Geriatric Congress: Nancy Pelosi, 83, Announces She is Running AGAIN

Senior members of Congress hold some of the most important committee positions, yet probably can’t tell you what they ate for breakfast

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Twitter Friday she is running for reelection. Pelosi, who was born in 1940 and is now 83, will be 86 at the end of her next term in Congress.

In the summer of 1940, France had just fallen to the Nazis and Britain was fighting for survival. U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt began to prepare America for war.

Now, 83 years later, Nancy Pelosi, who if she was an airline pilot, would have been required to retire at age 65 – in 2005 – and perhaps like an aging airline pilot, has only gotten more dangerous after age 65.

“Now more than ever our City needs us to advance San Francisco values and further our recovery. Our country needs America to show the world that our flag is still there, with liberty and justice for ALL. That is why I am running for reelection — and respectfully ask for your vote. -Nancy”

Is Pelosi talking about the San Francisco values that have rendered her city a crime-laden hell hole? According to a new Gallup poll released lagte August, one-half of Americans view San Francisco as unsafe. And it’s probably worse than their perception.

Another report in August found that San Francisco has had the worst recovery of any city from the pandemic. I know – show me your SHOCKED face.

Is that the City whose values Pelosi touts, where drug addicted street vagrants drop their pants to poop on the street? Maybe Nancy would like to step out of her chauffeured limousine and take a stroll along San Francisco streets as detailed in the official “defecation map.” Or visit the empty shells of the sumptuous retail establishments, boutiques and high end markets she used to frequent. Or try to pick up a prescription at a San Francisco Walgreens… (Are all of them gone now?)

Pelosi has serious insider trading accusations to deal with, leading many to assume she, as with the other elderly members of the House and Senate (Feinstein, McConnell), stick around to manage their dubious dealings. Could they really want to die while in office otherwise?

As I reported in 2021, if the more elderly members of Congress ran for local political offices instead – City Council and County Supervisor seats – they likely would not be elected as local voters would recognize that they had reached an age where they should retire, save for a few vibrant and relevant ones. But tucked away safely in Washington D.C., away from local prying eyes and local scrutiny, these incumbents continue to be reelected.

While most Americans are looking to retire as they near age 65 or 70, it appears members of Congress are just getting warmed up as they age. They’ve been in office so many years, their special interest funders need them to remain. And that is the real priority – special interests, rather than constituents, particularly for members in office for decades.

This is clearly becoming a serious issue. And it’s not a Republican or Democrat thing – it’s an issue in both political parties. These Senior members of Congress hold some of the most important committee positions, yet some probably can’t tell you what they ate for breakfast. They deal with (rather, their senior staff deal with) national security, defense and the military, appropriations, homeland security, judiciary, and are privy to national secrets.

With 90-year old U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) reportedly having very public cognitive issues, this is a serious situation. Who is Feinstein’s handler, because surely she has one? Who finishes her sentences for her? Who whispers answers in her ear? Who directs her to the next meeting? Who prepares cheat sheets of notes for her? Who runs interference for Feinstein with the media?

Perhaps most important, who made her 20-year Chinese spy staffer problem go away? How is it that no one in Congress demanded an investigation into her office? Did Nancy or Mitch have anything to do with that?

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) certainly has her own age-related issues, despite some of the best medical care in the world, and an obviously skilled plastic surgeon. As Speaker prior to losing the House to Republicans, to call Pelosi awkward during television interviews was an understatement. She slurred her words, appeared unable to coherently finish a sentence, made weird jerky movements with her hands, and still does that funny thing with her lips over her teeth.

Pelosi loses her temper very quickly when asked a real question, similar to President Joe Biden’s reaction. Pelosi was a very attractive woman for many years, and likely would still be, naturally, if she hadn’t messed with Mother Nature. We all age – there is no cheating the aging process.

And what about Pelosi husband Paul’s DUI misadventure in Napa? Immediately following the odd calamity, Nancy Pelosi’s PR team issued a terse statement: “The Speaker will not be commenting on this private matter which occurred while she was on the East Coast.”

Or what about when Paul Pelosi was assaulted by a man armed with a hammer during a home break-in in San Francisco later that year? Police arrested the suspect and Pelosi was rushed to the hospital. Many people questioned the very odd circumstances between the attacker and Pelosi – none of which was ever concluded publicly… perhaps appropriately.

Shouldn’t the Pelosi’s be enjoying travel, grandkids, their Napa winery, their circle of friends, their “Golden Years,” and writing books about their fascinating lives?

As we previously reported:

The U.S. House of Representatives, with a total of 435 members from 50 states, has 10 members 80 and older.

The U.S. House of Representatives has 21 members between age 75 and 80.

The U.S. House of Representatives has 108 members between ages 65 and 74.

The U.S. Senate, with 101 members from 50 states, has 7 members 80 and older.

The U.S. Senate has 22 members between the ages of 65 and 70, and 21 members between the ages of 70 and 79.

Remember the Washington D.C. pharmacist who said in 2017 that he fills a surprising amount of Alzheimer’s prescriptions for various members of Congress? While it would be good to know who those congressional members were, most of us can take reasonably educated guesses…

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

School District in Orange County Becomes Latest in California to Approve Transgender Policy

The Orange Unified School District became the latest district in California to approve a transgender notification policy following a packed meeting that grew heated at times Thursday night. 

