Connect with us

Politics

Column: We hold these truths to be self-evident — the Golden State is still golden. And yes, we are Americans

Published

on

Column: We hold these truths to be self-evident — the Golden State is still golden. And yes, we are Americans

California has been a beacon, a destination, a paradise and promised land ever since its headlong expansion in a rush of gold fever.

It’s also been a perennial source of envy, mockery and contempt.

That naysaying has gained much greater currency in recent years as California’s population has contracted for the first time in more than a century.

The “exodus” has become an industry, stoking real estate markets from Nevada to Tennessee, fanning the red-versus-blue political flames and launching a thousand what-went-wrong analyses.

Advertisement

The latest insult — or bracing reality check? — came last week in a Los Angeles Times poll that found 50% of adults nationwide believe California is in decline. (Bummer, man.)

Nearly half the Republicans surveyed said the state is “not really American.” Whatever that means.

L.A. Times columnists Mark Z. Barabak (a proud California native) and Anita Chabria (a happy Ohio transplant) discuss the poll, the hating by haters and the state of their troubled but still much-loved state.

Barabak: So first off, Anita, are you OK? You haven’t choked to death on the noxious air pollution, or been run over by some smash-and-grab robber making a getaway through your pothole-filled neighborhood?

Chabria: To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of our death are greatly exaggerated — again. The Golden State remains alive, kicking and, dare I say it, a thriving part of the United States.

Advertisement

But I am troubled that nearly 30% of respondents agreed with the statement that California is “not really American.” Nearly half of Republicans thought that, which is less shocking. But inexplicably, 21% of Californians did, too. That’s more than just the Fox crowd regurgitating the right-wing narrative of California as the spawning ground of social evils.

People, we joined the union in 1850 — ahead of Kansas, West Virginia and Nebraska to name a few. We’ve been American longer than many of the so-called heartland states. I’ve been puzzled for days over whether a third of America is terrible at geography, or history — or if they think it’s some sort of dig at California.

What do you think, Mark? Are we in fact not American in some fundamental way I don’t understand?

Barabak: I suppose it depends how you define American.

If you’re talking about a certain kind of America — one that is overwhelmingly white and conservative in its social, political and cultural values — than, no, California fails to measure up to that, er, standard.

Advertisement

We’ve been a majority-minority state now for more than a generation. Politically, the state has leaned strongly Democratic for decades, after supporting Republicans for much of our history.

Culturally, we’ve always tended toward broadmindedness — or being overly permissive, in the eyes of critics. Fresh starts and reinvention have been a lure since the first gold seekers — the ones digging actual nuggets — flocked here from the more straitened and class-conscious East Coast.

As you suggest, it’s not just Fox News. There are plenty of alienated Californians — the state has more than 5 million registered Republicans, which exceeds the population of many states — who feel overlooked in Sacramento and looked down upon by the supposed sophisticates in San Francisco and Los Angeles. That probably accounts for the 21% that had you scratching your head.

But to be clear, a lot of folks interviewed in the poll are obviously viewing California through a partisan lens. Or, perhaps it should be said, while wearing a thick set of blinders.

I mean, 3 in 10 Republicans said the state has a worse natural environment than other states. Really? Go shout that from the top of Yosemite Falls. Or in Santa Barbara at sunset. Or on a sunny winter day in Joshua Tree National Park, as folks in the Midwest thaw their snow shovels so they can dig their cars out of the drifts.

Advertisement

That said, we’ve got plenty of problems, no?

Chabria: Every place does and, of course, we are no exception.

The survey highlighted one problem most of us agree on: The cost of living in California is too high. More than 80% of California residents felt that way, and it’s no shock.

I’d venture to guess that has a lot to do with the price of housing. People can’t afford rent, which leads to a whole host of other problems — including older people being forced into homelessness.

I genuinely believe that California’s future depends on finding a way to build massive amounts of new housing, not just a few units here and there. We need the mental health beds promised by Proposition 1 on the March ballot and to find ways to create more affordable homes for the broad swath of middle-class Californians.

Advertisement

And that’s just for starters.

But the survey also pointed out that the majority of Californians, including myself, are happy living here.

So the Huntington Beach City Council can rant all they want, and the haters can hate. California will always stand for diversity, freedom and tolerance — all values that sadly seem to be growing scarcer east of the Sierra.

Where do you see the bright spots, Mark?

Barabak: Apart from its unsurpassed physical beauty, California is still a place that attracts innovators and entrepreneurs. It’s still a harbor for the politically persecuted and those who feel unwanted or unwelcome living elsewhere as their genuine selves.

Advertisement

Yes, our sales and income taxes are high compared to some other places. Housing, as you suggested, is obscenely expensive and we desperately need more of it.

