Author’s note: What follows is my multi-part assessment of the 2024 election contest in Pennsylvania. Although I have lived in and near Philadelphia for over 50 years, I have no particular acumen regarding Pennsylvania politics. I am a retired trial lawyer who spent 20 years as a federal and state prosecutor and subsequently litigated civil and criminal cases for 30 years. As such, I have both prosecuted and defended corrupt elected Pennsylvania office holders and have learned quite a bit about their ethically challenged attitude regarding election fraud. So, by way of warning about what you are about to read, here’s how one of my former clients explained the facts of political life in Pennsylvania: “We haven’t had an honest election in Philadelphia since 1682, and we’re not about to start now.”  On the eve of the 2020 presidential election, Robert Cahaly, the founder and chief strategist of the Atlanta-based Trafalgar Group polling firm, appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and offered this assessment: “I think that the states that we had before [in 2016] for Trump — Florida, Arizona and North Carolina — are still there.” But when it came to the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, Cahaly said that Trump needed “to win Pennsylvania by four or five [percentage points] to overcome the voter fraud that’s going to happen there.” As Cahaly made this statement, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was in the process of rewriting the state’e election laws. Ultimately, the Democrat majority on the court did away with the statutory requirement that the signatures on mail-in ballots match the voters’ signatures on file. The court also struck down the legislative mandate that mail-in ballots must be post marked or received by Election Day. Here’s what I wrote at the time in The American Spectator: Given Pennsylvania’s recently decreed rules for receiving and counting mail-in ballots, there may be no percentage of honest votes large enough to overcome the voter fraud already underway in the Keystone State. These new rules have been put in place by a Democrat majority (Pennsylvania judges are elected) on the state supreme court. In addition to allowing mail-in ballots to be received and counted up to three days after the statutory Election Day deadline, the new judicially conjured rules for processing mail-in ballots can be boiled down to this aphorism: no postmark, no matching signature, no problem! You read that right. Here in Pennsylvania, our state supreme court has mandated that a mail-in ballot received up to three days after Election Day must be counted and cannot be rejected merely because it is not postmarked by the statutory Election Day deadline or bears a signature that doesn’t match the one on record for the purported voter. Care to guess how many such unverifiable ballots will mysteriously turn up after Election Day? And so it was that, with those peculiar rulings, the state Supreme Court planted the seeds of distrust in the election outcome by removing the statutory safeguards to prohibit the counting of unverified, unverifiable, and fabricated mail-in ballots. Those seeds have spawned multiple theories about how the Philadelphia Democrat machine stole the 2020 election in Pennsylvania. (More about that in a later installment.) Thankfully, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s bizarre rulings are no longer in effect. Today, mail-in ballots must bear signatures matching those on record and must be received by Election Day. But, as will be discussed in later installments, it remains to be seen whether those safeguards will be enough to prevent the rigging of the upcoming election in Pennsylvania. On Nov. 3, 2020, RealClearPolitics’ polling averages had Biden at 50 percent support and Trump at 48.8 percent (a difference of 1.2 percentage points). Subsequently, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State, Biden received 3,458.229 votes (50.1 percent) to 3,377,674 votes for Trump (48.84 percent). Biden’s margin of victory was 80,555 (1.2 percentage points). Assuming that these official 2020 data are true and correct, Trump at 48.84 percent did not materially outperform his final Pennsylvania poll average of 48.8 percent. As of Oct. 23, 2024, RealClearPolitics has Trump’s poll numbers averaging 47.9 percent to Kamala Harris’ 47.1 percent (a difference of 0.8 percentage points). But included in that average are polls by Trafalgar Group, Atlas Intel, and Rasmussen Reports — the three most accurate pollsters in 2020 — which have Trump ahead by 3 percentage points. Recall that Trafalgar’s Robert Cahaly said that Trump would have to be ahead by 4 or 5 percentage points to “overcome the voter fraud that’s going to happen there.” Cahaly’s warning was true in 2020 and remains true today — especially as it applies to Democrat-run Philadelphia, the largest population center in Pennsylvania. I will discuss in later installments the many ingenious ways that Philadelphia Democrats have rigged elections and how those techniques may come