China in which the world’s two largest economies and largest greenhouse polluters agreed to act jointly to reduce their emissions.

Gov. Jerry Brown of California, attending a climate meeting at the United Nations last year. “We may not represent Washington, but we will represent the wide swath of American people who will keep the faith on this,” he said. CreditMary Altaffer/Associated Press

“China is committed to establishing a cap-and-trade this year, and we are looking for expertise across the world as we design our program — and we are looking closely at the California experience,” said Donquan He, a vice president of Energy Foundation China, an organization that works with the Chinese government on climate change issues.

Mr. Brown recently met with the prime minister of Fiji, who will serve as chairman of this fall’s United Nations climate change meeting in Bonn, Germany, which aims to put the Paris agreement in force, with or without the United States. The governor said he planned to attend as a representative of his state.

“We may not represent Washington, but we will represent the wide swath of American people who will keep the faith on this,” he said.

California botulism outbreak tied to gas station nacho cheese sauce


California health inspectors have linked last week’s botulism outbreak — a rare and sometimes fatal form of food poisoning — to a nacho cheese sauce traced back to a mom-and-pop gas station in Walnut Grove, CBS Sacramento reports.

Outside, Valley Oak Food and Fuel is open for business, but inside, health officials have stopped the sale of food items and roped off a part of the store.

State and county health officials have confirmed nine people have been hospitalized, including possibly a 16-year-old. Five cases were first reported on May 5. This week four more people have become sick. A tenth person is being tested after showing similar symptoms related to the rare and potentially fatal illness.

As the number of those who become sick continues to grow, so too does the concern for those who live in this small town.

“It’s tough on a small town,” said one local woman, who did not want to give her name. “It’s tough because we know some of the youth who were affected by it, so our hearts are heavy.”

“From the preliminary testing of the cheese, it was positive for botulism,” said Dr. Oliva Kasirye, a health inspector with the Sacramento County Public Health Department, who has been part of the on-going investigation.

Now that the source of the outbreak has been determined, the investigation will turn to the cause and seek to answer if the gas station mishandled the food items or if the manufacturers or distributors are at fault.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, botulism is caused by a toxin produced by bacteria. Symptoms include blurry vision, slurred speech, muscle weakness and difficulty swallowing.

“But if there are any muscles that have been paralyzed from the toxin, it’s not reversed by the anti-toxin. That’s a process that could take time and that’s why the recovery is very slow,” explained Dr. Kasirye.

And even with the anti-toxin treatment, there is no guarantee patients will fully recover.

Another concern is the gas station is on a busy road that’s not just used by locals, but many people who come out fishing or who pass-by as they travel through the state. So, health officials are not ruling out the possibility that there still may be more cases reported.

Many in the small town are not faulting the gas station owners, saying they will wait for the state’s complete report.

Meanwhile, a lawsuit has been filed by the family of one the patients against the gas station and others, claiming neglect.

Persian Man Demands Equal Rights for White People at Council Meeting in CA

Former teacher accused of kidnapping ‘troubled’ teenager captured at a remote California cabin


During the nearly six weeks that Tad Cummins and 15-year-old Elizabeth Thomas were missing, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation received more than 1,500 tips.

Late Wednesday night, the tip they were desperately hoping for finally arrived.

It came from a caller who told investigators that the 50-year-old Cummins and the teenager he is accused of abducting might be living in a remote cabin near Cecilville, Calif., a onetime mining town about 100 miles from the Oregon border.

Speaking to reporters at a news conference Thursday afternoon, TBI spokesman Josh DeVine said investigators quickly coordinated with the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office, which was able to locate a silver Nissan Rogue belonging to Cummins and keep the vehicle under surveillance for several hours.

“The area where the pair was reported to be is a very remote, isolated area with no or limited cellphone services,” DeVine said. “As daylight broke this morning, they were able to take Tad Cummins into custody and safely recover Elizabeth without incident.”

Authorities said Elizabeth was physically unharmed, but they declined to comment on her emotional well-being or where the pair has been since they vanished last month.

TBI Director Mark Gwyn said Elizabeth will be flown back to Tennessee in a TBI aircraft to be reunited with her family. At the same time, he noted, investigators from TBI, the FBI and the Maury County Sheriff’s Office are on their way to Northern California to continue their investigation.