But check out life in other cheaper, supposedly better places. Look into the cost of insurance in Florida. Get nickel and dimed every few miles on toll roads back East. Sweat your way through a summer in Texas and hope the power grid — and your air conditioning — doesn’t go out.

Sure, our government regulates with a heavier hand than elsewhere, and it’s not hard to find examples of excess. But isn’t it nice, for instance, to breathe clean air and be spared the teary eyes and clenched chest that smog-suffocated folks in Southern California experienced not so many decades ago?

Speaking of seeing through the gloom, here’s one heartening finding in that otherwise dismal poll: The attitude of young people.

Seven in 10 of those ages 18-34 see California as a trendsetter and, at 43% of respondents, were twice as likely as other Americans to say they would consider moving to the state. They believe California’s future is bright. Me, too.

Advertisement

I’ve moved around a lot, including the obligatory stint — for a political hack like me — in Washington, D.C. I thought I’d spent my career covering our nation’s capital, but lasted just seven years. Like Dorothy, who went all the way to Oz to know she really wanted to be in Kansas, California tugged at me the whole time I was away.

For all the state’s difficulties — or challenges, if you prefer — I can’t imagine ever living any place else. California resides deep in my heart.

How about you?

Chabria: I love California.

As a mixed-race woman with mixed-race kids, I value its tolerance and diversity. I value its willingness to fight and lead at this critical time when democracy is fragile. I value that it’s truly a live-and-let-live kind of place, even when people don’t agree.

Advertisement

To me, the poll results say less about life in California than the sad effectiveness of right-wing political propaganda and the power of fearmongering over truth. MAGA needs California to be a villain, to represent the supposed failures of the Democratic Party, especially around crime and immigration, and reality be damned.

If no one else wants them, we’ll take the tired and poor, the huddled masses. California always has and always will embody the American dream, that each of us matters and each of us belongs.

That respect for equity and equality is what makes us the Golden State.

Advertisement

Politics

Appeals court declares DC ban on certain gun magazines unconstitutional

Published

on

Appeals court declares DC ban on certain gun magazines unconstitutional

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

An appeals court struck down a local law in the District of Columbia that banned gun magazines containing more than 10 bullets, describing the measure as unconstitutional. 

The ruling Thursday from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals also reversed the conviction of Tyree Benson, who was taken into custody in 2022 for being in possession of a handgun with a magazine that could contain 30 bullets, according to The New York Times. 

“Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today,” Judge Joshua Deahl wrote on behalf of the two-judge majority in the three-judge panel.   

“Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment,” he added.

Advertisement

A salesperson holds a high capacity magazine for an AR-15 rifle at a store in Orem, Utah, in March 2021.  (George Frey/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“This appeal presents a Second Amendment challenge to the District’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding ‘more than 10 rounds of ammunition.’ Appellant Tyree Benson argues that ban contravenes the Second Amendment so that his conviction for violating it should be vacated,” Deahl also wrote. “The United States, which prosecuted Benson in the underlying case and defended the ban’s constitutionality in the initial round of appellate briefing, now concedes that this ban violates the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia, which is also a party to this appeal, continues to defend the constitutionality of its ban.” 

“We therefore reverse Benson’s conviction for violating the District’s magazine capacity ban. And because Benson could not have registered, procured a license to carry, or lawfully possessed ammunition for his firearm given that it was equipped with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, we likewise reverse his convictions for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition,” Deahl said.

Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, the judge who dissented, wrote that, “The majority bases its common usage analysis on ownership statistics that show only that magazines holding 11, 15, or 17 rounds of ammunition are in common use.” 

GUN RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT

Advertisement

Magazines at Norm’s Gun & Ammo shop in Biddeford, Maine, in April 2013. From left, the first two are high capacity magazines for handguns, an AK-47 magazine, an AR-15 magazine and an SKS magazine.   (Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images)

“The majority, however, fails to contend with the reality that these statistics do not support the conclusion that the particularly lethal 30-round magazine, such as the one Mr. Benson possessed here, is in common use for self-defense. It simply is not,” she added.

The District of Columbia can now appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or ask the local appeals court to take another look at the ruling with a larger panel of judges, according to the Times. 

High-capacity rifle magazines are removed from a display at Freddie Bear Sports in January 2023 in Tinley Park, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The newspaper also reported that in a previous case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of the local law surrounding gun magazine sizes. It’s unclear how the two rulings will interact. 

Related Article

Mike Lee unveils national constitutional carry bill to override 'hostile' state gun laws
Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: The stars align for Democrats in Texas. Trump is helping them

Published

on

Contributor: The stars align for Democrats in Texas. Trump is helping them

If Democrats expect to flip a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, they’ll need all the stars to align. This almost never happens, because politics has a way of scrambling the constellations. But on Tuesday, the first star blinked on.