The policy requires the school to notify parents when their children under the age of 12 request to use different names or pronouns than what is on their birth certificate. 

Prior to the meeting, school board members said they received an email from California Attorney General Rob Bonta threatening to take action to protect student civil rights. Meanwhile, students and their families anxiously awaited the fate of the proposed policy.

It was a packed house with demonstrators spilling into the parking lot. During the meeting, there were several delays and disruptions, along with over three hours of public comment from both sides. 

Despite Bonta’s warning, the policy was approved in a 4-3 vote around 11:30 p.m. to a roar of applause. 

Board members Ana Page, Kris Erickson, and Andrea Yamasaki, who opposed the policy, left the meeting early citing safety concerns.  

Meanwhile, the Chino Valley Unified School District is at the center of an ongoing legal battle with California Attorney General Rob Bonta over the controversial policy. A judge issued a temporary block on Chino Valley’s policy.

Click here to read the full article at Fox 11

Will Trump Win All of California’s Delegates in the Primary? Here’s What Polling Suggests

The former president, along with several other GOP contenders, will head to Southern California later this month

California Republicans’ support for former President Donald Trump appears to be growing, according to a new poll — and that’s a particularly positive sign for his campaign given how the state will assign its bevy of delegates this year.

Trump is the preferred candidate for 55% of likely Republican voters surveyed in late August by the Berkeley Institute of Government Studies — taken after he was indicted in Georgia for alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

That’s an 11% increase from Berkeley IGS’s May survey — and would trigger the California Republican Party’s new rule allotting all of its 169 delegates to whichever candidate can secure a majority (50% plus 1) of the statewide vote in the upcoming primary election.

In comparison, 16% of likely Republican voters picked Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, 7% former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley and 4% tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.

A February Berekely IGS poll found 37% of registered Republican voters preferred DeSantis while 29% preferred Trump.

“Even with all of his legal troubles, former President Donald Trump’s lead in the Republican primary looks more like what one expects to see from an incumbent running for reelection than for a candidate in an open seat,” said IGS co-director Eric Schickler. “While it remains early, it has to frustrate Trump’s opponents that his lead has grown even amid his series of indictments.”

Dan Schnur, who teaches political messaging at USC and UC Berkeley, says the poll shows good news for Trump — as long as he can maintain that support among California’s GOP voters during the March 5 primary.

“The state party clearly did this to help him, but now Iowa and New Hampshire are even more important,” said Schnur, noting the momentum from winning those early primary states coupled with California’s delegates would make Trump “unstoppable.”

CAGOP changed its rules in late July. If no contender can secure a majority, then the delegates — the most from any state — will be distributed proportionally.  Previously, candidates could win three delegates per congressional district, which could lead them to focus on certain pockets of the state.

The change, CAGOP Chair Jessica Millan Patterson said at the time, encourages Republican candidates “to spend real time campaigning in our state and making their case to voters.”

Still, the change was largely seen as a boon to Trump’s quest to return to the White House.

Meanwhile, the Berkeley IGS poll also found President Joe Biden holding a substantial lead over challengers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson among both likely Democratic and no party preference voters.

And while Biden holds a 51% to 31% lead over Trump, the survey found 24% of registered voters are “very open” to a potential third party candidate in a Biden-Trump matchup, 23% are “somewhat open” and 17% said it would depend on who the candidate is.

Trump, along with many other presidential contenders, plans to head to Southern California later this month.

The Republican National Committee is holding the second GOP presidential primary debate on Sept. 27 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute in Simi Valley — albeit, it’s not clear if Trump will participate. He skipped the first debate and criticized the presidential library as the venue because the longtime board chair, Frederick Ryan Jr., was the publisher of the Washington Post. (In June, Ryan said he was leaving the Washington Post to lead the new Center on Public Civility at the Reagan Foundation.)

On Sept. 29, Trump and other candidates are slated to speak at the CAGOP fall convention in Anaheim. DeSantis and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott are also scheduled to appear that Friday; Ramaswamy is expected the next day.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

CA Senate Passes Bill to Charge Parents With ‘Child Abuse’ for not Affirming Transgenderism in Custody Cases

A 7-year old child has a vivid imagination, believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, and still watches cartoons

Under California’s Assembly Bill 957 by Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City), a parent could lose custody for not “affirming” or agreeing to a child’s claims about gender identity. This bill just passed the Senate Tuesday.

The bill, co-authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), would require judges adjudicating such disputes over transgender-identifying children to favor the parent who “affirms” the child’s preferred identity.

But even more disturbing, bizarre, and ironic, in the State of California where the policy of California public schools is to keep “gender” information hidden from parents, how could a divorcing parent even know if they are affirming their child’s “gender identity?”

“Affirming a child’s identity about gender is in their best interest,” Assemblywoman Wilson said in a hearing June 9th. Wilson also notes that if you the parent reject your child’s chosen gender, “you are rejecting that child.”

As we reported in June:

“This bill clarifies that a family court, when determining the best interest of the child in a proceeding to determine custody or visitation for a child, shall consider, as part of the consideration of the health, safety, and welfare of the child, a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity,” the 06/09/23- Senate Judiciary bill analysis says.

So imagine a child of parents going through a contentious divorce, feeling confused, responsible for the breakup, and wanting the parents to get back together, announces that she is really a he. Under Wilson’s and Wiener’s bill, the parents must drop everything and provide “gender affirming care.”

We hear stories daily from teachers who report that school-aged kids’ claims of being trans are mostly jumping on the trans bandwagon. It’s an attention-getter. Suddenly they are more popular, in a freaky way, can dress oddly, and get more attention.

To understand the motive behind this radical legislation, the list of sponsors speaks volumes:

This bill is sponsored by the California State PTA, the California TGI Policy Alliance, the EmpowerTHEM Collective, Equality California, Gender Justice Los Angeles, the Los Angeles LGBT Center, TransFamily Support Services, TransYouth Liberation, and the Women’s Foundation of California, and is supported by the California Faculty Association, the California Youth Empowerment Network.

This bill is opposed by Bridge Network, the California Parents Union, California’s Legislative Voice, Carlsbad C2O, the Silicon Valley Association of American Women, Stand Up Sacramento County, and 14 individuals.

Senator Scott Wiener, who is not a parent, added in the mandatory “affirming” language to AB 957.

Once again, the California Legislature is trampling all over parental rights, rather than doing the jobs they were elected to do – govern and public policy. Parenting isn’t listed in the California Legislature’s legislative process. And these hair-brained bills should be summarily rejected by other lawmakers.

As we reported in June, Nicole Pearson, founder of the Facts Law Truth Justice law firm and civil rights advocacy group, condemned AB 957’s unconstitutionality in an interview with The Daily Signal:

This bill makes law that failure to affirm your child’s identity is child abuse. This will be a final, legal determination without any evidence in support, or a hearing with notice or the opportunity to be heard. Assemblywoman Wilson and Senator Scott Wiener are not doctors. They can’t make this determination for every single child aged 0 to 17 in the state and, yet, that is exactly what they’re trying to do here.

If a parent or guardian is unwilling or simply not ready to affirm their 7-year-old’s new identity—as they transition from Spongebob to Batman to Dora the Explorer—they can be found guilty of child abuse under AB-957 if it passes into law.

This is a horrifying bill for children, and for parents and guardians not just in California, but across the country. Gavin Newsom is gunning for president in 2028. If he signs this bill into law, here, it will be headed to every state if he wins.

A 7-year old child has a vivid imagination, believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, and still watches cartoons. Giving that child chemical castration through drugs, or even buying into the opposite gender claims, is child abuse. Like many girls, I was a tomboy, played sports with the boys, climbed trees and got in fights. But I also had a Barbie Dream House and liked to sew my own Barbie clothes. I grew out of the tomboy phase, stopped getting in fights and put away the baseball cap about the same time I gave my Barbie Dream House to the little girl down the street. It was a phase.

Wilson also notes that if you the parent reject your child’s chosen gender, “you are rejecting that child.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Trump poised to sweep state’s delegates in GOP primary

But California voters worry about his and Biden’s vulnerabilities,  a UC Berkeley/Times poll finds.

Former President Trump dominates his rivals so heavily that he’s on track to win all of California’s delegates for next year’s Republican convention — a haul that would give him a major chunk of the votes needed to secure his third presidential nomination.

The finding from a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by The Times highlights a turnabout from earlier this year. In February, Trump faced a serious challenge from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis among California Republicans.

The potential for Trump to win all of the state’s delegates also reflects his campaign’s work to change the rules of the contest to his advantage.

In late July, the California Republican Party changed its rules so that if a candidate wins more than 50% of the statewide vote in the state’s March 5 primary, he or she will claim all 169 GOP delegates — the most of any state in the nation. Previously, the rules allocated delegates by congressional district. A candidate needs just over 1,200 convention delegates to win the nomination.

Trump’s campaign team pushed for the rule change, one of a series of such shifts it has backed in states across the nation. All of the changes supported by his campaign have the effect of helping a front-runner quickly nail down the Republican nomination.

The new poll shows about 55% of likely Republican voters plan to cast their primary ballots for Trump.

DeSantis’ support has plummeted to 16% — less than half of what he had earlier this year.

“Californians have turned away, by and large, from DeSantis,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the UC Berkeley institute’s poll. “The biggest beneficiary of DeSantis’ decline is the former president. There’s no question he’s well-liked by the Republican base.

“It’s a startling development given the fact that over the past year, there appeared to be sentiment among Republicans looking for an alternative to Trump,” DiCamillo added. “That has changed, and Trump is now the odds-on favorite.

“Capturing all of California’s delegates would give Trump a huge advantage over the rest of the field,” he said.

The state party’s rule changes were one factor in the recent decision by a super PAC backing DeSantis to stop major campaign operations in California and several other states, NBC News reported last week.

On the Democratic side, the poll indicated President Biden holds a big lead ahead of California’s primary, with 66% of party voters supporting him, compared with 9% for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and 3% for Marianne Williamson. About 1 in 6 likely Democratic voters said they were undecided.

Biden gets less support from young, Latino and Asian American voters than from white and Black voters. That difference in enthusiasm is unlikely to hurt his chances in California, given his wide lead, but it reflects a problem for the president that could be serious elsewhere in the nation.

Biden also holds a big lead over Trump in a prospective general election matchup in the state, not surprising given California’s cobalt-blue tilt.

Of the state’s 22 million registered voters, 46.9% identify as Democrats, 23.8% as Republicans, 22.5% as no party preference and 6.8% with other parties, according to the California secretary of state’s most recent statistics.

The poll also looked at some important vulnerabilities for each of the two leading candidates.

Among the state’s likely voters, 42% said they believe Biden’s age — he turns 82 shortly after election day — will hurt him a lot in his reelection bid, compared with 32% who think Trump’s legal woes will hurt him a lot in his effort to win back the White House.

Those legal difficulties may be on display just before the state’s primary. On March 4, the former president is scheduled to go on trial in Washington on federal charges that he illegally sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to Biden.

California shares its primary date with Texas, North Carolina and about a dozen other states, which together will allocate more than a third of Republican delegates.

The poll was conducted in late August, shortly after Trump was indicted in Georgia over alleged efforts to overturn the state’s 2020 presidential election results.

It was the fourth indictment for the former president. In addition to the Georgia and federal cases alleging efforts to overturn the election, he also faces federal charges over his handling of confidential government documents after leaving the White House, and New York state charges over payments to a porn actor during the 2016 campaign in an attempt to conceal an alleged affair.

The polling began one day after the first GOP presidential primary debate, which Trump skipped.

The survey’s results affirm the dwindling popularity of DeSantis, who shares many of the same beliefs as Trump, but without the former president’s legal and temperamental baggage. The Florida governor has drawn praise from many on the right for his opposition to lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as for his vocal advocacy of the conservative side in the nation’s culture wars.

In February, when many Republicans were focused on Trump-endorsed candidates’ losses in last year’s midterm election, DeSantis had the support of 37% of likely California GOP voters, while Trump was backed by 29%, according to a Berkeley institute poll.

Three months later, a Berkeley survey indicated the former president had rebounded with the support of 44% of the state’s likely GOP voters and DeSantis trailing at 26%.

Former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s performance in the first GOP debate appears to have bumped up her support in the latest poll, though she remains mired in the single digits among likely Republican voters in California.

Haley now has the backing of 7% of the state’s likely GOP voters surveyed, double her support in the February poll. Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Vice President Mike Pence, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and conservative talk radio host Larry Elder all trailed behind her. About 9% of the poll’s Republican participants said they supported someone else or were undecided.

Looking ahead at the general election, 51% of the state’s likely voters polled said they would support Biden, the incumbent president, while 31% said they would back Trump. About 13% said they planned to cast ballots for an unnamed third-party candidate, and 5% were undecided.

While California’s general election is unlikely to be competitive — it hasn’t been in the last three decades — voters’ attitudes about each candidate’s potential vulnerabilities provide insight into the overall state of the race.

Neither Trump nor Biden received stellar ratings from voters on their ethical behavior, though the current president outpaced the former; 71% faulted Trump’s personal ethics, compared with 43% who faulted Biden’s.

Nearly half, 47%, of likely California voters surveyed said they would be open to supporting a third-party candidate if the 2024 presidential campaign is a rematch of Biden and Trump’s contest three years ago, with 24% saying they would be “very open” to the idea.

While a candidate not affiliated with either of the nation’s two main political parties has practically zero chance of winning the White House, DiCamillo said those numbers reflect voter frustration, particularly among those who are less ideologically inclined.

“There’s dissatisfaction. We’ve seen that in other polls,” he said. “It appears to be the most moderate voters, not those on the extremes. Strong liberals and strong conservatives are less open to [a third-party candidate] than those in the middle.”

The Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies’ poll surveyed 6,030 registered California voters online in English and Spanish, Aug. 24-29, with weighted samples of 1,175 likely GOP primary voters and 2,833 likely Democratic primary voters.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Lawmakers, Parents Run Out of Patience with CA Leaders on Stalled Punishment for Fentanyl Dealers

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As California’s Democratic Party-led Legislature continues to be divided on establishing more punishment for illegal fentanyl dealers, a group of Republican lawmakers and a group of parents who have lost loved ones to fentanyl are planning on launching separate efforts Tuesday to address the issue.

At the center of each effort is a proposal that would require courts to notify convicted fentanyl dealers that if they deal again and someone dies, they could face murder charges. Supporters of the measure have noted the advisement is similar to the notice drunk drivers receive once convicted under California law.

The proposed law, also known as Alexandra’s Law, is named after Alexandra Capelouto, a 20-year-old woman from Temecula who died of fentanyl poisoning in 2019. The proposed law was filed by a Republican in the Assembly and a Democrat in the Senate. The Republican’s version was blocked by the Assembly Public Safety Committee in one of its first hearings of the year. The Democrats’ version was blocked twice by the Senate Public Safety Committee.

In the bill’s last hearing, two Democratic lawmakers said they couldn’t support the version written in the Senate, with concerns it wouldn’t stop fentanyl-related deaths and didn’t exactly mirror the state’s advisement for those convicted of driving under the influence. In the Assembly, some lawmakers in the public safety committee said the Republican’s measure was too broad. The leader of the committee, Democratic Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, said he had concerns about filling up prisons and was interested in a public-health related approach.

The last-minute legislative effort

On Tuesday, Republican lawmakers in the Assembly plan to force Democrats to flex legislative rules to force lawmakers to vote on ACA 12, a proposed ballot initiative to allow voters to ultimately decide whether Alexandra’s Law should go into effect.

Click here to read the full article in KCRA 3

Will California Lawmakers Fall for Fraudulent Study Justifying Unjustified Prison Guard Union Giveaways?

California taxpayers should pay careful attention to the scheme orchestrated by the Newsom administration to further enrich his political cronies at the California Correctional Peace Officers Association.

Under California law, the state of California is required to conduct compensation studies in order to determine the appropriateness of general raises for public employees.

Prior to this year, the last publicly released compensation study for California’s prison guards was from 2013. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office that compensation study determined “that state correctional officers were compensation 40.2% above their local government counterparts and 28.1% above their federal government counterparts.”

Ever since, the state has dragged its feet in completing and referencing these legally required studies.

In 2018, Gavin Newsom was elected governor with the support of the CCPOA.

In 2020, the CCPOA ousted one of its most prominent critics in the California Legislature, Republican Sen. John Moorlach, helping to elect compliant Democrat Dave Min.

In 2021, the CCPOA dumped millions to defend him from recall. That same year, over the objections of the LAO pointing out the lack of a compensation study, the California Legislature, including Min, uncritically voted to give the CCPOA a lucrative new contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

That contract is now up.

The LAO is raising alarm bells once again about how the state is trying to justify a lucrative new contract for the CCPOA.

For one, the state’s HR department has concocted a deliberately misleading compensation study using different methodology and comparison groups designed to make the CCPOA-represented prison guards look underpaid.

The LAO notes a number of problems with the Newsom administration’s compensation study. It deliberately compared the pay of prison guards to law enforcement employees in high cost-of-living counties where few prison guards actually work and even two counties where zero prison guards work.

The LAO also notes the study conveniently omitted overtime pay, “which is equivalent to roughly 24 percent of gross regular pay in 2022,” and “mischaracterizes the value of pension and retiree health benefits.”

For these reasons and more, the LAO is advising the Legislature not to even reference the study.

The LAO brings to light other very useful information. Like the fact that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has to turn away more than 90% of qualified applicants for the prison guard academy, which indicates that at current levels of compensation there are more than enough people willing to do the job. No general raises needed.

The LAO also notes that compared to 2013, “the share of state correctional officer positions that are vacant” has also gone down. This, too, indicates there’s no actual problem bringing prison guards on to the job.

And as for handwaving from the CCPOA about retention problems, the LAO points out “the average Unit 6 member is younger today than they were in 2013. To some extent, this may reflect recent rates of retirement.”

Despite this, the Newsom administration wants to reward his cronies at CCPOA.

This is yet another test voters should use to gauge who in the Legislature is truly representing them and who is willing to play political games over public service.

There is no reason to throw more money at CCPOA. None.

For comparison, consider this question from watchdog group Govern for California: “Do our elected state officials really believe that California should spend twice as much on the compensation and benefits of 64,937 [correctional] employees as it spends on the 450,000 students served by California State University?”

Click here to read the ful article in the Orange County Register

Prosecutors ask judge to impose long sentence for Northern California Jan. 6 rioter

Arguing that a Northern California man who participated in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol came “prepared for violence,” prosecutors are asking a judge to impose one of the longer sentences handed down on Jan. 6 defendants.

The government is asking U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates to order former Auburn construction worker Sean Michael McHugh, 35, to serve 10 years and three months in prison, pay a $73,000 fine and pay $2,000 in restitution when he is sentenced next Thursday.

The request comes in a 44-page sentencing memorandum filed late Thursday in federal court in Washington, D.C., where prosecutors argued that McHugh armed himself with powerful bear spray and a bullhorn and traveled to the Capitol to urge fellow supporters of then-President Donald Trump to “march on Congress.”

“During the riot, McHugh actively participated in at least four attempts to breach perimeters established by officers during the riot,” Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lynnett Wagner and Carolina Nevin wrote. “First, he was one of the initial rioters to breach a police line and enter the West Plaza. “Second, he wrestled with an officer for control of a barricade protecting access to the Capitol. Third, he assaulted officers on the West Plaza, hitting them with his bear spray, causing the officers to back away from the line, and preventing them from performing their official duties.

“Fourth, he helped other rioters to push a large metal sign into officers. In between these acts of aggression, McHugh used his megaphone to spew vitriol towards officers and to encourage other rioters to act against the officers.”

MCHUGH ATTORNEY SEEKS MUCH SHORTER SENTENCE McHugh, 35, was convicted last April of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon and obstruction of an official proceeding and could face a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. His attorney argues that McHugh should receive a sentence of only two years, which “should permit him to rejoin society in time for his son’s high school graduation.”

Attorney Joseph Allen contends in a 13-page sentencing memorandum that McHugh was exercising his First Amendment rights on Jan. 6, that McHugh was swept up in the moment as protesters moved toward the Capitol from the Ellipse, where Trump had spoken before Congress was scheduled to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

“Mr. McHugh is not a rioter nor is he an insurrectionist,” Allen wrote. “He is an American citizen who, like any of us could, found himself caught up in the emotion of the events of a day which began lawfully and peacefully, then dominoed into the situation in which he finds himself now. “Mr. McHugh has maintained and continues to maintain that his actions for which he stands before this court were not planned, nor did he engage in the January 6 protest with any ill intent or malice.” McHugh, who has been in custody since his arrest May 2021, is the only one of four Sacramento-area defendants in the Jan. 6 riot to remain in jail, and faced the most serious charges among the four.

The government’s proposed sentence of more than 10 years in prison would be one of the longer ones imposed on Jan. 6 defendants to date. The longest imposed to date was 18 years for Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right Oath Keepers group who was convicted of seditious conspiracy. Two other members of the right-wing Proud Boys group, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl, were sentenced Thursday to 17 years and 15 years, respectively.

SENTENCE ‘REFLECTS GRAVITY OF MCHUGH’S CONDUCT’ Prosecutors in McHugh’s case argue that a sentence of 10 years and three months — which falls within federal sentencing guidelines calling for a term of 110 to 137 months — “reflects the gravity of McHugh’s conduct and his extensive criminal history.”

They also argue that he has shown no remorse for his actions, and that a fundraising site set up on his behalf contained a post from Thursday appearing to be from McHugh that stated, “I did not hurt anyone.” “Good Morning Everyone,” that post reads. “Let the countdown begin 7 more days and the fate of my life is in the hands of the DOJ… “I’ve been anxious, and nervous with so many thoughts running through my head. I’m having trouble sleeping and am consumed with thoughts of what the outcome will be.

I did not hurt anyone and I did not enter the Capital yet they want to give me 11.5 years it hardly seem fair. I ask you all to continue to pray for me and my family along with extra prays for the Proud Boys who have their sentencing this week.” The fundraising effort says it was set up by McHugh’s fiancée and describes McHugh as “just like most conservative American(s).”

“The Biden regime and DOJ has made it clear that if you are Republican, you can expect to have your civil, constitutional, and basic human rights stripped from you,” it states. As of early Friday, that site had raised $74,428 for what it described as “help with funds for legal fees and bills.”

Prosecutors contend that McHugh began planning his trip to Washington in December 2020, and “actively planned to prevent Congress’ certification of the Electoral College vote.” “In late December 2020, McHugh posted on Facebook ‘Going to D.C. Jan 5 6 7 to fight. HMU if you wanna join. Reservations made!,”’ prosecutors wrote. He added, “if this doesn’t make you want to get up in storm Congress and rip people out of office then you need to move to China,” according to prosecutors, and noted that McHugh updated his Facebook status early on Jan. 6 to write that “1776 will commence again January 6, 2021.”

TWO POLICE OFFICERS WANT TO SPEAK AT SENTENCING

Prosecutors also argue that when McHugh sprayed a line of police officers with bear spray — something he bragged about later on social media — he temporarily blinded one officer. “McHugh was one of the first rioters to break through the police line at the West Plaza,” they wrote. “McHugh assaulted officers on the West Plaza with bear spray at an early, critical juncture in the riot, causing officers pain and disrupting their ability to protect the Capitol.

“McHugh encouraged other rioters to act against officers and advance on the Capitol at multiple times and places on the West Plaza. McHugh took other physical acts against officers that included wrestling with an officer for control of a barricade at the South Scaffolding, joining other rioters to use a large metal sign as a battering ram against officers, and crossing police lines on the West Plaza.” Two officers from the riot have asked for time to speak at McHugh’s sentencing hearing, and prosecutors say McHugh’s actions warrant the sentence they are recommending.

“McHugh to this day continues to deny responsibility for his actions at the Capitol where he took part in a violent attack on officers and on the government,” they wrote. “McHugh’s denial and lack of remorse demonstrates that McHugh’s sentence must be sufficient to deter him from ever again engaging in violence in pursuit of his political goals.”

BEAR SPRAYING POLICE ‘POOR EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT’

McHugh’s attorney describes his client in a different fashion, writing that McHugh was sleep-deprived from his flight to Washington and that he only used his bear spray after seeing his mother get hit with projectiles fired by police, an action Allen described as “an exceedingly poor exercise of judgment.” He also argued that McHugh carried the bear spray to defend himself in the event Antifa counter-protesters appeared. “The facts of this case are simple,” Allen wrote.

“Mr. McHugh traveled to Washington, D.C., to protest what he believed to be an unlawful and corrupt election result. “He did so fully within his rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution to petition for a redress of grievances and under the lawfully obtained permits for the protests which had been previously acquired. Mr. McHugh participated in the protest, moving with the crowd, which became more and more agitated.

“Mr. McHugh, in an unfortunate cascade of events, found himself echoing the agitation of the crowd, expressing the growing sentiments directly to the police officers who were present to keep order. These sentiments did not come from a place of reason or from a clear and calculating mental state. Rather they were the product of that phenomenon commonly referred to as mob mentality.” Allen added that McHugh was not part of “some sinister prior plot” or conspiracy, and that he never entered the Capitol itself. “Were Mr. McHugh guilty of some other, more severe and serious action, such as breaching the Capitol Building or engaging in physical combat with law enforcement, then a more drastic example might be appropriate,” he wrote.

“However, Mr. McHugh is but one of the many everyday citizens who made a regrettable decision on January 6, 2021.” Allen urged the judge to take into account the fact that McHugh has not seen his teenage son in two years and to show mercy. “This court has the opportunity to demonstrate that while the events of January 6 were unacceptable, these so-called January 6 defendants are not the enemy,” he wrote. “They are our fellow citizens, neighbors, and friends. “That ideology has so torn us apart is not the fault of Mr. McHugh, no that blame lies elsewhere.”

ONE MORE SACRAMENTO DEFENDANT FACES SENTENCING

McHugh is the third of four Sacramento-area Jan. 6 defendants to face sentencing to date. Valerie Elaine Ehrke of Arbuckle received probation after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor last year.

Click here to read the full article in the Sacramento Bee

John Eastman’s Disastrously Bad Idea

 Claremont Institute legal scholar John Eastman will be arraigned next week on nine felony counts related to his efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election, charges that were brought by the Democratic district attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, Fani Willis. Eastman is one of the minds behind the scheme that, had it been enacted on Jan. 6, 2021, called for then-Vice President Mike Pence, presiding over the congressional certification of Electoral College results, to send the votes of key states including Arizona and Georgia back to the states for more debate and investigation, thus denying Joe Biden a victory in the Electoral College that was already settled and certified.

Pence refused to take part in the scheme. Then the proceedings were interrupted for several hours by the Capitol riot. And then Biden’s victory was finally certified. There was never any chance Eastman’s plan would have succeeded, but there is no doubt that, had Pence followed Eastman’s advice, the already chaotic day would have descended into a far more serious disorder.

That doesn’t mean Eastman’s idea was illegal. It does not mean it was a crime. In the political world, there are a lot of very damaging ideas that are not crimes. But prosecutor Willis has pushed ahead, even though a judge barred her from pursuing one possible defendant because of her, Willis’s, partisan political activities.

Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

In any event, now Eastman, facing the possibility of years in prison, will begin his defense. This week, he began it in a very public way by sitting for an interview with Fox News’s Laura Ingraham, who in addition to her work on television is a lawyer and former Supreme Court clerk. In just a few minutes, Ingraham exposed a key flaw, perhaps the key flaw, of Eastman’s plan: He had no idea what to do if he succeeded.

Early in the interview, Eastman claimed that he had “lots of evidence of fraud” in the 2020 presidential election. Ingraham challenged him. “I haven’t seen that evidence,” she responded. “And I’m always wanting to see everything. So I haven’t seen that evidence.” The conversation then turned to the legal challenges of election results. But then Ingraham got to the simple question at the heart of the Jan. 6 story: “John, on Jan. 6, what did you want to happen? … Just so the viewers can understand what would have unfolded and how that would have ultimately been constitutional.”

Eastman began by saying that “some people,” meaning some around then-President Donald Trump, “had urged that Vice President Pence simply had power to reject electors whose certification was still pending.” In other words, Pence could, all on his own, reject Biden’s victory. Ingraham quickly noted, “I don’t believe that,” but Eastman maintained that it was an “open issue.” Nevertheless, Eastman said he told Pence “it would be foolish to exercise such power even if he had it.”

OK. So what did Eastman want Pence to do? “What I recommended, and I’ve said this repeatedly, is that he accede to requests from more than a hundred state legislators in those swing states to give them a week to try and sort out the impact of what everybody acknowledged was illegality in the conduct of the election.”

“Not everyone acknowledged it,” Ingraham noted. And then a more practical question: “You thought a week was going to be enough to hear all these challenges?” Underlying Ingraham’s question was a simple fact: There was no way in the world the challenges could have been resolved in a week. Eastman acknowledged that when he responded, “We’re still 2 1/2 years later looking at the evidence.”

Still, Eastman maintained that “what a week would have done is give them an opportunity to assess, OK, is the uncertainty so great because of the illegality in the election that we have a failed election? And at that point, the power to do the best they can revolved back to the [state] legislature. … A week would have given them a time to try and decide what, if anything, to do about it. And, you know, we were never going to get in a week to the bottom of how much fraud or what have you. But we could get to the bottom of illegality, and we could make some estimates and extrapolations to try and do the best job we could to assess what the likely outcome actually was.”

There it is. Eastman said a week would be enough for the state legislatures to come up with “estimates and extrapolations” to see if the election was legitimate or not. That was his plan. But remember this:

1) The state results were already certified. They were literally signed, sealed, and delivered. The challenges from “more than a hundred state legislators” that Eastman mentioned were from several states and from people who did not represent a majority in any house of any state legislature. They were just groups of Republican lawmakers who questioned the election results. When Eastman referred to “electors whose certification was still pending” — there weren’t any. No legislature, as a body, and no governor had declared a state’s results illegitimate. Indeed, just the opposite was true. After recounts in the key states, the states had certified the results. There was no legal reason to send the election results back to any state.

2) The “illegalities” that Eastman cited had been considered in the courts. Some claims had been rejected before the election, some after the election. One important claim, in Pennsylvania, where the state Supreme Court, acting on its own, extended the time in which mail-in ballots could be received, made its way to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear it. That is not to say there was no valid criticism of the Pennsylvania court’s action, but the fact is, the objection had been taken all the way to the Supreme Court, and the case was over.