NEW: Here’s the mug shot of Tad Cummins from California. He’s now facing state and federal charges.

Gwyn said Cummins — who is being held by the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department without bond — faces charges that “could keep him behind bars for many years.”

“What happened in California this morning, however, proves it only takes one person to lead to a successful end,” he added. “We are extremely thankful the hard work of all partners in this search has paid off. We’re also grateful for the public’s support and vigilance throughout this search effort.”

Once Cummins is extradited to Tennessee, he will be charged with sexual contact with a minor and aggravated kidnapping, authorities said.

Acting U.S. attorney Jack Smith said his office had also filed a federal charge of transportation of a minor across state lines for criminal sexual intercourse — a charge that carries a minimum 10 year sentence.

Anthony Thomas, Elizabeth’s father, told NBC affiliate WSMV-TV that he wasn’t surprised that they were in the northwest and said he’d heard the pair were in a commune.

“I’m very happy,” he said. “She’s probably going to be hungry.”

“We’re going to have to figure out what kind of state of mind she’s in, of course, and probably get her some help,” he said. “Maybe a long road, but at least we’ve got her back.”

Maury County Public Schools also issued statement Thursday, calling Elizabeth’s return “wonderful news for our community.”

“Thanks go to all who have kept the message of finding Elizabeth Thomas and working on her safe return as top-of-mind throughout the nation,” it said.

The teen and Cummins — a 50-year-old from Middle Tennessee — had been missing since March 13, when an Amber Alert was issued. Cummins was Elizabeth’s high school teacher at Culleoka Unit School.

“Investigative efforts have revealed a troubling pattern of behavior by Tad Cummins, suggesting the 50-year-old may have been abusing his role as a teacher to groom this vulnerable young girl for some time in an effort to lure and potentially sexually exploit her,” the agency said in a statewide Amber Alert.

“Having now been on the run for more than five days, Cummins may have taken her, frankly, anywhere,” the agency said last month.

On March 13, video surveillance at a Columbia gas station showed Cummins filling up his silver Nissan Rogue. A short time later, investigators say, he drove to a Shoney’s restaurant, where Elizabeth had been dropped off by a friend and was waiting. Investigators said they think he manipulated her into leaving with him, but he wasn’t authorized to take a minor, and she wasn’t old enough to consent. That afternoon, investigators say, they determined Elizabeth was 80 miles away in Decatur, Ala.


Then, nothing. After their disappearance, investigators said they had received hundreds of tips from 24 states, but not enough information to tighten the dragnet despite a multi-state manhunt and Cummins’s addition to Tennessee’s most-wanted list.

In a news release, the TBI said Cummins might be keeping Elizabeth out of sight of authorities, possibly sleeping in his car or in a rural community.

Last month, the agency released new images of Cummins in an effort to keep the case in the spotlight. The pictures were from a week before Cummins and Elizabeth disappeared, and they showed him wearing a camouflage cap and pushing a shopping cart at a store.

One California Democrat Is Already Calling for Trump’s Impeachment and the Rest of the Country Could Be Soon to Follow

Over the weekend tens of thousands of Americans once more took to the streets to protest Donald Trump. In major cities and small towns across the country, citizens demanded that their president do what every president for the past 40 years has done: Release his tax returns. Trump’s response was to petulantly tweet that he did the impossible for a Republican by winning the Electoral College (the opposite is true; just ask George W. Bush) and suggesting that someone “look into” who paid the protesters because “the election is over.”

Evidently he thought that winning the election meant everyone would march in lockstep singing “We love you, President Trump!” like they do in North Korea. He’d better get used to protests because they aren’t going to stop. (The March for Science next weekend should really make him mad.)

The anti-Trump resistance is very much a grassroots effort, but there are leaders emerging. One of the most vocal is Rep. Maxine Waters, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles. Appearing at the Washington Tax Day march on Saturday, Waters put it bluntly: “I don’t respect this president. I don’t trust this president. He’s not working in the best interests of the American people. I will fight every day until he is impeached!” Then she led the crowd in a chant of “Impeach 45!” It doesn’t get any more resistant than that.