into play on Election Day 2024 and address the question as to whether any Pennsylvania election can ever be “too big to rig.” Mail-in and absentee ballots are being received and tallied as to the voters’ party registrations. According to the Pennsylvania Department of State, as of Oct. 23, 2024, the received ballot numbers are Democrat: 684,724, Republican: 328,074, and Other: 110711. Mail-in and absentee ballots can still be requested and will be accepted up to and including Election Day. But, as of now, the there is a 2 to 1 mail-in and absentee ballot margin in favor of the Democrats. Based on all of the above, it would appear that Pennsylvania is not a sure thing for Trump. Nevertheless, there has been one additional major development that bodes well for his chances of winning the state. Pennsylvania Democrat Sen. Bob Casey is in a tight race for reelection. He is tied in the polls with Dave McCormick, his Republican challenger. This week, Casey began running a television ad featuring a married couple in which the wife is a Republican and the husband is a Democrat; they both endorse Casey. The couple praises Casey as an “independent” who “bucked Biden to preserve fracking” and “sided with Trump to end NAFTA and impose tariffs on China.” (You can view the ad by clicking on this link.) Since Casey is trying to tie himself to Trump’s coattails, this ad and its timing strongly suggest that, as Election Day approaches, Casey’s internal polling is signaling that Harris’ campaign is faltering, and it’s time for the senator to abandon ship. That’s it for now, but there’s more to come. Later installments will address the implications of the dramatic changes since 2020 in Republican versus Democrat voter registrations, the ongoing and innovative — for Republicans — turnout operation in deep red counties, the growing numbers of working-class voters who are defecting from the Democrat Party, and the friction between the Harris campaign and local Democrat leaders. There will also be a tutorial on how Philly’s Democrat ward leaders make use of “street money” to turn out the vote, the traditional physical intimidation of Republican Election Day poll watchers in Philadelphia, and how the legions of dementia patients in Philadelphia nursing homes will be voting Democrat by mail. All that and more will be coming your way. So stay tuned. George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor and retired trial lawyer. he blogs at knowledgeisgood.net. The post Report From Pennsylvania: Part One appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed Senate Bill 1174, which prohibits local governments from enacting or enforcing identification requirements for voting. The measure was authored by state Sen. David Min, Irvine Democrat, now running for Congress in California’s 47th district. Min’s own background raises questions about the legality and morality of bills making voter identification illegal. Min earned a JD at Harvard, served as an enforcement attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and taught law at the UC Irvine School of Law for eight years. Min is a member of the bar in New York State and the District of Columbia, and in February 2022 he passed the California bar exam. That exam has stringent requirements, including a moral character test. Those taking the test must include fingerprints from a Live Scan Service form completed within the last 90 days. So, to practice law in California, Harvard law alum Dave Min submitted to a mandatory identification check and moral fitness test. Contrast the bar exam with the dynamics of voting. An election makes voters public officials for one day. Voters can decide who becomes president and vice president of the United States, a matter of some importance.  Voters can elect members of Congress who will make the laws, and approve or reject various ballot measures that have direct bearing on taxpayers. Min wants voters to be exempt from identification measures, and bans local governments from imposing them. That stands at odds from some of Min’s own materials. For example, contributors to Min’s congressional campaign must certify, “I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident (i.e., green card holder).” As the Harvard law alum must know, by law U.S. citizenship is a requirement for voting, yet the senator and candidate wants to bar identification of voters. Min’s legislation contends that “voter identification laws place the onus on the voter to prove their identity and right to vote, even after voters have taken the necessary steps to prove their identity and right to vote through the voter registration process.” As the Orange County Democrat should know, this is not true in the Golden State. California automatically registers illegals to vote when they get their driver’s license at the DMV. State officials won’t say how many illegals violated the law by voting in 2016, 2018, 2020, or in the 2021 recall election for Gavin Newsom, who signed Min’s bill. State attorney general Rob Bonta had already filed a lawsuit against Huntington Beach, the Orange County city that sought to require voter identification. Bonta contends that ID requirements could make it harder for poor, non-white, young, elderly and disabled voters to cast ballots. Legitimate citizens and legal immigrants have room for reasonable doubt. All Californians are required to produce identification to board airplanes, apply for a home loan, purchase a firearm, purchase whiskey, become an attorney, and so forth. Californians might think a Harvard law alum, SEC enforcement attorney and law professor would know that. Californians also have to wonder about their attorney general, a Yale law alum As a member of the California Assembly, Bonta was the prime mover of Assembly Bill 2088, the California Wealth Tax, which if passed would have slapped a 0.4 percent tax on the portion of a taxpayer’s net worth that exceeded $30 million. AB-2088 would also have taxed former Californians 90 percent of their in-state levy in the first year after they left the state and 80 percent in the second year, phasing out over a decade. A Yale law alum should know that a state can’t tax non-residents, and that non-citizens can’t vote. In light of Bonta, Min, and Newsom, legitimate citizens and legal immigrants might imagine this scenario. Congress is in session and an unelected imposter poses as a House member and votes to approve an increase in taxes and government spending. That would not be acceptable, but illegal voters essentially pull off the same trick. Anybody who endorses non-citizen voting, regardless of party affiliation or ideological profile, forfeits any claim to support the rule of law, the basis of a free and democratic society. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. The post California’s Identity Problem appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Vice President Kamala Harris occasionally attends a Baptist church, but she still has a problem with Christians. So does her boss. Biden attends Mass regularly, but his rejection of Catholic moral teachings — on abortion, marriage, the family, and sexuality — makes practicing Catholics wonder about his bona fides.  When Harris was California’s attorney general, she persecuted pro-life activist David Daleiden. He used undercover videos to expose how abortion operatives harvest and sell aborted fetal organs. She authorized her office to raid his home — they seized his camera equipment and copies of revealing videos that implicated many of those who work in the abortion industry. In her role as California attorney general, she sought to cripple crisis pregnancy centers through draconian regulations. Specifically, she supported a bill that would force these centers to inform clients where they could obtain an abortion. She was ultimately sued and lost before the Supreme Court three years later. In February 2020, then-Sen. Harris voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill that would “prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.” That’s called infanticide. Also while in the Senate, Harris co-sponsored the Do No Harm Act and the Equality Act. Both bills would have weakened, or nullified, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, thus mandating that Catholic doctors and hospitals perform abortions and “sex-reassignment” surgeries. Harris’ passion for abortion rights — she has never found a type she couldn’t justify — impels her to attack Catholic candidates for the federal bench. She did so most famously in late 2018 when she questioned Brian C. Buescher about his suitability to be a federal district judge. His membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, raised a red flag for her. Her question revealed her real target — the Catholic Church. She asked: “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” Essentially, she was asking if someone who accepts the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion — that child abuse begins in the womb — should be allowed to sit on the federal bench. She knows the Constitution bars a religious test to hold public office. This was her end run around it.  Harris was also upset that the Knights prohibit female membership. But several female religious groups ban men — the Jewish women’s group Hadassah and the Catholic Daughters of the Americas restrict membership to women. For that matter, so does the secular League of Women Voters. None of those organizations are a problem for Harris. Just Catholic fraternal ones.  Harris refused to attend the Al Smith Dinner, letting Catholics know what she thinks about them. However, she never misses a Hollywood dinner. Those are her ideological next of kin — not Catholics. When a couple of Christian young people shouted “Christ is King” at a recent Wisconsin rally, Harris could have ignored them. After all, whenever left-wing pro-Hamas protesters shout her down, she simply says that she has the right to speak. But she couldn’t help scolding the Christians by saying, “You guys are at the wrong rally.” She was right about that — Christians are not welcome at her events. Harris is losing to Trump 52–47 among Catholics. This was before she snubbed New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan by blowing off the Al Smith Dinner and before she mocked Christian students.  No one truly believes that Trump is a deeply religious man. He admits as much. But his policies are clearly religion-friendly. The same is not true for Harris. She is wedded to the Biden–Harris record. A record that pales in significance to what Trump accomplished for religious freedom during his administration. In fact, the gulf between the two is so broad that there really isn’t a comparison. READ MORE from Bill Donohue: The Politics of Comedy Reassessing Elite Claims This Columbus Day Kamala Smart to Skip Al Smith Dinner The post Harris Has a Problem With Christians appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On November 17, 2023, Democrat New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law the Plain Language bill —a bill that allows a summary of a proposed amendment be put on the ballot instead of the full amendment. Also, the summary must be written at an eighth grade reading level or lower. This election will be the first to implement the summary rule. New York voters will be asked to vote “Yes” or “No” on Proposal Number One — but only the summary of Part A will be printed on the ballot. If the voter has been paying only casual attention, they may think that they are protecting abortion rights. The actual legal language of Prop. 1 does not even include words specifically about abortion. Its protections go far beyond codifying abortion protections in the state constitution. It will upend state law and constitutional protections for equal rights currently in place and destroy the traditionally neutral standards of American law that safeguard other freedoms. Many voters will be voting blind. The Prop. 1 journey began in July 2022 when Hochul called a special session of the state legislature to protect abortion rights. The urgency was necessitated by the Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June that overturned Roe v. Wade. To further emphasize how grave the New York Democrats viewed the Dobbs decision, both Democrat-controlled chambers voted on the same day to approve the proposed amendment. This rush presented the first hurdle for Prop. 1 to overcome. The method by which Prop. 1 was passed by the state legislature is unconstitutional, according to civil rights attorney and Brownstone Institute fellow Bobbie Anne Cox. Cox initially fought Prop. 1 in court and won. She later lost on appeal — in the same court that overturned her previous win against the COVID-inspired quarantine executive order that allowed state health officials to send New Yorkers to “quarantine camps” without due process or diagnosis of a communicable disease. As Cox’s lawsuit pointed out, by calling for state legislators to vote on the proposed amendment immediately after it was first introduced, Hochul violated the law. In order for amendments to be placed on the New York ballot, they are required to be introduced in both chambers of the state legislature, then reviewed by the state attorney general within twenty days of introduction, and then they can be voted on and approved by the state legislature to be placed on the ballot. However, in this case, New York Attorney Gen. Letitia James gave her opinion on July 6 — that is five days after the proposed amendment was already voted on by legislators and approved for placement on the ballot. Cox also raised concerns about the timing of the vote — Hochul called for a vote on the Friday before the Fourth of July weekend. Additionally, the proposal was not placed on the ballot in 2023, as would be the normal course of events. Instead, it is placed on this year’s ballot — a presidential election year that typically sees higher voter turnout and is more focused on national issues than state ballot initiatives. (LISTEN FOR MORE: The Spectator P.M. Ep. 86: Liberals Seek to Enshrine Wokeness in New York’s Constitution) What will New York voters see on the ballot? This November, New Yorkers will find on their ballots, Proposal Number One, in the following new summarized format: Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy and against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy. A “YES” vote puts these protections in the New York State Constitution. A “NO” vote leaves these protections out of the New York State Constitution. The State Board of Elections website does, however, post the full amendment, with new language underlined and deleted language in brackets. It reads: A. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law. Is Prop. 1 needed to protect access to abortions? Notably, although pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes are included, there is no mention of abortion. Cam Macdonald, an adjunct fellow at the Empire Center, writes that the proposal “does not add any new rights or protect any existing rights in the state Constitution … any change to current abortion rights in New York would require another step — a law passed by the Legislature or a Court of Appeals ruling striking down the state’s existing law.” Macdonald contrasts New York’s Prop. 1 with abortion amendments already passed in Michigan and Ohio in response to the Dobbs decision. These basically restore the “reproductive freedoms” of Roe v. Wade in their states. However, both states provide for laws restricting abortion after fetal viability — with the exception of a medical opinion pertaining to the life or health of the mother. However, through the state’s 2019 Reproductive Health Act, New York has already adopted and codified even more expansive abortion allowances than Roe v. Wade permitted. As a result, Macdonald says, “[T]here are no practical limitations on abortion in New York if a health care practitioner wants to perform the procedure.” The Dobbs decision already does not impact abortion rights in New York up to 24 weeks from the beginning of pregnancy. Macdonald goes on to state that, if Prop. 1 is approved, “a successful challenge based on reproductive autonomy to the existing 24 week milestone could leave New York with no restrictions on abortion on its books.” Yet, the proposal is being sold by New York Democrats as a way to “Protect Abortion & Our Freedoms” — at least according to their lawn signs. Acting as an activist instead of a chief legal officer, Attorney Gen. James penned a USA Today op-ed that claimed Prop. 1 — or what she calls the Equal Rights Act — was intended to protect against “anti-choice forces … already at work in New York.” She spoke at a September 28 rally in Yonkers encouraging voters to approve the ballot measure. Meanwhile, Gov. Hochul continues to campaign for abortion rights, saying recently that it would “enshrine abortion rights in our state Constitution, protecting them from ultra-conservative state legislators, members of Congress, justices, and presidential hopefuls who want to dismantle those freedoms.” New Protected Categories If Prop. 1 is approved in November, there will be 12 new protected classes: ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, reproductive healthcare, and reproductive autonomy. Cox and other opponents of Prop. 1 note that the 12 new categories will likely interfere with expansive protections already in place for New Yorkers on the basis of race, color, creed, or religion — protections that have been in place since 1938 and amended in 2001 with gender-neutral language. Cox warns that the the language in the unnecessary amendment is so broad it opens the door to other severe consequences. For example, the inclusion of “age” in the protected classes may result in the end of statutory rape laws. Or, the voting age could be abolished based on the claim that the current law requiring voters to be at least 18 years old is discriminatory. Ending alleged “age” discrimination could also allow minors to purchase alcohol and cannabis products, while threatening senior discounts, senior housing, and laws against elder abuse. Currently a bill in Committee at both chambers (Senate Bill S8352, Assembly Bill A6761) calls for allowing children to make their own medical decisions. However, adopting Prop. 1 in November would bypass the bill and give children the constitutional right to make their own medical decisions under the “gender identity” or “gender expression” protected categories. According to Macdonald, the New York State Education Department, in their 2023 Legal Update and Best Practices entitled “Creating a Safe, Supportive, and Affirming School Environment for Transgender and Gender Expansive Students,” already “recommends schools use a Gender Support Plan, which can be ‘used to help schools create a shared understanding among students, school staff and parents/guardians (only with student permission), about the ways in which the student’s authentic gender will be recognized and supported at school.’” Michele Sterlace-Accorsi, an attorney and consultant with the Coalition to Protect Kids, maintains that Prop. 1 “deprive[s] parents of authority to make life-altering decisions for their children.” This includes transgender medical interventions. Her group and others call Prop. 1 the “Parent Replacement Act.” Additionally, under the Prop. 1 “gender identity” protected class, boys and men could compete with girls and women in school sports and share locker rooms and restroom spaces. Currently in Nevada, which passed a similarly worded amendment, there are problems with males wanting to participate in female sports Cox also warns that the inclusion of “national origin” as a protected class could have ramifications on future elections because it prohibits discrimination by the state. “National origin” could be interpreted to apply to foreigners or non-citizens and illegal immigrants and grant them voting rights and access to state services. Overall, Prop.1 has further reaching consequences than just “enshrining abortion protections.” It would threaten free speech, religious freedom, and parental rights. The Missing Part B Cornell University law professor William Jacobson, who