3) Most importantly, Eastman did not know what to do if he won. Let’s say Pence sent the electoral results back to some states. In a week, according to Eastman’s thinking, the state legislatures could “get to the bottom of illegality.” And what then? At that point, somebody would make “estimates and extrapolations” to determine if 2020 was a “failed election.” Then they would do “the best job we could” to “assess what the likely outcome actually was.”

Who knows how that would work. But here is the fundamental question. Under Eastman’s plan, who would be president of the United States at noon on Jan. 20, 2021? Would the president take office on the basis of Electoral College results or somebody’s “estimates and extrapolations” of what those results would be if the election were somehow conducted differently? What legitimacy would the president chosen on the basis of “estimates and extrapolations” have?

Click here to read the full article in the Washington Examiner

The Great Climate Change Con isn’t Resonating With Normal People

‘Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury’

“Anthropogenic global warming is the biggest, most dangerous and ruinously expensive con trick in history.”

Remember when climate hysterics claimed “the science is settled?” That claim didn’t weather well, but it also didn’t stop the climate liars: “The scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the Cop26 summit in Glasgow,” the Guardian reported in 2021. The Cornell University climate study the Guardian cites in the article was “supported” (funded) by Alliance for Science. “Support for the Alliance for Science is provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”

But the hysterics just moved on from that lie to other climate lies.

A little over one year ago, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced his pompous plan for addressing “California’s hotter, drier future:”

“Hotter and drier weather conditions spurred by climate change could reduce California’s water supply by up to 10 percent by the year 2040. To replace and replenish what we will lose to thirstier soils, vegetation, and the atmosphere, Governor Gavin Newsom has announced California’s latest actions to increase water supply and adapt to more extreme weather patterns caused by climate change.”

Think about that arrogant statement – as if California politicians are going to stop hot weather. But the joke was on the governor with record rainfall and snowfall in the winter of 2023… except that didn’t stop him. Since then, we’ve been barraged with absurd radio advertisements warning us, “now that we face a hotter, dryer future…” and “let’s make conservation a way of life,” providing helpful hints about saving water.

Enjoy the water-saving brilliance, brought to you by the Drought.CA.gov website:

  • If it’s raining, turn off your sprinklers
  • Take 5-minute showers
  • Fill bathtubs halfway or less
  • Turn off water when brushing teeth or shaving
  • Wash full loads of clothes and dishes
  • Fix leaks
  • Set mower blades to 3″
  • Use a broom to clean outdoor areas
  • Improve landscape irrigation

Taxpayers paid for this babble. With the state sending 50% of the water to the Pacific Ocean for environmental purposes, of the remaining 50%, 40% goes to agriculture, and 10% is urban use. Setting your mower blade to 3″ isn’t going to make a measurable amount of water conservation.

And, as we heard this week, PG&E will be shutting off the power when it is windy. Never in California’s history have energy providers shut off power when it was windy. This is a new policy, and is criminal – we are paying for that electricity. Who will be the first to sue over this?

According to the governor, “California’s Water Supply Strategy, Adapting to a Hotter, Drier Future calls for investing in new sources of water supply, accelerating projects and modernizing how the state manages water through new technology.”

Refuting this drivel is not difficult.

One way is to read the monthly reports by E&E Legal, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Heartland Institute, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), and Truth in Energy and Climate, which just released another version of “Climate Fact Check,” for July.

Climate Fact Check: July 2023 Edition highlights sensationalized stories about the climate, which is typical for the corporate media propaganda machine, although not rooted in reality.”

“The media is calling July 2023 the ‘hottest month on record’ and even the ‘hottest month in the history of civilization.’ Keeping in mind that July is typically the warmest month of every year, NASA satellite data indicate that July 2023 was the warmest July in the satellite record. But that record only dates back to 1979 and there certainly were Julys before 1979.”

This is Very interesting:

Recalling that average global temperature is on the order of 58°F, use of the term “hottest” is obviously quite an exaggeration. Finally, the notion of “average global temperature” is not really meaningful in the first place. It has no physical reality, and its component satellite and surface station temperature measurements lack precision to a significant degree.

The group of actual scientists debunk recent reporting of the Washington Post’s claims of an “Era of Global Boiling”:

And no, extreme heat is not killing more people. The scientists confirm that “it is well established that cold weather kills many more people than hot weather.”

In an old interview (2009) at the Spectator, James Delingpole talked to Professor Ian Plimer, the Australian geologist who dispelled much of the nonsense:

“…geologists have always recognized that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing Anthropogenic global warming is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.”

“What Heaven And Earth sets out to do is restore a sense of scientific perspective to a debate which has been hijacked by ‘politicians, environmental activists and opportunists’. It points out, for example, that polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty.”

How did this common sense not get more traction? We can thank the media for that, and the global nonprofits funded by hateful billionaires.

Looking at the mind numbingly imbecilic headlines reminds us that the stupid people are in charge of everything right now – they are easier to control.

Plimer said “modern environmentalism is that it is driven by people who are ‘too wealthy’. ‘When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe