Tag: california

HERE WE GO AGAIN – In California Election For Congressional Redistricting – “See Through” Ballot Envelopes Allow You to See How Voter Voted

Another California election and another corrupt result in the works.

California doesn’t have elections.  They have madness and those with oversite gaslight the entire sham. The state is codifying unconstitutional election activities and like communist takeovers throughout history, no one is stopping them. 

BALLOT HARVESTING and MAIL-IN BALLOTS

Since California went to ballot harvesting the results have been devastating for the GOP in Orange County, California and across the state. Heritage reported in 2019:

Vote harvesting is the collection of absentee ballots from voters by a third party who then delivers them to election officials. The term “vote harvesting” was essentially unknown to the general public until the North Carolina State Board of Elections overturned the results of the 2018 election for the Ninth Congressional District due to illegal vote harvesting, what the board called a “coordinated, unlawful and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme.”

It was also raised as a concern in California after the unexpected losses of Republican-held congressional seats, including in Orange County, a traditional Republican stronghold, where the registrar of voters said that individuals were “dropping off maybe 100 or 200 ballots” at a time.

Ballot harvesting is still in place and all registered voters receive a ballot for the election in the mail.  The chain of custody surrounding ballots harvested in the state is not adequate or is non-existent.  Who knows where the completed ballots come from?

VOTER IDENTIFICATION

Not only is it almost impossible to determine where a ballot came from, it is also impossible to determine who the ballot came from.  Local governments in the state can’t ask for ID’s from voters.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed legislation that prevents local governments from requiring voters to present identification at the polls, a law aimed at curbing conservative efforts in cities like Huntington Beach.

Californians literally have no idea who sent in the millions of ballots counted in the 2024 Election.

ELECTION OBSERVER VOTER SIGNATURE CHALLENGES DENIED

We can add to the above list this additional lack of transparency.  Election observers were prevented from the reasonable ability to observe the 2024 Election.  If they identified anything, they lacked the ability to do anything about it.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom approves slavery reparations agency

Gavin Newsom on Friday approved a new state agency to administer restitution for descendants of slaves — a victory for Black lawmakers and advocates despite stopping short of providing cash reparations.

The Democratic governor signed the legislation, SB 518, five years after forming a task force in the wake of George Floyd’s murder to study the legacy of slavery in California and how the state could implement reparations policies — and more than two years after the panel released its extensive recommendations.

Newsom mentioned the bill during a conversation about racism on the podcast “Higher Learning with Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay.”

“I signed a bill two days ago with the Black Caucus as it relates to creating a new office to address these systemic issues,” he said during an episode released Friday morning.

Pushing reparations proposals across the finish line has proved challenging — especially as the post-pandemic political climate shifted rightward and the state confronted multibillion-dollar budget deficits. Newsom himself threw cold water on the notion of writing checks to descendants of slaves when he said in 2023, “Dealing with the legacy of slavery is about much more than cash payments.”

Last year, late amendments sought by Newsom, combined with caucus in-fighting, sank the effort to stand up a new reparations agency. The governor later vetoed a bill that would have provided redress for victims of racially-motivated eminent domain, noting the state lacked an agency to administer the program.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom Handed $53 Million in State Contracts to His Biggest Donors

California has become a case study in how political connections translate directly into profit. 

For Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wealthiest supporters, campaign contributions appear to double as investments—ones that yield lucrative state contracts, taxpayer-funded benefits, and prestigious appointments.

Since Newsom entered office in 2019, records show that California has steered more than $53 million in state contracts to companies owned or managed by his top donors. 

These contracts have covered everything from wildfire prevention and emergency response to public health services. 

The overlap between political contributions and state spending highlights an entrenched culture where those with financial ties to the governor reap disproportionate rewards.

Donors have also secured massive tax breaks and credits. 

California’s climate initiatives, energy projects, and green subsidy programs have disproportionately benefited firms connected to Newsom’s political backers. 

These arrangements not only raise ethical questions but also distort the competitive landscape, favoring politically connected companies over those competing on merit.

The pattern extends beyond financial contracts. 

Newsom’s allies have gained placement in elite academic circles, including appointments to university boards and advisory positions. 

Such appointments provide not only prestige but also influence over education policy and access to state resources. 

For major donors, the returns extend far beyond dollars and cents—they reach into the very institutions that shape California’s future.

The controversy has grown more prominent as Newsom positions himself on the national stage. 

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom’s Wife Pocketed $300K a Year from Political Insiders

California’s “First Partner,” Jennifer Siebel Newsom, has built a business empire that thrives on political connections. 

Public records reveal that the wife of Gov. Gavin Newsom runs companies filled with her husband’s former Democrat aides and confidants. 

At the same time, she collects hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments from the state and lobbyists.

Siebel Newsom, a documentary filmmaker and activist, operates The Representation Project, a nonprofit that pushes progressive messaging in schools and public institutions. 

That nonprofit has accepted donations from corporations actively lobbying Gavin Newsom’s administration, raising serious concerns about influence peddling. 

Her companies and foundations have also benefited from the support of the governor’s political allies, creating a direct overlap between California’s government apparatus and the Newsom family’s personal ventures.

The financial entanglements are wide-ranging. 

In recent years, her nonprofit has received state contracts and corporate donations that coincide with policy interests before her husband’s office. 

Lobbyists and politically active firms saw their contributions rewarded with access to California’s decision-making machine. 

At the same time, Siebel Newsom’s family charity, the Siebel Family Charitable Foundation, directed tens of thousands of dollars back into her nonprofit, further blurring the line between charitable activity and personal enrichment.

This network of organizations and donors has allowed the Newsoms to advance a politicized agenda in California schools while financially benefiting from it. 

The Representation Project has been at the center of programs that promote progressive identity politics and diversity initiatives, often funded with taxpayer dollars. 

Keep reading

California’s Fast Food Minimum Wage Hike Cost the State 18,000 Jobs. That Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone.

In 2023, California passed a law requiring a $20 per hour minimum wage for all fast-food restaurants with more than 60 locations nationwide. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom portrayed the union-supported law as pro-worker, saying it moved the state “one step closer to fairer wages.”

Other California politicians supporting the law claimed it would provide a path to economic security for lower-income workers, enabling them to more assuredly put food on the table.

“Sacrifice, dedication, and the power of a government who serves its people is what got us to this moment,” said then-Assemblymember Chris Holden (D–Pasadena).

But the carve-out for smaller chains was an implicit acknowledgment that the law would come with costs—costs that smaller businesses with slimmer margins presumably could not afford. New research suggests that the mandate has also resulted in fewer jobs for struggling entry-level workers.

The law went into effect in April 2024 and increased the hourly pay of an estimated half a million workers across the state. But without the law in place, thousands more workers would likely have been employed.

Keep reading

Katie Porter’s Nasty, Abusive Attitude Is Standard, Antisocial Democrat Behavior

Reaction to newly surfaced videos this week of California Democrat gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter being an absolute horror of a human being to others is largely summed up as, “Wow, what a witch.” But there’s something deeper to consider when you put it in the context of Democrats more broadly and their extensively documented tendency to wreak havoc on innocent and unassuming people.

For the uninitiated, one of the videos featuring Porter has her in a contentious back-and-forth with a California-based TV journalist asking the loud-mouth congresswoman if she feels the need to appeal to any voters who supported President Trump in the last election. To that wildly offensive query — How dare a Democrat be questioned whether they can persuade potentially reluctant voters? — Porter threatened to walk out of the interview, scolding the journalist for giving her an “unhappy experience.” In another video, which is several years old, Porter is seen talking to a web camera with a smile — this was an apparently more happy experience — before she erupts in a volcanic rage at a woman who steps into view behind her. “Get out of my f-cking shot,” she says with the hardest f sound her two massive front teeth could muster.

This woman is a renowned monstrosity. Text messages between Porter and one of her congressional office staffers made public in 2022 showed her haranguing the poor girl over having been infected with a highly contagious, airborne virus called “Covid” and Porter blaming the staffer for spreading it. “It’s really disappointing,” the then-congresswoman said to her. The staffer profusely apologized and explained she had a lapse in following the office’s medical testing protocol due to the death of a loved one. “Well you gave me covid,” Porter replied. “In 25 months, it took you not following the rules to get me sick.”

In response to the video wherein Porter is screaming profanity at an adult woman behind her, Porter said it’s because she holds her staff to a “high standard,” and she said she was hoping to be more “intentional at demonstrating my gratitude” for the peons who do her dirty work. Independent journalist Josh Barro perfectly summarized the comment as “stereotypical therapy-speak from the sort of person who is rude because she thinks being politically progressive is a substitute for being interpersonally pleasant.”

Barro said it as if he could be talking about any random miserable person, but this is a pattern specific to Democrats: unpleasant, antisocial people who belittle and demean anyone they perceive as inferior (which, incidentally, includes anyone unlucky enough to staff their offices and anyone who can’t help them win reelection).

Everyone working on Capitol Hill or paying granular attention to politics in Washington knows this. Stories of Democrat leaders behaving toward their staffs in abhorrent ways are legion. A lot of those stories are on record and many more are casually shared among people who work in town. When I lived in Washington, a friend of mine who resided near the home of Georgia Democrat Sen. Raphael Warnock told me he would see the senator dropped off each day in a car driven by what was obviously an office staffer. That staffer would get out of the driver’s seat, walk to the back to open the door for Warnock, who handed the staffer his bag. The two would then walk to the senator’s front door, with Warnock in the lead. Once Warnock was inside the doorstep, he would take his bag and the staffer would then call a ride share service to pick him up, since the car he had driven was Warnock’s.

Mind you, staffers are not paid by the members they support. They’re paid by American taxpayers, with money allocated to each congressional office. And it is simply a point of fact that you never hear these stories about Republican members. Tell me one story you’ve heard about Donald Trump or J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio or Mike Johnson or any Republican treating their official staffs this way. I’ll wait.

Keep reading

Katie Porter verbally abused then-husband in explicit tirade: ‘F–king idiot,’ and ‘too f–king dumb’ to operate a phone, court docs say

California gubernatorial contender Katie Porter once dumped scolding mashed potatoes on her then-husband’s head during a fight, resurfaced divorce documents allege as clips of her fiery temper continue to go viral.

The former Golden State congresswoman’s ex-hubby, Matthew Hoffman, filed for divorce in 2013 and detailed that the Democrat — who has a reputation for exploding at her staff — frequently abused him verbally and threw “toys, books and other objects” at him during their marriage, The Post previously reported.

Hoffman also filed for a restraining order from his rage-prone spouse, claiming she would “routinely” call him a “f—ing idiot” and “f—ing incompetent” – and shattered a glass coffee pot in their kitchen counter in March 2012 when she felt their house wasn’t clean enough.

“She would not let me have a cell phone because she said, ‘You’re too f—ing dumb to operate it,’” Hoffman said of Porter, 51, who has been in the hot seat this week as videos capturing her going scorched-earth and berating her former staff members made headlines.

Keep reading

Palisades Fires arsonist: “I literally burnt the Bible I had. It felt so amazing. I felt so liberated”

When fires broke out in Los Angeles in January, climate alarmists were quick to point to “climate change” as the reason,  including Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann of Climategate fame.  “Conspiracy theorists” and citizen journalists who were doing their own research, of course, knew better.  Investigators, led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, were not fooled by climate change propaganda either.

Yesterday, Jonathan Rinderknecht, a 29-year-old Uber driver from Melbourne, Florida, was arrested and charged with malicious arson for allegedly starting the 2025 Palisades fire in Los Angeles, a blaze that caused widespread destruction, destroying more than 6,000 homes and buildings, and at least 12 fatalities.

Rinderknecht was charged with one count of “destruction of property by means of fire” and is accused of intentionally setting the Lachman fire on 1 January 2025, which later escalated into the Palisades fire.

Federal prosecutors revealed that evidence collected from his digital devices included AI-generated images of a burning city created via ChatGPT and text prompts describing the burning of a Bible and feeling “liberated” after burning a Bible:

“I am 28 years old. And… I basically… This just happened. Maybe like… I don’t know, maybe like 3 months ago or something. Like, the realisation of all this. I literally burnt the Bible that I had. It felt amazing. I felt so liberated,” Rinderknecht wrote in a ChatGPT prompt.

Keep reading

Democrats, Media Rushed To Blame Deadly California Fire on Climate Change. It Was Actually Arson.

Democrats and media outlets were quick to blame climate change and oil companies for the devastating Palisades Fire that ravaged Los Angeles earlier this year. But that narrative crumbled on Wednesday when federal law enforcement officials charged a man for deliberately starting the fire.

Federal prosecutors in California charged Jonathan Rinderknecht with one count of destruction of property by means of fire, a charge that carries a maximum time of 20 years in federal prison. “While we cannot bring back what victims lost, we hope this criminal case brings some measure of justice to those affected by this horrific tragedy,” said acting U.S. attorney Bill Essayli.

The charge—which Essayli said was informed by witness statements, video surveillance, cell phone data, and an analysis of fire dynamics conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—cuts against the narrative prominent Democratic lawmakers and media outlets pushed following the tragic event.

“If you don’t believe in science, believe your own damn eyes,” Gov. Gavin Newsom (D., Calif.) wrote in a post with photographs of the Los Angeles fire. The post came in response to news that President Donald Trump would withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accords in January.

After prosecutors announced the charge against Rinderknecht on Wednesday, Newsom wrote it “marks an important step toward uncovering how the horrific Palisades Fire began.”

Keep reading

California “Hate Speech” Bill Would Crush Dissent

If enacted and it somehow clears legal challenges, California Senate Bill 771 will be the first online censorship law of its kind in America. It would also likely pave a path for other states run by people with no tolerance for dissent.    

On September 22, the California Legislature sent SB 771 to Governor Gavin Newsom. He has until October 13 to sign it. If he doesn’t veto or sign the proposal, it becomes law anyway.

Mainstream media outlets claim that SB 771 “targets social media platforms for the role they could play in aiding and abetting in hate crimes by pushing content that could lead to a hate crime.”

The bill allows people to sue social-media companies for up to $1 million per violation. If the litigant is a minor, the fine could double.

Tucker Carlson’s analysis of the bill is more accurate than the mainstream media’s. Carlson:

That’s a censorship law.… The state of California, under Gavin Newsom, is about to — we think — censor the opinions of Americans, not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they continue to do what they want to do in secret.

Coerced Censorship

The bill uses broad terms that make it easy to justify censorship. It reads:

California law prohibits all persons and entities, including corporations, from engaging in, aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit acts of violence, intimidation, or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics.

Merriam Webster defines “intimidated” as “to make timid or fearful.” Synonyms include “bully” and “frighten.” Fear and intimidation are subjective emotions that have significantly increased among America’s younger and more unstable generations. People are swimming in pools of victimhood and mental illness today. We constantly hear about a spike in anxiety. What happens when we create laws that allow litigation on the basis of largely subjective emotions?

But the more likely primary intent here is to coerce social-media companies into pre-censoring. The senior vice president of social-media company Parler, Elise Pierotti, said of the bill:

SB 771 isn’t about protecting civil rights, it’s California’s brazen attempt to export its one-party censorship regime to every corner of the internet. This bill hands Sacramento the power to bully platforms into preemptively scrubbing dissent on everything from border security to parental rights. We’ve seen Big Tech abuse vague “hate speech” rules to throttle conservatives for years, including shutting down our platform in 2021; now, lawmakers want to make it mandatory with teeth-shattering fines. This must be stopped before it buries the First Amendment.

Shoshana Weissmann, director of digital media at the R Street Institute, also suspects this is the drafter’s main agenda. She told the Daily Caller that “rather than risk liability for showing users content one could argue (even if it doesn’t actually) violate a law, platforms will over-moderate and remove posts in order to stay out of court.”

Keep reading