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?]

The rise of family estrangement

The New Neo Posted on by

This news is both sobering and unsurprising:

Adult children vs. parents, siblings vs. siblings — calling quits on one’s kin seems increasingly common.

In a 2025 YouGov poll of 4,395 US adults, nearly 4 in 10 respondents said they “no longer have a relationship with” one or more immediate family members. An episode of the Oprah Podcast on the “culture of estrangement” brought the topic home to millions of listeners.

While polls, social media and news of high-profile celebrity splits highlight the prevalence and pain of family breakups, researchers’ growing but still limited attention has yet to quantify how much they’ve multiplied. There are, however, plenty of potential drivers in today’s divorce rates, political polarization, rising individualism, reliance on therapists and social media memes about toxic relationships, says Joshua Coleman, an author, researcher and psychologist in private practice in the San Francisco Bay Area.

It all comes at a time when more Americans are prioritizing mental health — and when the internet is helping people find connections outside the family, he adds.

It’s mostly the younger generation cutting off the older rather than vice versa – also not surprising. They’ve been taught to label even minor disagreements “toxic” – and that they’re in need of withdrawing in order to protect their fragile selves from them.

I see evidence of this in real life and online. And of course I’ve been writing about familial estrangement because of political differences for my entire blogging career. It happens with long-term friendships, too.

Much of the younger generation wasn’t ever taught that “honor thy father and thy mother” has any particular valence. That Commandment is an interesting one, too; it doesn’t say to “love” parents or even “like” them. But to “honor” them would seem to preclude breaking off relations, unless it’s at the request of the parents.

The entire article is of interest and worth reading, especially if you’ve suffered from this sort of estrangement or know anyone who has. I consider the phenomenon tragic, for the most part. Of course, if parents are truly dangerous (blatant sexual abuse or something else of a very extreme nature, with no repentance or change on the part of the parent), sometimes breaking off is the only answer. But what I see online are almost always more minor complaints or political disagreements causing rifts, usually with the adult children feeling very self-satisfied and virtuous about their act of cut-off.

From the author interview with Joshua Coleman at the link:

A: Yet another strong factor these days is politics. In the Harris Poll, 42 percent said politics was the biggest factor driving family members apart.

Q: It’s the kids who are mostly initiating these estrangements, correct?

A: That’s true. We don’t have good research on the parents, but we know they are in the minority, and that it’s usually for religious reasons or they disapprove of the child’s gender identity or maybe the person that they’ve married, or their values.

Q: Why do you think parents are so much less likely to cut off their kids than kids are to cut off their parents?

A: Sociologists use the phrase “the intergenerational stake,” to convey the idea that when you’re raising your children you make a big investment, in part in the interest of furthering your genetic line. That can lead parents to assume that when they raise children, they will be close to them throughout their lifetime. Yet that’s obviously not how it is for most kids. This may help explain why a classic study in 1999 showed that parents of young adult children reported closer relationships and fewer problems than the children perceived.

Trump’s actual statement in his “civilization” threat, and the reactions to it

The New Neo Posted on by

By now you probably have read the many reactions to Trump’s Truth Social post last Tuesday, threatening to escalate. Both the woke left and the isolationist right spoke as with one voice: “He’s crazy! He’s a war criminal! He’s threatening to nuke the Iranian people and wipe them out!”

Never mind that a ceasefire followed, and that whatever threat he made was a negotiating tactic. Many of them were able to immediately pivot, with no sense of irony or shame, to some version of, “Trump TACO – he always chickens out, the coward.”

But you can search and search among them, as well as MSM articles on the subject, and it will be very difficult to find the full text of Trump’s actual threat. It’s not as though the text is long, either; it’s just a paragraph. One might think that before interpreting his meaning a person might actually read it and then quote it? But actually looking at the text and discussing it in any fair manner would ruin the anti-Trump propaganda message.

And they know they don’t need to do it. They count on their audiences (or people in general, and that includes Trump defenders) not to look it up. They just cite the first sentence for the most part, and then react to that.

But the whole thing is still up there for anyone to see. And here it is:

A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less redicalized minds prevail, maybe something wonderful can happen. WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and ocmplex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!

This had been preceded by an Easter day post of Trump’s featuring the f-word (among other things) and starting with this: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped in one, in Iran.”

How does any of this translate into nuclear weapons in anything except the Trump-haters’ fevered brains? Power plants and bridges (even if capitalized) don’t need nuclear weapons. And the “civilization” in that Tuesday message is quite obviously the “47 years of extortion, corruption, and death” that he threatens to end or supposedly (hopefully?) has already ended, being replaced by these supposedly “less-radicalized minds” with whom he’s now dealing. And that last sentence – “God Bless the Great People of Iran!” (with the capitalizations and the exclamation point) not only makes it clear that Trump has no intention of harming the ordinary population of Iran much less wiping them out, it is also in line with virtually everything he’s said and done up to this point.

So the misunderstanding by the anti-Trump pundits and politicians and MSM propagandists (hmmm; three m-words) is either willful or strikingly negligent or both. I believe it’s willful; I believe they did read the whole thing for the most part and understood it, but assumed their audience wouldn’t read it and that the first sentence could be successfully exploited for anti-Trump propaganda purposes. But if the pundits and politicians and MSM propagandists didn’t read the whole thing, that’s where the abysmal negligence would come in.

You can read more of their reactions here as well as here.

It’s certainly possible to critique Trump’s use of the word “civilization.” It was purposely hyperbolic, although the rest of the paragraph made that more clear. And of course it’s possible to criticize the war itself in good faith, for various reasons. But to pretend Trump was ready to use nukes and that he should be impeached for that? No, that’s not done in good faith.

It’s also instructive to see some newer posts from Trump, such as this:

All U.S. Ships, Aircraft, and Military Personnel, with additional Ammunition, Weaponry, and anything else that is appropriate and necessary for the lethal prosecution and destruction of an already substantially degraded Enemy, will remain in place in, and around, Iran, until such time as the REAL AGREEMENT reached is fully complied with. If for any reason it is not, which is highly unlikely, then the “Shootin’ Starts,” bigger, and better, and stronger than anyone has ever seen before. It was agreed, a long time ago, and despite all of the fake rhetoric to the contrary – NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS and, the Strait of Hormuz WILL BE OPEN & SAFE. In the meantime our great Military is Loading Up and Resting, looking forward, actually, to its next Conquest. AMERICA IS BACK!

Or this, intended to counter various MSM lies:

The Failing New York Times and Fake News CNN each reported a totally FAKE TEN POINT PLAN on the Iran negotiations which was meant to discredit the people involved in the peace process. All ten points were a made up HOAX – EVIL LOSERS!!! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

I saw that 10-point plan discussed in the MSM and even by some on the right as though it was agreed on by Trump. That seemed preposterous on the face of it, but people were taking it seriously.

We also have this from Trump:

Numerous Agreements, Lists, and Letters are being sent out by people that have absolutely nothing to do with the U.S.A. / Iran Negotiation, in many cases, they are total Fraudsters, Charlatans, and WORSE. They will be rapidly exposed after our Federal Investigation is completed. There is only one group of meaningful “POINTS” that are acceptable to the United States, and we will be discussing them behind closed doors during these Negotiations. These are the POINTS that are the basis on which we agreed to a CEASEFIRE. It is something that is reasonable, and can easily be dispensed with. It’s very much like Fake News CNN last night, headlining a “source” that had no power or authority to write a Letter claiming great authority. President DONALD J. TRUMP

I’m not fond of Trump’s writing style myself. But I think I understand its purposes and I often see its effectiveness. I’m not grading him on style points, even if I’d wish for a more elevated one. I’m grading him on accomplishments.

So far, in a little over a month, Iran’s leadership and capacity for war have been very considerably degraded. A year ago, if someone had told you those thing would be happening in that short amount of time with very little loss of US life, you’d probably be in awe. And this thing isn’t over yet, either.

And speaking of negotiations …

The New Neo Posted on by

…Netanyahu made this announcement:

“In light of Lebanon’s repeated requests to open direct negotiations with Israel, I instructed at the Government meeting yesterday to open direct negotiations with Lebanon as soon as possible,” he said in a statement. “The negotiations will focus on the disarmament of Hezbollah and the establishing of peaceful relations between Israel and Lebanon.”

Ahead of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statement, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun had called for ‘direct talks’ with Israel, setting an immediate ceasefire as a precondition, the BBC reports:

Netanyahu also said there is no ceasefire and that attacks on Hezbollah will continue.

It’s not the first time the two countries have talked. But I wonder how weakened Hezbollah is at this point, and if it will matter. I think Lebanon would like to be rid of Hezbollah and be its own country for a change, but Hezbollah isn’t on the same page (an understatement).

Does this merely have to do with damping things down in order to facilitate the Iran talks?

The Associated Press reported that the talks would be led on the U.S. side by Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa and on the Israeli side by Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter. It’s not clear who would represent Lebanon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a post on the social platform X on Thursday that he directed his government “to open direct negotiations with Lebanon as soon as possible.” The Israeli leader said the talks would focus on the disarmament of Hezbollah and establishing peaceful relations between the two countries.

President Trump on Thursday said he told Netanyahu to scale back Israel’s deadly strikes, as they threaten to upend a tenuous ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran.

“I spoke with Bibi and he’s going to low-key it. I just think we have to be sort of a little more low-key,” Trump said.

In other news, Fetterman says he will vote against a resolution to halt strikes on Iran:

Fetterman, a staunch supporter of Israel, said on Fox News’s “Hannity” that he will vote no on the measure.

“We have to stand [with] our military to allow them to accomplish the goals of Epic Fury,” he told host Sean Hannity, referring to the operation in Iran.

“I’m old enough to remember we used to root for our military, and we would all agree that Iran is the world’s leading terrorism underwriter.”

You can be a toddler and be old enough to remember that.

Negotiating with Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

Query: if everyone to the right of AOC knows that the Iranian leaders (or players to be named later) are not to be trusted, why would people think that the US negotiators are blissfully unaware of that and inevitably will be duped by them? Why assume this administration is that stupid?

It pays to be nervous about this, of course – very nervous. And I am. But I find it odd to assume that the negotiating group is ignorant of what everyone else on the right seems to already know. I suppose it depends how desperate to end the war you think the administration is. I happen to think that Trump is willing to keep going unless something very reassuring happens as a result of the talks, or at the very least will be making sure there is compliance – or else.

For example:

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth issued an ultimatum to Iran Wednesday, urging the nation to give up its enriched uranium — or President Trump will launch another “Operation Midnight Hammer” to seize it.

While the two-week cease-fire deal between the US and Iran does not address the nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium in Tehran’s possession, Hegseth told reporters on Wednesday that the US will secure the atomic material no matter what.

“We’ll get it. We’ll take it, we’ll take it out,” Hegseth said of the enriched uranium, vowing to complete one of President Trump’s main goals of the war. …

“But what’s clear… is they’ll never have a nuclear weapon or the capability to get a path to one.”

Recall that this war was preceded by several weeks of negotiations – probably with a different crew of Iranians – and they failed. Recall that most people online felt that we would be duped by those negotiations, but that’s not the way it worked out. In fact, we seem to have learned a few things from them.

I would like very much for the Iranian regime to change. But I don’t think that’s going to happen yet, if ever. But if it does, I think the Israelis (Mossad, etc.) will be highly involved.

DeCarlos Brown and competence to stand trial

The New Neo Posted on by

I see a lot of people on the right are angry at this news about Iryna Zarutska’s accused killer:

A December 29, 2025 report indicated that Brown was “incapable to proceed to trial,” according to the motion filed by one of his attorneys, Daniel Roberts. The next step will be a capacity hearing in Mecklenburg Superior Court at which a judge will determine if Brown should stand trial. Roberts said in the motion that the hearing can’t happen while Brown is in federal custody.

In addition to first-degree murder, Brown also faces a federal charge alleging he committed an act of violence resulting in death on a mass transportation system. State and federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. …

Brown is undergoing a separate psychological evaluation in the federal prison system. A report from that evaluation is expected later this month. If Brown is deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial, a judge will have to hold a capacity hearing in federal court. The state case is also at a standstill while Brown is in federal custody. Brown won’t go to trial in either court until questions surrounding his mental state are resolved.

I’ve read several articles on this, and the reporting is so disjointed and unclear as to be very confusing. It partly has to do with the state versus federal proceedings, and it partly has to do with how far along his incapacity examination has gone, and what will happen if he’s found incapable.

One thing I want to clear up, however, is that this has nothing to do with a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. That has to do with his state of mind at the time of the murder, and the governing federal or state laws on criminal responsibility. What’s going on now with the incapacity evaluations has to do with his present state of mind and whether he is able to understand the charges against him and assist in his own defense. In other words, is he in any kind of touch with reality or is he flagrantly schizophrenic, for example. If the latter, he will be stabilized – most likely with medication, most likely in some sort of secure mental hospital. Then, once he’s stabilized, he will stand trial.

Brown actually does seem to have a bona fide record of schizophrenia, not just a claim as a result of his crime. The issue of capacity or incapacity to stand trial has to do with our justice system’s focus on protecting defendants in the sense of making sure they have an opportunity to receive a proper defense.

I’ll say once again, though, that I find the reporting on this case especially murky.

On the Georgia special election

The New Neo Posted on by

Marjorie Taylor Greene is quite the piece of work, and she has become a big Trump-hater as well. Since she’s resigned from her Congressional seat, she’s been excoriating Trump and just about everything he does. She had long been an Israel-hater, and that continues. Let’s just say she’s more or less on the Tucker wavelength.

The Georgia special election was won by the Republican Clay Fuller, but the results were much closer than in 2024, when Trump won by 37 points. Fuller won by 12. So the left and the press is spinning this loss as a Democrat victory of sorts.

Greene won by 29 points in 2024. She had been endorsed by Trump and so we can assume some of her victory was on his coattails, although she was also the incumbent.

Turnout is nearly always lower in these special elections and favors the party with the most motivation. That would be the Democrats, at the moment. But this is still a red district and it wasn’t close. Nevertheless, it certainly would have been far better had Fuller won a much bigger victory, and in the recent past (not just in Greene’s election) the margins were far bigger for the GOP candidates.

I’ve looked for a while, but can’t find comparative turnout statistics except that it was lower just now than in 2024. If you can find anything more specific, please put it in the comments. I also have looked for Greene’s remarks during the recent campaign – whether she backed Fuller or badmouthed him, or even might have praised Harris (the Democrat). I can’t find a thing; maybe you can. She did keep trashing Trump, however, and Trump backed Fuller.

A most unusual election.

What Shakespeare had to say about need

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday I wrote a post about Liz Warren’s desire to confiscate more of Jeff Bezos’ money. The title of the post was, “How much money does Jeff Bezos need, anyway?”

Afterwards, a line from Shakespeare kept coming to me: “Oh reason not the need.” I couldn’t recall in which play it appeared. Perhaps The Merchant of Venice? So it was time to look it up, and it’s King Lear.

Here’s the whole speech:

O, reason not the need: our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous:
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life’s as cheap as beast’s: thou art a lady;
If only to go warm were gorgeous,
Why, nature needs not what thou gorgeous wear’st,
Which scarcely keeps thee warm. But, for true need,–
You heavens, give me that patience, patience I need!
You see me here, you gods, a poor old man,
As full of grief as age; wretched in both!
If it be you that stir these daughters’ hearts
Against their father, fool me not so much
To bear it tamely; touch me with noble anger,
And let not women’s weapons, water-drops,
Stain my man’s cheeks! No, you unnatural hags,
I will have such revenges on you both,
That all the world shall–I will do such things,–
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth. You think I’ll weep
No, I’ll not weep:
I have full cause of weeping; but this heart
Shall break into a hundred thousand flaws,
Or ere I’ll weep. O fool, I shall go mad!

I could use more patience.