Waters has always been a tough and forceful politician, unafraid to take a position and speak her mind. She first came to national attention after the Rodney King riots when she went on TV and explained to America through gritted teeth that the African-American community in L.A. hadn’t just exploded out of nowhere. It was a message a lot of people didn’t want to hear, but she made sure they got it anyway. She’s been a thorn in the side of conservatives ever since then, once inspiring Ann Coulter to venomously spew that without affirmative action Waters “wouldn’t have a job that didn’t involve wearing a paper hat.” Right-wingers often lose their composure when confronted with such a strong, unapologetic African-American woman who is unafraid of getting right up in their faces.

Waters has been appearing on TV again lately, and she has plenty to say about all the various Trump scandals. Her message is very simple: Trump must be impeached. Obviously Republicans are outraged (as usual) insisting that such talk is downright seditious. Very few Democrats are ready to join her at this point either. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi believes such talk is premature at best; she has said that Trump is “incoherent,” “incompetent” and “reckless,” but insists those aren’t grounds for impeachment. According to Clare Malone at 538, Waters understands that Pelosi has an obligation to stay above the fray but says, “I don’t have the same responsibility.” She sees herself in a completely different role.

It may seem that Waters just has a pugilistic personality and is out front because it’s her political style to mix it up. But there is a strategy at work in this. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that a president was impeached for only the second time in history and it was over a “crime” that seems laughably insubstantial compared to the possibilities Donald Trump could face. Just for starters, Trump’s presidential campaign is being investigated in a counter-intelligence probe, and his conflicts of interest are so wide and so deep that almost anything could implicate him in a corruption scandal. Impeachment is really not a far-fetched proposition.

Back in the 1990s, President Bill Clinton’s administration was under siege from almost the moment he took office. There was one small-bore, semi-fictitious scandal after another, from Filegate to Travelgate to Haircutgate to Vince Foster’s suicide and of course the ancient Arkansas land deal known as Whitewater, from years before Clinton ran for president. The media lapped them up, reporting each new development with breathless excitement, piling them on top of each other until it seemed as though there wasn’t anything else happening in the world.

Some of the motivation for all this was simple partisan payback. Richard Nixon was a crook who’d been run out of Washington and Republicans were yearning to return the favor. Beating Jimmy Carter in 1980 was nice but it wasn’t enough. They wanted to rub the Democrats’ smug, self-righteous faces in the dirt and the Southern Gothic fever swamp that accompanied Clinton to Washington offered an excellent opportunity. But in spite of the Republicans’ deep desire to get Clinton, their primary game plan was merely to force his resignation (as had happened with Nixon). There was very little discussion of impeachment through all those years of endless scandal-mongering.

Only one man, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., kept bringing it up despite strong pushback from House Speaker Newt Gingrich and every other member of the GOP leadership. Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said at the time, “I don’t think we have the kind of evidentiary basis to be talking about impeachment at this time. I don’t really think you should, when it’s such an important matter and it’s frankly still in the abstract.”

Barr kept at it. Before anyone had heard the name Monica Lewinsky or had read the salacious report ultimately produced by independent counsel Ken Starr, Barr had introduced H.R 304, directing the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether grounds existed to impeach the president. When the Lewinsky scandal broke, unanticipated by anyone (including Barr), the groundwork had been laid.

Waters is following the Barr model. Impeachment is the nuclear option of nuclear options, when it comes to Congress confronting the president. It’s the only means by which a president can be removed from office for cause and it isn’t easy to do, especially when the president’s party holds the majority. (Only two presidents have ever been impeached by the House — Clinton and Andrew Johnson — and neither was convicted in the Senate, where a two-thirds majority is required.) But if one of Trump’s many scandals should end up implicating him in a crime, it’s important that the Democrats and the American people be ready for it. Waters is getting the I-word out there into the atmosphere and priming Trump’s political opposition. It’s a job that takes guts and foresight and she’s good at it.

If the Democrats can pull off a wave election in 2018 and take back the House, they will be ready to follow an impeachment investigation wherever it leads. That will largely be thanks to Maxine Waters.

Heather Digby Parton, also known as “Digby,” is a contributing writer to Salon. She was the winner of the 2014 Hillman Prize for Opinion and Analysis Journalism.