Pro-housing Democrats won a victory Friday in San Francisco after state authorities declared the city had not met its housing permitting goals in 2023, triggering a law some city Democrats opposed that will expedite approval of new builds, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. San Francisco’s sluggish approval of new projects triggered SB 423, a California law that will allow many new housing builds to avoid undertaking extensive environmental reviews and allow development to proceed without approval from bureaucrats on the city’s planning commission. California Gov. Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed, both Democrats, are supportive of the streamlining of housing approvals. However, the all-Democrat San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which will lose its ability to scrutinize some developments, has been more hostile toward SB 423, which Newsom signed into law. “At the end of the day, eliminating risk from the approval process, not having to run through the political gauntlet to get housing approved … will be a huge net positive for housing production in the city,” Housing Action Coalition Executive Director Corey Smith told the Chronicle. Smith stressed that developers had previously been reluctant to invest in San Francisco due to the city’s byzantine permitting process for new housing. California had required San Francisco to authorize 82,000 new housing units between 2023 and 2031, though the city only approved 3,039 units in the past 18 months, according to the Chronicle. San Francisco’s historical reluctance to build new housing, combined with its population of highly paid tech workers, created a market where demand greatly outpaced supply and led to high housing prices, according to the Chronicle. California’s high cost of living has been a major factor behind the exodus of residents leaving the Golden State, with 45% of Californians saying in a 2023 Public Policy Institute of California poll that high housing costs had them seriously considering moving somewhere else. Newsom, a supporter of SB 423, attempted to address his state’s housing shortage by pledging in 2017 to build 3.5 million new homes by 2035. Between Newsom’s taking office in 2019 and the beginning of 2024, however, California has increased its net housing supply by only about 600,000 units. San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, a Democrat who is running for mayor, opposes many of the new housing projects that SB 423 would fast-track, pressing the city attorney to sue California over the bill in January, the Chronicle reported. Peskin has clashed with Breed, the current mayor, over her desire to allow increased housing density in some parts of the city. Roughly three-quarters of current housing projects in San Francisco are eligible for streamlined approvals, the Chronicle reported. “There is a lot of PTSD in the development community about what it actually takes to build in San Francisco,” Smith said, according to the Chronicle. “It won’t take off all of a sudden but as the economy picks up and the rules become better known, it will be a game-changer.” Peskin did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment, nor did the offices of California’s governor and San Francisco’s mayor. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Dems’ Civil War Over Housing Comes to Head After San Francisco Forced to Allow More Construction appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. America First Legal (AFL) has published another batch of documents (referred to collectively as “Deep State Diaries”) originating from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advisory outfit, Homeland Intelligence Experts Group. AFL refers to this body as the “Brennan-Clapper committee” since it included former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan. The group has been disbanded, judging by AFL’s press release also thanks to its efforts, and now internal notes from meetings, which the non-profit said it obtained through litigation, have seen the light of day. These documents focus on the way the Biden administration and its allies handled the events of January 6, the Mar-a-Lago raid, and social platforms for what AFL says is “targeting and surveillance of political dissent.” The internal notes reveal that January 6 proved useful in expanding surveillance, with one member of the group saying that policies regarding collection and reporting intelligence on Americans changed following the events on that day in Washington. Notably, this has to do with more surveillance powers regarding what’s known as domestic violent extremism (DVE) – to whatever law enforcement decides to apply this label. And the way they apply it, according to AFL’s “Deep State Diaries” material, is to persons who are religious, members of the military, or Trump supporters. It’s easy to see how January 6 might have given momentum to carry out more surveillance of online speech – one of the participants in a conversation revealed in the now-unveiled documents also remarked that the nature of the support for the “mission set” had changed by becoming political. This is interpreted to mean that January 6 was an excuse to change the scope of the activities of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A, a part of the DHS) – by expanding it. As for the source of the support mentioned in the exchange, AFL notes that the group was heavily Democrat-leaning (98% of contributions the members – former intelligence community officials – made went to candidates of that party). An unnamed member of the group at one point made the suggestion that I&A should, post-January 6, adopt practices that “even the FBI says it does not have the authority to do, the Senate has refused to give to any law enforcement agency, and members of Congress generally oppose,” AFL remarked. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Unveiling the Brennan-Clapper Files: How January 6 Shifted Surveillance Powers appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. X and Brazil – more precisely, X and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes – are at it again. The US company behind the social platform is accusing Moraes, known as an online censorship proponent, of putting more pressure on X. The case concerns an order issued by Moraes for X to delete posts critical of a Brazilian politician, House Speaker Arthur Lira, and pay a fine equivalent to $18,000 (100,000 real). X’s Global Government Affairs account posted that the platform complied with the law of the land, that is, this order the same day (within six hours), having been given what is described as an unreasonable, 2-hour deadline to do this. Then, according to X, Moraes changed his mind regarding the fine. The original order said that the $18,000 was a daily penalty (for each day of failure to comply). But then, Moraes decided that the fine would be $126,000 (700,000 real) – and explained this “reimagining” of the provisions of the first order. Now the $18,000 fine was to be paid per offending post, not the number of days they remained on X. The Global Government Affairs said that the company respected Brazil’s law when it – pending a Supreme Court appeal – “withheld” the posts and paid the fine as set originally. X owner Elon Musk’s reaction to this was to sum the situation up as, “the law (namely, Moraes and the institutions he represents) violating the law.” X Corp CEO Linda Yaccarino also addressed the issue, stating, “We hope the Supreme Court will urgently address this issue.” The Global Government Affairs team said they expected the decision to be overturned. “Moraes’ attempt to increase the fine to 700,000 real ex post facto and in contradiction with his own prior order represents a clear denial of due process and should be overturned on appeal,” the post reads. Meanwhile, according to the Brazilian press, Moraes issued the June 13 order at Lira’s request. The posts that rubbed the Brazilian House speaker the wrong way referred to him as a “rapist” – an accusation made by his ex-wife, with the allegation thrown out in 2015 by the Supreme Court. The posts reviving this episode now seem to have coincided with internal political strife, this time around limiting the time within which abortions in cases of rape are legal (legislation supported by Lira). As for Moraes, his priority seems to be going after X, regardless of the context: as reports recall, he previously “authorized an investigation of Musk for obstruction of justice, incitement of criminal activity, and the willful criminal instrumentalization” of X. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Brazil’s Justice de Moraes Orders X to Delete Criticism, Fines It Despite Compliance appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Macron's Gamble Backfires, Right-Wing Party Leads in First Round of Voting

Vogue Magazine Rides to the Rescue with Jill Biden

Whitmer to Dems: Kiss Michigan Bye-Bye

Maddie’s story began at Liberty Animal Shelter, a place filled with animals in dire need of love and care. Among them was Maddie, a tiny puppy facing severe health challenges. Covered in fleas, suffering from a skin infection, malnourished, and with a body temperature dangerously below normal, Maddie’s condition was alarming. It was clear she... The post Tiny rescue dog melts hearts with adorable first meeting with 120-pound great dane appeared first on Animal Channel.

Romeo, a five-year-old Šarplaninac, recently visited a groomer who had never encountered his breed before. The Šarplaninac, also known as the Yugoslavian Shepherd, is a large and impressive guardian breed. Originating from the rugged Šar Mountains in the Balkans, this breed is renowned for its robust protective instincts and fearless nature, making it a formidable... The post Massive rare dog breed that many people have never heard of before appeared first on Animal Channel.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious liberty on Friday. In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled that Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Waco, Texas, does not have to perform same-sex weddings and may carry on with her lawsuit against the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision in 2015, noting that states must allow and recognize same sex marriages, Hensley, and many other religiously convicted judges, decided it would be best to stop performing weddings entirely.  Naturally however, the lack of available judges forced locals to travel further in order to get married. Feeling badly about this, Hensley decided to begin performing weddings again and worked with a local minister to get people married quickly at a low cost. Hensley worked tirelessly to serve the people of Waco. Here’s part of the case summary released by First Liberty who is representing Hensley.  When Judge Hensley was unable to marry a couple for scheduling or religious reasons, her staff would inform the couple of the accommodation arrangement and refer them to the civil officiant. Multiple couples were accommodated by this system and happily accepted the referral. No one ever complained about Judge Hensley’s referral system. In fact, most couples were grateful for the accommodation, which allowed them to get married without delay or additional cost. Despite the fact that this system was working, the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) got their panties in a wad and decided, “on its own authority,” to conduct a lengthy investigation into Hensley’s referral system. “Judge Hensley had followed the law, came up with an innovative solution to reconcile her religious convictions while serving the needs of her community, and received no complaints about her action,” the case summary notes adding that “the CJC still issued a ‘Public Warning’ to her, alleging that her refusal to officiate same-sex weddings and her referrals of couples to a local minister ‘cast reasonable doubt on [her] capacity to act impartially as a judge.’” First Liberty Institute and Jonathan F. Mitchell of Mitchell Law PLLC filed a lawsuit on behalf of Hensley noting that she was “wrongly punished” for her unwillingness to perform marriages for gay couples. The case went all the way up to the Texas Supreme Court who decided Friday that Hensley’s lawsuit may continue and she, along with First Liberty and Mitchell, can fight for her religious freedom. The court noted that she had standing to sue the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, but, as Local News KXXV noted, it did not “address whether she was protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  “Judge Hensley’s actions were not unethical, unconstitutional, or illegal in any way. Politely declining to participate in a same-sex wedding for religious reasons does not demonstrate bias or prejudice against gay people,” Justice Jimmy Blacklock wrote agreeing with the court’s ruling. Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty noted that “Judge Hensley's way of reconciling her religious beliefs while meeting the needs of her community is not only legal but should stand as a model for public officials across Texas. This is a great victory for Judge Hensley and renews her opportunity to seek justice under the religious liberty protections of the law." The case has not been thrown out and is being passed back down to the lower court. Hensley told KWTX Friday that she is “thrilled” and is “truly grateful to the Supreme Court for giving me the opportunity to continue to stand for religious liberty and the rule of law.”

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court released their ruling on the hotly contested issue of presidential immunity. The ruling was limited in that presidents had immunity for acts done in an official capacity under the office but certain acts – particularly those done outside the office of president – were not. But CNN’s Jake Tapper, who’s at the center of a $1 billion defamation suit against CNN, kept coming back to an insane, liberal conspiracy theory that the ruling opened the door to presidents assassinating their political rivals. After playing oral argument audio from April, in which liberal Justice Sotomayor floated the bonkers notion of a president ordering SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, Tapper asked a panel of CNN legal analysts: “Did the court say, ‘Yeah, you can assassinate a political rival?’” He was immediately rebuked by Elie Honig. “No, I don't think they did,” he declared, barely letting Tapper finish the question. “The basis for Donald Trump's legal argument that maybe he can order an assassination and still be okay. Is this preposterous argument that they offered below that, while a president can only be indicted if he’s first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected that argument; impeachment has nothing to do with this, that's not the test.” His fellow legal analysts also shot down Tapper’s suggestion (Click “expand”): ELLIOT WILLIAMS: To your question, Jake, someone's got to decide what's the official act. Right? The challenge here, and this was what Sotomayor was getting at in her point, somebody has to make the call as to whether even the SEAL – the preposterous SEAL Team 6 example falls under the ambit of official acts and that's litigation months in court? JIM SCHULTZ: No. Agreed. I think that's something that we'll have to be decided by the trial court, if we were faced with that preposterous type of scenario, no doubt about it.     But less than two minutes later, Tapper latched on Sotomayor’s dissent to insist that his interpretation of the ruling was correct: I wanna just read something from a Justice Sotomayor's dissent on some of these issues that we're talking about. “Let the president violate the law.” She writes in her dissent, “Let them exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain. Let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like them to be. That is the majority's message today. Orders the Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival: immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power: immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon: immune. Immune, immune, immune.” He prefaced that reading with by bloviating about how “obviously there is a crisis of confidence in the U.S Supreme Court.” CNN anchor Kasie Hunt, who has made a name for herself by shouting down criticism of CNN, agreed with Tapper that Sotomayor’s opinion was a “remarkable and very stark way to think about out it.” Hunt went on to whine that she doesn’t like how the Supreme Court thinks about how their rulings affect “far into our future.” She argued that they “can't pull it apart from the immediate political contexts in which we are living” and the threat former President Trump posed. “[T]his is going to be viewed as much more of an inflammatory situation than perhaps it is when you consider that, yes, of course it's writing history books as well,” she huffed. CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel said the quiet part out loud when she asked the legal analysts about “one of the big concerns” in “getting evidence out in in front of voters before November.” “[W]ould an evidentiary hearing be a way for Jack Smith to get some of that evidence out there in the public record?” she wanted to know. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s Trump Immunity Ruling July 1, 2024 10:46 27 a.m. Eastern (…) JAKE TAPPER: That was a stunning moment in April, did the court say, “Yeah, you can assassinate a political rival?” ELIE HONIG: No, I don't think they did. That's a ridiculous answer by Donald Trump's team, a dangerous and reckless answered. One really important thing. The basis for Donald Trump's legal argument that maybe he can order an assassination and still be okay. Is this preposterous argument that they offered below that, while a president can only be indicted if he’s first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected that argument; impeachment has nothing to do with this, that's not the test. ELLIOT WILLIAMS: To your question, Jake, someone's got to decide what's the official act. Right? The challenge here, and this was what Sotomayor was getting at in her point, somebody has to make the call as to whether even the SEAL – the preposterous SEAL Team 6 example falls under the ambit of official acts and that's litigation months in court? JIM SCHULTZ: No. Agreed. I think that's something that we'll have to be decided by the trial court, if we were faced with that preposterous type of scenario, no doubt about it. TAPPER: Jamie. JAMIE GANGEL: I just have a quick question for lawyers. So, one of the big concerns is getting evidence out in in front of voters before November. We now don't think a trial – TAPPER: We’re not going to get it. GANGEL:  - is possible. TAPPER: No. GANGEL: Is it possible – one lawyer just texted, would an evidentiary hearing be a way for Jack Smith to get some of that evidence out there in the public record? HONIG: So the judge, district judge now has to have an evidentiary hearing. She can absolutely do that before the election. She can hear from witnesses – We're not going to get a verdict, I guess the judge will say some things were official or unofficial, but there's not going to be a convicted felon tag hang on, Donald Trump for this case. (…) 10:48:16 a.m. Eastern TAPPER: So, listen to this because obviously there is a crisis of confidence in the U.S Supreme Court –among many other institutions in America – and I wanna just read something from a Justice Sotomayor's dissent on some of these issues that we're talking about. “Let the president violate the law.” She writes in her dissent, “Let them exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain. Let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like them to be. That is the majority's message today. Orders the Navy SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival: immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power: immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon: immune. Immune, immune, immune.” “That is the majority's message today,” from Sonia Sotomayor. KAIE HUNT: Yeah. I mean, it's remarkable and very stark way to think about out it and you mentioned the crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court; our varying institutions. I just – I can't help but think, while, on the one hand, yes, this is a decision that's going to affect president's far into our future, you can't pull it apart from the immediate political contexts in which we are living. TAPPER: Yep. HUNT: And note that in a 5-4 decision like this split along ideological lines, like this is going to – TAPPER: 5-4 or 6-3? HUNT: Excuse me, I may have, I may have misspoken. It may have been 6-3. My fault. But still along ideological lines, I should say. Right? Is how this broke down? TAPPER: Right. Yeah, yeah. No. Yeah. The court's shifted. HUNT: Right, you're absolutely right. But it – it just I think that in the closely divided times in which we live, this is going to be viewed as much more of an inflammatory situation than perhaps it is when you consider that, yes, of course it's writing history books as well. (…)