is working against the Prop. 1 through his Equal Protection Project, sees even greater danger from Part B — which does not appear on the ballot in any form — because it would fundamentally change the law. In April, Jacobson, reproduced the language of Part B and bolded the especially concerning part: Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulations, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section. Jacobson cautioned that Part B would have a “possibly disastrous impact on the cause of nondiscrimination, as already embodied in the NY State Constitution … and numerous state and local laws.” Furthermore, he says, “It would create a loophole allowing persons engaging in objectively discriminatory programs and practices to claim that the motivation was to ‘dismantle discrimination.’” Jacobson warns that, “If adopted, Prop One would embed racial retribution in the form of reverse racism, critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion principles into the state Constitution, without most voters realizing its far-reaching effects.” Ms. Magazine, a feminist news magazine, triumphantly declares that Prop. 1 goes far beyond abortion rights. In its recent “Explainer,” originally published by The ERA Project at Columbia Law School, it lauds Prop. 1 for allowing “for a modern approach to equality that addresses the impacts of intersectional discrimination …. [and] will distinguish New York constitutional law from the ‘neutral’ approach to equality developed under the federal Constitution.” Abolishing Rights In 2022, during the debate in the New York Assembly over the approval for Prop. 1, Assemblymember Andy Goodell and Rebecca Seawright had an informative exchange that underscores the fact that the purpose of Prop.1 is more than an effort to protect New Yorkers’ ability to get an abortion on demand. Cam Macdonald summarizes the exchange perfectly in his Empire Center report: Assemblymember Andy Goodell asked the resolution’s sponsor, Rebecca Seawright, whether single-sex activities would violate the equal rights amendment’s prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. She answered that the amendment “follows the New York State Human Rights Law.” She also confirmed that the Human Rights Law already covered everything in the language of the proposed amendment. Yet the amendment is necessary, according to Seawright, to “embed [the Human Rights Law] in the Constitution.” Goodell then asked Seawright whether the amendment eliminates exceptions for religious groups like the Roman Catholic church to discriminate against women seeking abortions at Catholic hospitals. Her answer was no. But then Goodell pressed Seawright on religious exceptions for employer-provided health insurance covering abortions and contraceptives. Seawright answered, “So we’re not changing any of those laws; it would be a matter of litigation.” Prop. 1 Proponents According to the New York Times, the pro-Prop. 1 coalition includes the ballot issue committee, New Yorkers for Equal Rights, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York Immigration Coalition, 1199 S.E.I.U. and the N.A.A.C.P. Proponents of the amendment are flush with cash. Former U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, now the president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, set a $20 million fundraising goal in support of Prop. 1. Gov. Hochul plans to spend more than $1 million from the state Democratic Party. Prop. 1 cosponsor State Sen. Liz Krueger donated $5,000. According to Ballotpedia, New Yorkers for Equal Rights has received over $5 million in 2024, with most of it coming from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. On the other side, the Coalition to Protect Kids–New York has raised a fraction of that, $369,178.26, to defeat the amendment. If Prop. 1 is successful in New York, then the same language could find its way on to other state ballots across the country — even the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, cosponsor Assemblywoman Rebecca A. Seawright, was “[i]nspired to renew the movement for the federal Equal Rights Amendment to guarantee that our rights are anchored in our state and U.S. constitutions.” If this happens it will be even worse than the “ERA” defeated by Phyllis Schlafly.   RELATED: Abortions Went Up After Dobbs Harris and ABC Lied About Late-Term Abortions Planned Parenthood Mobile Clinic Provides Abortions and Vasectomies at DNC The post New York’s Devious and Dangerous Prop. 1 appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón is the sort of progressive prosecutor who thinks it is his job to curb mass incarceration. Last week, the L.A. D.A. announced he is reviewing the sentencing of Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were convicted for the savage shotgun killing of their parents in 1989 and sentenced to life without parole. The brothers are the subject of a Netflix series, Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, and a Netflix documentary, The Menendez Brothers. Gascón told Newsweek his office is reviewing the case because of a 1988 letter that Erik Menendez wrote to a cousin about alleged sexual abuse by his father and a statement from a former Menudo band member who alleged Jose Menendez sexually assaulted him. Be it noted, Lyle and Erik Menendez were 21 and 18 at the time they slaughtered their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. The sons were adults who could have walked away from their wealthy lifestyle in Beverly Hills but instead chose to turn two shotguns on their father, who sexually abused them, they said, as well as their mother, using her substance abuse in the face of her husband’s affairs as a reason to put her “out of her misery.” Then they went on a spending spree — loading up with high-end watches, clothing, and cars. The murders were premeditated. They were extremely violent. The brothers killed their parents. So why would the headline-seeking Gascón revisit the sentence? California has no shortage of gullible journalists and politicians who want to believe that convicted killers, even parricides, are underdogs — though the brothers admitted they killed their unarmed parents, as Jose and Kitty Menendez were watching TV. Some family members have pushed for the brothers’ release — as the pair, now in their 50s, have been in prison for decades after enduring a childhood of abuse by their father. In the Netflix documentary, prosecutor Pamela Bozanich confirmed that she asked around about Jose Menendez, and she couldn’t find a single person who said anything nice about him except for his secretary. Bozanich called the father a monster whose death presented “an actual plus for mankind.” “The only reason I’m doing this after 33 years is that this poor woman who gave birth to both of them was treated like a doormat by her husband and her sons and she was slaughtered like a wild animal inside of her own home,” she said of her decision to talk about the case. Bozanich also believes that there would be no push to reconsider the case if not for TikTok, which has elevated the inmates’ celebrity status. There’s a political angle to the Menendez brothers’ saga as well. Gascón’s career in elective office took off after Kamala Harris won the California attorney general’s race in 2010 and then-Mayor Gavin Newsom named him to succeed her as San Francisco DA. The careers of the two prosecutors from San Francisco have been intertwined for years. In February 2020, Harris and other progressive Democrats endorsed Gascón as he ran for Los Angeles district attorney. That 2020 endorsement was not a pro forma statement of support; Harris got behind Gascón during a contested primary in which he challenged incumbent Democrat D.A. Jackie Lacey. Then-U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris said, “George Gascón is a proven leader of national significance when it comes to reforming our criminal justice system. As DA of San Francisco, George led fights to reform the Three Strikes Law, decrease the state prison population and get people convicted of nonviolent offenses greater opportunities to get their lives back on track. As D.A. of L.A. County, I know George Gascón will work every day to keep our communities safe and demand real accountability from our justice system and real justice for every Angeleno.” In short, Harris, who wants voters to believe she was a hard-nosed prosecutor, endorsed Gascón because he weakened California law on repeat offenders and sent fewer criminals to prison. But now, according to a recent Los Angeles Times/UC Berkeley poll, the incumbent DA has garnered 21 percent support, 30 points behind lead challenger Nathan Hochman. Those politics aren’t going to help Harris in 2024. So this go-round, she has not endorsed Gascón. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post There’s a 2024 Angle to the Menendez Brothers Saga appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from DollarVigilante: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

???? Israel has begun attacks on Iran. pic.twitter.com/M1JhSKr5rn — Censored Men (@CensoredMen) October 25, 2024

Election Bombshell! The Deep State Knows Trump Is Going To Win In A Huge Landslide And Is Now Preparing To Trigger MASSIVE Civil Unrest! This Is An Absolute Must-Watch/Share LIVE Friday Edition Of The #AlexJonesShow! https://t.co/ZfpMLY8c8C — Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) October 25, 2024

WW3 ALERT! ???⚠️⚠️⚠️ Israel has officially started its attack on Iran! 5 MASSIVE explosions seen near Imam Khomeini International Airport in the capital city of Tehran. Israel says that the attack is meant to be a message of “deterrence” but I can see this boiling over… pic.twitter.com/PqAILQ9Eii — The Patriot Voice (@TPV_John) October 25, 2024

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star: Well folks I am now in the “clean up phase” of the hot water heater leak-removal-replacement-inspection nightmare.  By clean up I’m going through a bunch of stuff I had stored in the room where the heater was, throwing some out, and trying to “consolidate” things a bit before […]