I’m referring to state Rep. James Talarico’s victory over Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary. Most political prognosticators agree that Talarico, an eloquent young Democrat who speaks openly about his Christian faith, is their best hope in a red state that Donald Trump won by 14 points.

The second star was Crockett’s conciliatory concession — far from a foregone conclusion after a nasty primary — in which she pledged to “do my part,” adding that “Texas is primed to turn blue, and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person.”

The third star — a vulnerable Republican opponent — has not yet appeared over the Texas sky, although forecasters say it might.

Most observers agree that scandal-plagued Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton would be beatable in the general election, while incumbent Sen. John Cornyn would present a much tougher challenge. Cornyn is the kind of steady, conventional politician who tends to win elections, and so, of course, modern voters are extremely suspicious of him.

Advertisement

In the GOP primary on Tuesday, Cornyn’s 42% share of the vote edged out Paxton by about a point. Unfortunately for Republicans, neither candidate garnered enough votes to avoid a May 26 runoff election.

Conventional wisdom suggests that when a majority of Republican voters choose someone other than the incumbent in the first round of voting, an even greater majority will inevitably break toward the challenger in the runoff. If that happens, Paxton would become the nominee, and Democrats would get their third star to align.

Even better for Democrats — a fourth star, so to speak — would be for this protracted runoff to become a “knife fight,” as one Texas Republican predicted, in which Paxton staggers out of the fight as the battered GOP nominee.

The only problem is that Republicans can see these stars aligning, too.

And while the Texas Senate seat matters a lot on its own, it matters even more in the context of nationwide midterm elections, in which a Texas win would help Democrats take back the Senate.

Advertisement

Enter the cavalry — or, more accurately, President Trump, who is now entering a second war in the span of a week, this one a civil war in the Lone Star State.

The day after the primary, Trump announced that he would be “making my Endorsement soon, and will be asking the candidate that I don’t Endorse to immediately DROP OUT OF THE RACE!”

Reports suggest Trump may endorse Cornyn in order to save the seat for Republicans. But who knows? Trump is famously unpredictable. And it’s likely he admires Paxton’s ability to survive scandals that would have caused most normal politicians to curl up in the fetal position. As they say, “game recognizes game.”

Whomever he backs, conventional wisdom also says Trump should make his endorsement “soon,” as he promised. That would save Republicans a lot of time and money. But Trump currently has enormous leverage. Right now, people are coming to him, pleading for his support.

Do you think he wants to resolve that situation quickly?

Advertisement

Me neither.

With Trump, you never know what you’re going to get. In 2021, he helped torpedo Republican Senate candidates David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in Georgia, handing Democrats control of the Senate. The following year he backed football legend Herschel Walker in another Georgia Senate race, which did not exactly work out great. Democrat Raphael Warnock won and holds that seat, though Walker is now ambassador to the Bahamas so that’s something.

This is to say: Trump’s political assistance does not always assist.

It’s unclear whether Trump’s endorsement would be dispositive — and whether he could muscle the other Republican out of the primary race.

Paxton, for example, initially vowed to stay in the race, no matter what. (He later suggested he would “consider” dropping out if the Senate passes the SAVE America Act, a bill to require proof of citizenship to vote.)

Advertisement

There’s also this: Trump’s endorsements tend to either be made out of vengeance or to pad the totals of an already inevitable winner, so his track record is probably overrated.

Case in point: While most of his endorsed candidates won their Texas elections, his endorsed candidate for agriculture commissioner lost reelection. And according to the Texas Tribune, “at least three Trump-endorsed candidates for Congress were headed to runoffs, one of them in a distant second place.”

Another issue is that Cornyn needs more than a perfunctory endorsement: He needs a clear, full-throated endorsement.

In a 2022 Missouri Senate race, Trump endorsed “ERIC,” which was awkward because two candidates named Eric were running.

More recently, he endorsed two rival candidates in the same 2026 Arizona gubernatorial race — like betting on both teams in the Super Bowl.

Advertisement

This is all to say that the only thing standing between Texas Democrats and a rare celestial alignment may be the whims of the Republican Party’s one and only star.

Sure, establishment Republicans can beg Trump to quickly step in and settle the race, and maybe he will. But it’s entirely possible the president will find a way to blow up his party’s chances for holding the U.S. Senate — and there’s nothing they can do to stop him.

When you’re a star, they let you do it.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

Published

on

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

transcript

transcript

President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”

Advertisement
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

By Jackeline Luna

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending