Swalwell quits the House; Gonzales quits the House

The New Neo Posted on by

Swelwell saves House members the trouble of having to expel him from the House or defend him; he quits:

Swalwell announced his resignation in a statement posted to his X account, while still denying some of the allegations made against him in recent days.

“I am deeply sorry to my family, staff, and constituents for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past. I will fight the serious, false allegation made against me. However, I must take responsibility and ownership for the mistakes I did make,” Swalwell said in the statement.

Which is which?

Gonzales – a Republican – also resigned:

… Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, who has been dogged by allegations that he had an affair with a staffer who later died by suicide …

Gonzales, who admitted to the affair and said he would not run for reelection, announced in post to X on Monday he would file his retirement from office when the House returns on Tuesday.

“There is a season for everything and God has a plan for us all,” Gonzales said. “When Congress returns tomorrow, I will file my retirement from office.

A recent accuser of Swalwell says this:

[In 2018 Swalwell] invited me to two public events. I knew he was married and that his wife was pregnant. He was my friend.

On the third occasion, I believe he drugged my drink. I only had one glass of wine. We were supposed to go to a political event, and he said he needed to get paperwork from his hotel room.

When I arrived at his hotel room, I was already incapacitated, and I couldn’t move my arms or my body.

He raped me. And he choked me.

And while he was choking me, I lost consciousness. And I thought I died.

I did not consent to any sexual activity.

Although I did not undergo a rape kit at the time, I disclosed the assaut to the people closest to me. I also recorded these events in my handwritten calendar.

The assault and its impact were later documented during my therapy sessions at a sexual assault center.

Although she has only come out recently with the public accusations that are from 2018, if there is earlier (especially if close to that time) documentation of her discussing this with a therapist, that would tend to corroborate her story. But her story itself, although chilling, has a vulnerability common to many such stories: because she was drinking, and says she was incapacitated, was it from a drug Swalwell gave her or from her own drinking – the amount of which she’s underestimating? And far more importantly, in her diminished capacity can her memory be trusted?

At any rate, it was plenty enough, added to the other stories (supposedly including lewd emails a la Anthony Weiner), to get Swalwell to resign. In this case, there may indeed be truth behind the accusations.

The Pope versus Trump; Trump versus the Pope

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m not Catholic and I’m not even Christian, and so I don’t ordinarily pay much attention to the Pope. But of course I follow any big news of the Pope and general trends, and the trend with the last two popes – in the political sense, because popes operate in a political world and both reflect it and have an effect on it – has been to the left.

I don’t expect popes to be cheerleaders in most wars. I expect them to talk about praying for peace and that sort of thing. But I was shocked when Pope Leo (the first American pope) said this the other day:

“Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” Leo said. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood.'”

I am certainly no historian of the Catholic Church, but has any other pope ever said anything remotely like this? As far as I know, Catholic priests are often chaplains to the military, and they lead soldiers in wartime in prayer and there is no assertion that God doesn’t hear the prayers of those soldiers. There is also Catholic Just War theory, and plenty of Biblical precedent:

The Old Testament contains numerous examples of divinely sanctioned warfare. In Exodus 15:3, God is described as “a man of war,” affirming that war, under certain conditions, is not inherently evil. Judges and kings of Israel often led battles under divine mandate, as seen in the campaigns of Joshua (cf. Joshua 6) and David (cf. 2 Kings 5:19). Judas Machabeus led a successful war for freedom against the Seleucid Antiochus Epiphanes, a type of antichrist. God’s people suffered many martyrs (see 2 Machabees 6 & 7) but they also had angels fighting on their side (see 2 Machabees 3:24-26; 5:2-4). …

Church history is littered with saints who also served as soldiers; notable among them are as St. Sebastian, St. George, Bl. Charlemagne, St. Ferdinand III, and most famously, St. Joan of Arc.

These scriptural passages and saintly exemplars illustrate a foundational principle: War is not intrinsically immoral, but its morality depends on context, authority, and intention.

The passage to which Pope Leo seems to be referring is in Isaiah and here’s the context:

Dr. Marcus Peter writes that the Holy Father “might have been evoking Isaiah 1:15” when he said those words. The pastor of my church, in his homily on Palm Sunday, offered the same opinion.

But Isaiah did not say that God does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.

In Isaiah Chapter One, the prophet is chastising Israel. He says Israel has become a “Sinful nation, people laden with wickedness, evil offspring, corrupt children!” (1:4). Then he says, “When you spread out your hands, I will close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood!” (1:15).

Dr. Peter notes that the language in the official Vatican text is clear. “The Italian original reads, “non ascolta la preghiera di chi fa la guerra,” which closely means that God does not hear the prayer of those who make or wage war.”

Isaiah is saying, however, that God does not hear the prayers of the wicked, the evil, or the corrupt. And not everyone who wages war is evil, wicked or corrupt. I don’t think George Washington, our Founding Fathers, or Abraham Lincoln were evil, wicked or corrupt. And President Roosevelt cannot be considered evil or wicked for declaring war on a country that attacked the U.S. and on another country that was out to conquer the world.

The Pope also criticized Trump’s “a whole civilization will die” threat, either not understanding it (as I wrote about here) or perhaps considering words as awful as deeds. Nor has Pope Leo (and I include when he was Cardinal Prevost) ever had a word to say about Iran’s constant “Death to America” threats, over the near-half-century of the mullahtocracy’s existence. At least, I couldn’t find any such statement by him.

So it’s unsurprising that Trump took issue with what the Pope said, although I actually think this is one of those times when Trump would have done better to have ignored it.

The Pope also said he’s not afraid of Trump. The statement implies that this involves some sort of bravery. But of course Trump isn’t going to send out a hit man to harm the Pope. Then again, Pope Leo might well be afraid of Iran, or Muslim terrorists. After all, look at what happened to Pope John Paul II:

In 1979, The New York Times reported that Agca, whom it called “the self-confessed killer of an Istanbul newspaperman” … had described the Pope [John Paul II] as “the masked leader of the crusades” and threatened to shoot him if he did not cancel his planned visit to Turkey, which went ahead in late November 1979. The paper also said (on 28 November 1979) that the killing would be in revenge for the then still ongoing attack on the Grand Mosque in Mecca, which had begun on 20 November, and which he blamed on the United States or Israel.

It’s a long and very convoluted story; you can find it at the link if you’re interested. It was a conspiracy, but only Agca fired and severely injured the Pope, who nevertheless later forgave him.

Back to the present – I’ve also seen quite a bit of talk in the comment sections of blogs on the right from people saying that of course it was David Axelrod’s visit that sparked Pope Leo’s comments critical of Trump. Some of them add that Axelrod is Jewish, which makes this one of those “the Jews are behind it” charges. But I doubt very much that the Pope is motivated by Axelrod or by Jews, whatever online commenters may think.

I don’t know what Pope Leo and David Axelrod discussed when they met, but they’re both from Chicago and they seem to share political worldviews anyway. My guess is that at least a portion of their discussion may have had something to do with Axelrod’s daughter. I’m speaking of this:

[Axelrod’s] first child, a daughter … was diagnosed with epilepsy at seven months of age. Axelrod describes Lauren as having had brutal seizures, requiring a constantly changing regimen of medications for some time. This left her developmentally disabled, but nevertheless mainstreamed in school. For a few years after high school, the family struggled to find programs that would keep her happy and fulfilled, but were able to place her in Misericordia, a large dormitory-style group home in 2002, where she leads an active life. As of 2021, Axelrod advocates for a flexible, mixed approach to group homes that support environments for people like his daughter, in contrast to the common approach of exclusively moving toward smaller group homes.

And of Misericordia:

Misericordia Home is a not-for-profit developmental home for persons with mild to profound developmental disabilities in Chicago, Illinois. It is run by the Sisters of Mercy and operated under the auspices of the Archdiocese of Chicago.

Axelrod’s daughter is now in her mid-forties and she’s been in that Catholic-run home for most of her adult life. Maybe Axelrod wanted to thank Pope Leo. Not everything is about politics.

How the NY Times presents the negotiations with Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

If you can get access to the Times, you can find the original here. If not, you can find a copy here.

The headline is “In Pakistan Talks, Iran Saw a U.S. Trying to Dictate, Not Negotiate.” The paper seems to be intent on presenting Iran’s viewpoint. A sample:

Vice President JD Vance summed up the failure of 21 hours of negotiations with Iran in one sentence: “They have chosen not to accept our terms.”

To Iranian officials, that line reflected their biggest problem with the talks, too: The United States they argue, had not come to negotiate.

“Bingo,” Javad Zarif, the former foreign minister who led Iran’s negotiators in the nuclear deal negotiations with the United States and Europe in 2015, highlighting the comment from Vance, wrote on the social platform X. “No negotiations — at least with Iran — will succeed based on ‘our/your terms.'”

This is very much designed to appeal to the left – Trump and Vance the bullies, as opposed to the kindly Obama of the famous Iran Deal. How dare dictatorial Trump and Vance! – say those New Age Iranian regime leaders, always trying to find common ground and consensus.

More:

“We are open to dialogue and negotiation,” Medhi Tabatabei, a deputy to Iran’s president, wrote on social media on Sunday. “But we do not submit to force.”

No, of course not. So very open to that favorite term of the left: dialogue. And force is such an outdated concept. The Iranian regime itself not only doesn’t submit to force – but it never uses force either, right? Just ask all the protesters it has treated so kindly.

More:

Iran’s government sees itself not only as victorious for having survived that onslaught, but also for having emerged with a new and strategic card. Since the war began, it has asserted control over passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping corridor — and it is not willing to give up that leverage now.

“We will not stop for a moment in working to secure the achievements of the last forty days,” Gen. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s speaker of Parliament and the head of the negotiating delegation, wrote in a statement on social media on Sunday.

It’s not willing to give up its leverage. But I don’t think the US is asking if it’s willing any more. And what is “new” about this strategic card?

Of course, Iran may have more tricks up its sleeve to thwart the US. But to speak of securing “the achievements of the last forty days” sounds very Black Knight indeed. But much of the world, and I assume many of the Times’ readers, seem willing to buy this narrative.

News roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Swalwell quits the race for governor.

Let me just say that when the Democrats want you out, they don’t pull their punches. Do they have this volume of opposition research prepared on everyone, just in case? Is one of the other Democrats running for governor in California next under that commodious bus? They have to winnow that field down to eliminate any chance, however slim, of a Republican winning the race.

(2) I don’t know how I got to it. I don’t know why I clicked on it. But once I did, I became fascinated with this one fact about the home Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez once shared, having purchased it for $60 million:

The former couple struggled to find a buyer for the 12-bedroom, 24-bathroom mansion for more than a year.

What’s up with that ratio? Two bathrooms for each bedroom?

(3) From Trump:

(4) There have been large demonstrations in Ireland over high fuel costs:

The Irish government has announced a package worth €505m (£440m) to support those “most impacted” by rising fuel costs.

Fuel costs have soared globally as a result of the US-Israel war with Iran and demonstrators in the Republic of Ireland have been blocking fuel distribution sites and many major motorways and roads in protest.

Taoiseach (Irish PM) Micheál Martin said on Sunday that his government are extending temporary measures to reduce excise duty on petrol, diesel and marked gas oil.

They will also be postponing an increase on carbon tax …

So, which thing are they protesting – or probably both? The high fuel costs due to the war, or the high fuel costs due to the taxes and the proposed tax increase?

(5) How our blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is planned to work:

So we aren’t closing the Strait, we are blockading Iranian ports. This means that Iran won’t be able to sell any oil. Two countries will be hurt: Iran and China, which buys 80% of Iranian oil. The Gulf States will be able to ship their oil through the Strait as soon as they choose to do so.

Meanwhile, we are sending vessels to the Strait to try to dispose of the mines that Iran may or may not have laid there. Other countries may aid in that effort. Iran still has a lot of small boats that they have used to harass shipping, but they will be useless against our ships. And reportedly, a number of oil tankers have diverted from other courses and are heading to the Gulf of Mexico America to load up on American oil and gas.

Orban out, Magyar in

The New Neo Posted on by

I can’t say I’ve followed Hungarian politics all that much. I knew that Orban had been in power for ages and what his general policies have been, and that J. D. Vance visited that country recently to support him in the upcoming Hungarian election. But about his opponent, Peter Magyar, I knew next to nothing.

When I read last night that Orban’s party – and therefore Orban himself – had been voted out in a huge defeat, I tried to read up on Magyar. He was described as “center-right” – which certainly doesn’t sound like a globalist leftist, although European political designations can be mighty opaque. The results appear decisive:

With over 60 percent of the votes in the highest turn-out election in Hungary’s post-communist history, Magyar’s Tisza party had more than 52% support to 38% for Orbán’s governing Fidesz party. Astonishingly, Magyar’s party went from holding zero seats in the 199-seat Hungarian National Assembly to winning a supermajority of at least 138 seats.

That is indeed astonishing, until you read that up till 2024 Magyar was allied with Orban, broke off because of corruption, and formed a new party. So it seems to me that perhaps a lot of people fed up with Orban just went over to Orban-lite.

Some have painted a parade of horribles that will proceed from Orban’s repudiation. There are dire predictions of untrammeled Third World immigration and Budapest being held in thrall by Brussels. None of that seems terribly likely to happen. Magyar had a prominent role in Orban’s party until 2024. …

He holds and ran on positions that are very similar to Orban’s. In fact, had Orban not seemed either disinterested in or willfully blind to the massive corruption infesting his party, he may have won again today. …

What we can expect from Magyar is more of Orban’s Hungarian nationalism. But it will come without the slobbering over Putin and the reflexive urge to be against anything other EU nations support. He opposes Third World immigration and is unlikely to back off that position. His main challenge will be to recharge Hungary’s moribund economy.

I certainly hope that’s the case.

Women and men, men and women – short and tall, tall and short

The New Neo Posted on by

I am not a tall woman. I’m medium-sized, so very medium-sized that at 5’4″ I fall very close to the “average” in the mathematical sense:

The average height for women in the U.S. aged 20 years and older is 5 feet 3.5 inches. This average is based on data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 2015-2018 and the U.S. National Health Survey.

The average height for women in the U.S. also varies based on your genetic background. Non-Hispanic Black women aged 20 years and older have the highest average height at 5 feet 4 inches. Asian women have the lowest average height at 5 feet 1.5 inches. …

Women in the U.S.’s 5-foot-3.5 average is near the middle of global height averages.

That’s me; Ms. Average. And when they measure me these days, I’m still somewhere between 5’3 3/4″ and 5’4″. The residual effects of all that ballet training? Hope it lasts.

Meanwhile, the average male height in the US is 5’9″, and the average worldwide is 5’7 1/2″. The means that, among all the considerations I’ve had to think about when dating, height has rarely if ever been one of them – except in junior high or the early high school years when females had usually attained their adult height but a significant percentage of males had not. And I wasn’t really dating until later in high school, and by that time almost all the boys were taller than I was or at least as tall.

Recently there was a discussion on this blog about the issue of male/female couples’ heights. It started with this comment by commenter “Kate”:

On the video, speaking as a tall woman, tall men should date girls more nearly their size. 🙂

There were a number of responses, such as this one by commenter “TommyJay”:

Re the video: I like tall women. For me, equality between the sexes isn’t just a political idea ? . But it is not at all a “deal breaker” for me. Unlike almost all the single older women I meet, each one of which seem to have dozens of deal breakers.

I looked up some dating surveys of unknown quality a couple years ago. 96% women refuse to date a guy who are even slightly shorter than they are. I’ve met women who require that the man be at least 6 or 8 inches taller. Living and walking a lot in a tourist area where I’ve seen a thousand or more couples, I think the correct number is more like 98% of women.

However, 25% of men wouldn’t mind dating a woman taller than themselves, myself included. Though, even I think that more than couple inches would look a little strange. That leaves the other 75% of men who like the traditional difference.

I’ve wondered about the why’s of all that, myself included. People like, or are impressed by, tall people. Just a basic fact.

Myself, I met a couple of lovely tall young ladies at an impressionable age in high school. One was 5? 11?, the other 6′ 1″. Never got over it. (I’m 5′ 10″ now, and lost about 0.5″ since high school.)

As for me, I’ve never been especially drawn to tall men. My ex was rather short – maybe 5’7 1/2″, but it never was an issue. Even if I wanted to wear very high heels, what did I care? In fact, the only tall man I’ve ever had a relationship with was Gerard, who was somewhat over 6 feet. Everyone else was between 5’6″ and 5’10”. Note, though, that means they all were indeed taller than I. Because of my height, a taller man was never something I had to seek, because the vast vast majority of men are already taller.

Would I have dated someone smaller than I? I don’t know for sure, since it never came up. But I do know that most women prefer to be with a man who gives them the sense that they could physically be protected by the man. I think it’s just a natural element of attraction, although it can be overridden.

Iran War: wanting the Promised Land without the Wilderness

The New Neo Posted on by

Some Iran news:

Vance and company have arrived in Pakistan for the talks, Trump announces we will be mine-clearing in the Strait of Hormuz, and Fox reports that an Israeli intelligence office says that the IRGC is currently in control of the Strait (no surprise there) and is charging tolls. I’ve read a lot of conflicting reportage on that last point.

I’ve also seen many reports – here’s one – that China plans to give Iran new air defense systems during the ceasefire. This is according to “sources with knowledge of US intelligence.” That’s not even sources within US intelligence; just “with knowledge of” (let me guess: a Democrat in Congress?). No way to tell if it’s true or false, but it’s certainly plausible, and Chinese denials are meaningless. But I assume that if it does happen, we and/or the Israelis will be getting intelligence on that.

And two US Navy destroyers have reportedly already passed through the Strait without incident, while Iran supposedly forgot where they put the mines in the first place.

Meanwhile, indeed:

Also this, in which Bill Maher has apparently expressed the “we lost!” point of view, and Douglas Murray responds:

I came across this video last night, which I recommend. You don’t have to watch the whole thing, but it’s well worth watching because it explores this widespread impatience that makes it nearly impossible to carry out any effective major military campaign that lasts more than a couple of days. I got the title of this post from an analogy he makes to the Biblical Exodus tale:

It seems that Swalwell won’t become the next governor of California

The New Neo Posted on by

Accusers are coming out of the woodworks and staff are resigning from his campaign; see this and this.

From the former:

Rep. Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor was reeling Friday after two news reports detailed accusations of sexual assault and misconduct, with multiple staffers resigning and both prominent allies and rival candidates calling on the California Democrat to exit the race.

The exodus, which began just before the San Francisco Chronicle published a report detailing a former staffer’s claims, jolted California’s marquee race just weeks before ballots start landing in voters’ mailboxes. The former staffer told the newspaper that Swalwell had sexual encounters with her while working for him, and that he sexually assaulted her twice when she was too drunk to consent.

Hours later, CNN reported on that ex-staffer and three additional women who accused Swalwell of making sexual advances and sending explicit photos and messages. And POLITICO reported that a former Swalwell employee had signed an agreement over an employment discrimination claim that included confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses, despite his campaign saying no one on his staff signed an NDA during his tenure.

It’s hard to believe that this information just came out all at once, organically. It’s easier to believe it was revealed now because someone or some group wanted Swalwell out of the race, perhaps because too many Democrat candidates versus GOP candidates threaten to split the vote. Can’t have a Republican governor of California, right?

How many of the accusations are true? If the staffers have the suggestive emails, that would certainly constitute evidence:

Multiple Democrats running for governor called on Swalwell both to exit the race and to resign from Congress — including former Rep. Katie Porter and billionaire Tom Steyer, who have consistently been the top-polling Democrats along with Swalwell and could benefit from his departure.

Such a surprise.

Katie Porter has this history:

In January 2023, Politico reported on criticism that Porter was “allegedly a terrible—according to some accounts, abusive and racist—boss.”

The Washington Post interviewed eight former employees on condition of anonymity about their experiences working for Porter. The staffers described her as domineering and recounted multiple examples of her mistreatment of staffers, including instances where she berated staffers until they cried. In response to the allegations that she created a toxic workplace, Porter defended herself on The View in April 2023 by comparing herself to women of color who are discriminated against.

In October 2025, a video of an online interview from July 2021 between then-Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Porter resurfaced. In the background, one of Porter’s employees appeared and Porter shouted “Get out of my fucking shot!”. After the video resurfaced, Porter stated that “what I did to the staffer was wrong.” She also claimed that she apologized to the staffer and thanked her for the correction.

And then there’s Steyer, who doesn’t seem to have a lot of skeletons in his closet of the personal variety – not that I’ve done all that much sleuthing. This is interesting, though, about his failed 2020 presidential run (yeah, I didn’t really remember it either):

Steyer spent over $253 million on his 2020 presidential campaign. Nearly $250 million of that sum consisted of his personal funds.

But getting back to Swalwell, it’s interesting that his relationship with a suspected Chinese spy named Fang Fang wasn’t quite enough to sink him – or are the things related? Was more information about that due to come out?:

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., is threatening legal action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as it reportedly considers releasing potentially damaging files just weeks before he faces voters in California’s wide-open gubernatorial race.

Lawyers for Swalwell sent a cease-and-desist letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, warning the bureau would violate federal privacy law if it moves ahead with releasing records regarding the congressman’s decade-old relationship with a suspected Chinese spy named Christine “Fang Fang” Fang.

It seems to me that the Democrats just generally thought Swalwell’s baggage was getting too heavy, and they didn’t want him to become the candidate and have all this stuff come out later. So he’s under that great big bus, or almost certainly will be there shortly. Will he keep his Congressional seat? There’s a motion to expel him, but it was filed by GOP member Luna.

[NOTE: I must admit I find this topic tedious at this point. Corruption, corruption, trying to separate truth from fiction, all the while assuming California is a lost state swimming in fraud and leftism.

Plus, have you noticed that more and more sites make you wait while they verify you’re not a bot? My old computer is so slow it becomes annoying.

Plus, I keep misspelling “Swalwell” as “Stalwell.” Stallwell? Stalewell?]