First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli said that the arrest of the Honduran national in California for allegedly unlawfully registering to vote shows the state’s vulnerability.

Essayli told Bill Melugin on Fox News:

“This case really highlights the vulnerability in California’s voter rolls. They basically allow anybody to register to vote on the honor system. There’s nobody in government that is checking to confirm you’re a citizen, and in fact, in this case, he on the form put down a California driver’s license and a social, which he had because he has a visa that does not prove you’re a citizen. And according to the Secretary of State, they say at least half a million people don’t even provide that information when they register to vote.”

The Democrats have decided this is in their best interests. It could easily be corrected, but is not.

It makes one wonder just how blue California would be if there was actual voting security. I think it would still be blue, but not as overwhelmingly. We may never know, because it’s hard to imagine that the Democrats in California would want to tighten up their enforcement. There’s really no reason to do so, because the current situation benefits them.

The post California doesn’t really care if you’re a citizen or not when you vote appeared first on The New Neo.

That doesn’t tell us much. Were they ballots that should have been counted and somehow were missed? And if so, why? Or were they ballots that were not legal and uncounted for that reason? And why so many – or so few? In other words, was this just the tip of the iceberg of the number of ballots that shouldn’t have been counted in that state? Or should many of these have been counted and were they unfairly excluded?

The article doesn’t say.

I was also hoping it would deal with the situation in Los Angeles in which the vast majority of the late-arriving ballots were for the third-place candidate, Nithya Raman, which ended up eliminating Spencer Pratt from the running. But it doesn’t.

This is how the article begins:

Nearly 150,000 California voters had their mail-in ballots rejected for the state’s June primary, a spike from recent elections even as the state attempts to make voting easier with the goal of boosting participation and counting every ballot.

Let’s rewrite that a bit:

Nearly 150,000 California mail-in ballots were rejected for the state’s June primary, an increase from recent elections even as the state attempts to make voting easier with the goal of boosting Democrat votes and relaxing the rules so that every mail-in ballot is counted whether it’s valid or not.

Here were the figures:

Every voter receives a mail-in ballot that can arrive at an election office seven days late and still be counted, provided the envelope is postmarked by Election Day.

Yet even with that generous weeklong window, the primary driver of the higher rejection numbers is late-arriving ballots, according to data compiled by the secretary of state’s office. Voting experts suspect the main problem is postmarks on ballots that came after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted. The culprit could be U.S. Postal Service changes that might affect the timing of when postmarks are applied.

Left out is the question of how “voter” is determined, who is on the rolls, whether there’s any attempt to verify citizenship or residency and what those attempts are, and what “voting experts” are being interviewed and what their politics and evidence might be. Are they just guessing about the post office changes being the supposed culprit? Or might it be that a lot of ballots actually are mailed late? And if the latter, why? Might it be because it’s not until rather late that the fraudsters can guess how many ballots they need to make up the difference?

More:

According to state data, 148,241 mail ballots were rejected in the June election, or a rate of 1.73% of all mail ballots.

In raw numbers, that’s up from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 mail ballots were rejected, or a 1.56% rate. In 2022, 105,818 mail ballots were voided during the primary, or a rate similar to 2024.

But guess what? If you go to this site, you’ll find a chart that tells you that, way back in ancient times – the 2010 and the 2014 primaries in the state, to be exact – the rejection rates were much higher, 2.53 and 2.86 in the respective primaries. Since then – also described at that site – there have been major court victories to institute policies that lessen that number.

There are some very simple fixes for the late-postmark problem. One is to reduce the number of mail-in ballots as a whole by making the system more like the old absentee-ballot system. That won’t be happening while the Democrats are in charge. Another is for voters using such ballots to mail them in significantly ahead of time. That would not only reduce the number of late-postmarked ballots, but it would make it more difficult to engineer fraudulent late-ballot dumps to sway a close election.

In addition:

Nearly 44,000 ballots were set aside because the voter’s signature didn’t match the one on record with county officials. Over 8,300 ballots were rejected because there was no signature on the returned ballot envelope.

In 743 cases, the voter had already cast a ballot, so the mail ballot was voided. Other reasons for rejection included a ballot being missing from the return envelope, or multiple ballots were sent back in a single envelope.

Not reassuring.

More:

After the June primary, President Donald Trump seized on California’s reputation as the national slowpoke in vote counting to renew his long-standing criticism of the state’s elections …

There goes that Donald Trump again, seizing.

More:

There is no indication of any widespread problems with mail voting, which has gained in popularity among Democrats and Republicans alike. A report by the Brookings Institution published in 2025 found that the number of cases of mail voting fraud was minuscule — about four cases per 10 million mail ballots.

Three things about that paragraph are of interest. The first is that the common implication now from the left is that fraud must be widespread to be worth concern. And yet they don’t define “widespread.” The second is that they imply that all the fraud that’s been found and proven is all the fraud that occurs. This is preposterous. The third is that both parties support mail-in voting in some bipartisan fashion. But they don’t. It’s become more “popular” with Republicans because they know they must use it to counter the Democrats’ heavy use of it.

[NOTE: There’s also this news about voter eligibility in Pennsylvania.]

The post Those California mail-in ballots appeared first on The New Neo.

It is hard to overstate the hope that followed the fall of apartheid in South Africa in 1994. The newly elected African National Congress was well positioned to move the country into a new era of equality and prosperity for all citizens. …

After nearly a half-century of apartheid, however, South African leaders argued that formal equality wasn’t enough. Instead, as the argument went, a transitional period of redress for nonwhites was required. These efforts included affirmative action, land reform, and “black economic empowerment,” among others. For example, the government bought white-owned farms and distributed them to black South Africans, many of whom lacked the skills and knowledge to run them successfully. As a result, once-profitable farming operations fell into disrepair and underuse, weakening both economic productivity and food security.

South Africa created a dense system of race-based policies across employment, procurement, land rights, and licensing. The country embedded racialism throughout the political, educational, and economic systems, making identity central to how the government, schools, and businesses hired employees, enrolled students, prioritized benefits, bid on contracts, and assessed the success of initiatives.

Today, the hope that followed the fall of apartheid has all but evaporated. …

Predictably, the measures deemed necessary in the aftermath of apartheid have become permanent. For many of the country’s leaders, the question is no longer whether racial redistribution is permissible; instead, the question is how extreme the racial redistribution will be. Race has been reinforced as a continual site of social conflict, instead of fading into the background of a multiethnic society.

I don’t pretend it’s not a dilemma to figure out how to proceed when one portion of a country has been severely discriminated against for that long and some sort of corrective is necessary. But I’m convinced that reverse racial preferences are not the answer.

The authors of that piece, Christopher Rufo and Ryan Thorpe, claim that California is in danger of following in South Africa’s footsteps (without South Africa’s apartheid history):

[California’s] leaders have increasingly embraced a radical, race-based vision of politics that echoes South Africa’s post-apartheid experiment in racialized government.

For much of the twentieth century, California was a refuge for those fleeing the racism and discrimination of the Deep South. …

This City Journal investigation—based on an extensive review of government records, reports, and legislation, as well as interviews with leading legal scholars—reveals that during the past 15 years of one-party rule, California Democrats have worked tirelessly to import South Africa’s post-apartheid playbook to the Golden State.

During the administration of Governor Gavin Newsom, California’s racialist project has kicked into high gear. Race is becoming an organizing principle of public policy, shaping everything from education and data collection to bureaucratic decision-making and wealth redistribution. South Africa sorted its citizens by race to deny rights, and now California does the same to distribute benefits.

The rest of the article goes into the particulars.

The post California as the next South Africa appeared first on The New Neo.

The earthquakes struck shortly after 6 p.m. local time. People evacuated swaying buildings in Caracas and remained outside, many visibly shocked as they saw entire walls that had collapsed, making furniture visible from the street. Dust columns could also be seen in two neighborhoods of the capital, where restaurants and other businesses are typically busy. People remained on the streets after sunset. Some sat on the ground hugging their pets as dust gathered around them.

“It started off gently and then gradually grew, and in the end, we all had to leave our houses, go outside and gather together,” Caracas resident Hector Ricci said.

I wonder how many of the buildings in Caracas are designed to withstand quakes. This was apparently the biggest one there in about a century. My guess is that the buildings aren’t designed for a big one, and this is why:

Strong earthquakes are unusual in Venezuela.

While the country sits near multiple fault lines, its position straddling the South American and Caribbean plates makes earthquakes much less common than in other parts of Latin America.

It was felt in Colombia and parts of the Caribbean. I very much hope the death toll isn’t high, but I fear it is.

[NOTE: I wasn’t at my computer or on my phone when the first news came, so I just heard about it close to 9:30 PM. But earlier today I had heard the news of a thankfully-much-smaller earthquake near the Fort Bragg area of California: a magnitude 5.6, which was the biggest in that area of California in the last forty years. It’s a beautiful place I know well, and I have relatives and friends all over the state.

I’ve been to California at least 75 times in the last 50 years, and have probably been in five or six earthquakes there myself. However, mercifully, I’ve never been in a very serious one – although a person doesn’t know that at the time until it’s over. I’ve been in ones that are gentle and ones that begin with a harsh jolt, ones that seem to be over quickly and ones that seem to go on for quite some time. They are always frightening, every single one of them.

Northern California and Caracas are very far from each other and on different tectonic plates, and so these earthquakes on the same day were almost certainly coincidental. But if it’s a coincidence, it’s certainly an eerie one.]

The post Magnitude 7.5 earthquake in Venezuela near Caracas appeared first on The New Neo.

In other words, the process gives us the appearance of fraud. That is built into the system, which allows vote-counting of mail-in ballots a week past election day as long as they are postmarked on that day (and “postmarked” is rumored to be interpreted as including a handwritten note), and which features mail-in ballots to everyone on the rolls plus liberal ballot-harvesting.

For example:

California has some of the most permissive — if not the most permissive — vote-by-mail laws in the country. Every active registered voter is automatically mailed a ballot before each statewide election. Because the state has refused to allow the Department of Justice to review its voter rolls, there’s no way to know how many registrations belong to deceased individuals, voters who have moved, duplicate records, or were actually fraudulent registrations to begin with. …

Additionally, California accepts ballots that arrive as late as one week after Election Day. Although the law requires those ballots to be postmarked on or before Election Day, claims circulating on social media suggest that even a handwritten date may be enough to meet that standard, raising further questions about the state’s ballot-counting process. For obvious reasons, this is impossible to confirm.

That time frame is inherently untrustworthy and should never be allowed, unless perhaps for absentee ballots from military personnel. Why would anyone implement a system like that, with so few ways to check on it? Hard to believe it’s for any reason other than to make it more possible to cheat if necessary, once the counters know how many ballots they have to create in order to make up the difference. And with the universal mail-in voting and ballot harvesting, it’s even more suspect.

So either there was an amazing bona fide surge for the most far-left major candidate in the mayoral race, Raman – hard to believe – or there was cheating here. And the argument made by the left, that late-arriving mail-in ballots in California always go for Democrats, is unconvincing. Do such ballots go disproportionately for Democrats compared to the earlier mail-in ballots? More importantly, do they go for the non-frontrunner – the person in third place? And if so, does the phenomenon occur even when there is no threat from a Republican or a candidate the Democrat establishment doesn’t want – in other words, when there is no reason to manufacture votes? In the case of this LA mayoral primary, there wasn’t so much a late surge for Democrats as a late surge for Raman in particular, the third-place candidate prior to that, and the one who is most to the left.

Because only the top two vote-getters in the California primary advance to the general, if the counters of votes wanted to push Pratt out of the running, they had two choices to eliminate him. The first choice would be to help the frontrunner and incumbent Bass reach 50% and win outright; if a candidate gets over 50% in the primary that person is the outright winner and there’s no further voting [CORRECTION: This appears to be incorrect information, and therefore this option was not available]. But Bass was about 13 or 14 points away from 50% on election night, so that was probably a bridge too far. Too many votes to manufacture. But Raman and Pratt were only five or six points apart on election night. Much easier to make up that difference and set up an obligatory Democrat/Democrat twosome. And that’s what has happened.

Bass had been consistently beating Raman in the ballots arriving by Election Day. And then suddenly Raman beats Bass in the later ballots. See this:

The big tell about Los Angeles Mayor right now is not that Nithya Raman has gained massively on Spencer Pratt. It’s that she’s gained on Karen Bass *while Bass’ share actually declined* in two full days, Thursday PM to Saturday PM.

Bass and the Normie Dem Adam Miller both dropped slightly in share while Raman essentially took all the net gains.

Thursday Left, this morning Right. Raman gained 3.1 points on Bass. Conventional wisdom was that late voters would’ve consolidated around the incumbent, not bolt for the upstart extremist.

More here:

A candidate who was getting around 20% of the vote is suddenly getting 40% of the vote, and those votes are coming at the expense of Spencer Pratt.

Not her Democrat opponent, whose vote percentage has remained steady.

Not a “Democrat” surge; a Raman surge.

I’m not sure where this guy gets his information, but it’s certainly interesting:

As @BoredElonMusk & the data show, Raman’s late mail in ballot surge was fueled in large part by ballots from Skid Row.

Tens of thousands of homeless whose ballots are sent to central addresses (not the sidewalk) & can be filled out/returned by someone else.

There’s also this:

Many have been asking me describe the potential signature verification loophole for Los Angeles mail in ballots.

It says: “If a voter is unable to sign, the voter can make a mark witnessed by one person.”

Here, the person drew a happy face & “witnessed” it with a scribble. That scribble isn’t validated as being a real person. No name, nothing.

While a happy face may draw scrutiny, a plain line would not.

This could hypothetically enable mass harvesting where the voter never fills out, signs or even sees their own ballot.

We should be told how many ballots show up without the voter’s signature.

A hundred, two hundred years ago, a lot of people couldn’t even sign their name. Today? No excuse for this except in extremely rare circumstances. Combined with ballot harvesting, it’s an obvious travesty. And yet how can the fraud be proven in such a situation? It can only be inferred, but there’s no way to check on who made that mark.

More numbers here:

Mail-ins arriving before Election Day:
– Bass: 38.1%
– Pratt: 27.9%
– Raman: 20%

Mail-ins arriving after Election Day:
– Raman: 37% (+17% surge)
– Bass: 34.9% (-3% drop)
– Pratt: 19% (-9% drop)

In addition:

Add to all this a fact that many have not considered: you don’t even need to manufacture ballots after election day. All you need to know is the approximate results beforehand (Raman comes in third), and fill out the harvested ballots from the homeless, apartment buildings, and fake voters, ensuring that the correct result is overturned after the election is held. You have over a week to get them in, so you can even wait until the polls close and initial results come in and still get that vote counted “legally.” …

Most of the “cheating” can be done legally, save for the actual filling out of the ballots, which is practically impossible to detect. Simply have the harvested ballots ready to fill out when the initial results come in on election night, vote the ballots, and send them in. No magic USB drives necessary. No video trail. No paper trail. No examination of the ballots. …

As far as I can find, which is not admittedly definitive, there is no case where a third-place candidate far back vaults into first place in ballot counts days after the initial results come in. It beggars belief, violates common sense, and depends on the belief that late-breaking voters surged to a candidate everybody knew was rightfully dead and buried. That pattern is never observed in the wild. …

But it is the pattern necessary to kick Pratt off the ballot, giving Karen Bass a clear and easy path to victory over a candidate few people like, and nobody is enthusiastic about, and with the charisma of a rock.

I don’t see any remedy possible for this particular election. One very slight comfort (very slight) is that, if Pratt had been allowed to get on the ballot against Bass in the general, I think it’s highly likely he would have lost the election. I suppose it’s theoretically possible he could have won if he ran an amazing campaign in the next few months. But we haven’t been allowed to find out; it was too dangerous to let us see what he was saying, or to have another debate where he might show Bass up to be a fool. And the Democrats couldn’t even risk the remote possibility of a Pratt win.

However, for the future, there’s this possibility:

The case before the Supreme Court is Watson v. Republican National Committee. The question is direct: When Congress established a national Election Day for federal elections, did it mean ballots must be received by Election Day — or merely mailed by Election Day?

During oral arguments in March, Justice Samuel Alito warned that confidence in election outcomes can be seriously undermined when the apparent result on election night is later flipped by a large batch of late-arriving ballots.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh likewise pressed attorneys on whether history supports requiring ballots to be received by Election Day. Their questioning reflected broad skepticism from the court’s conservative majority.

Sacramento should be paying attention.

Most Americans understand Election Day to mean the deadline. California’s system tells them otherwise.

When vote totals keep changing for days after the polls close, suspicion naturally grows — because the process looks like it has no real endpoint.

I would say it has no objective endpoint other than 30 days after Election Day. It does have a goal, though – which is to select and then elect the preferred candidates of the Democrat powers-that-be.

The article mentions that, even if SCOTUS decides that Election Day is the final acceptable day for mail-ins, that rule would only apply to federal elections. State and local elections could still use the old method – which means the primary rules for governor and mayor would not change, as far as I can tell.

Once states go this way, it’s very hard to reverse the trend. And that is part of the design.

ADDENDUM:

A similar reversal has been starting to happen in the governor’s race; see this. Will Hilton make it into the general? I submit that it looks better for him than it did for Pratt. I think it’s more difficult to commit enough fraud to matter on the level of an entire state election unless the percentages are very close to begin with. On the state level, there are too many red areas which are not amenable to Democrat vote-counting control, plus the sheer number of faked votes needed is higher. So maybe Hilton will hang in there – although if he doesn’t, it would not surprise me either. It would be third-place Steyer who would have to outperform both Becarra and Hilton as time goes on.

The post On the LA vote-counting process that is giving LA two leftist Democrats to choose from for mayor appeared first on The New Neo.

Does that mean there’s cheating? Maybe. There’s certainly a strong desire to win coupled with a less-than-convincing devotion to assuring that the will of the voters will be carried out no matter what the outcome. The mail-in ballots that can come in late, the drop-boxes, the rabid leftist partisanship, all combine to create at the very least a lack of trust in the system on the part of anyone on the right.

And so it was almost a foregone conclusion that this would be happening, and that it would seem suspicious whether it is or not:

… [T]he race for second place in the mayor’s contest is moving in a direction that should concern Spencer Pratt supporters, and anyone who thinks Los Angeles needs to move toward a more centrist, common-sense course.

Friday afternoon’s update added roughly 140,000 ballots countywide, with about 42.7% from within the city of Los Angeles.

Mayor Karen Bass remains firmly in first place with 34.98% of the vote. The real drama is the battle for the second runoff spot between Pratt and City Councilwoman Nithya Raman. …

Raman gained 23,115 votes in Friday’s update, compared to 10,711 for Pratt and 20,419 for Bass. In a single ballot drop, Raman netted 12,404 votes on Pratt. …

Put another way, she received more than twice as many votes as Pratt in this batch.

The upshot is that Pratt may fall to third place as more votes come in. And if he’s in third, he won’t be on the ballot. California’s voting system is designed to give voters a November choice of leftist and more leftist, rather than Democrat and Republican. But realistically, even if Pratt holds onto second place, at present he is only getting about a quarter or third of the vote compared to a combined Democrat/leftist vote that constitutes a definite majority.

Why anyone would vote for Bass or Raman is beyond me. I understand that Democrats will vote for Democrats. But these two have had their chances and have failed to help the city. If I lived in LA, I think that even if I were a Democrat I’d give Pratt a chance.

The post Pratt falling in Los Angeles tallies appeared first on The New Neo.

In the blue state of California, one can assume that the Democrats will win (by hook or crook, as it were). But hey, you never know. The irrepressible Pratt wants to put up a fight:

Spencer Pratt has confidently claimed he’s already looking ahead to a November runoff as election results Tuesday night showed him comfortably in second place behind incumbent Mayor Karen Bass.

“She knows it’s on. I hope she’s ready,” Pratt said on Tuesday. “I literally could not be more excited.”

“I am ready for whatever God puts in front of me,” he said. …

“We have five months to put the best team the city could ever dream of,” Pratt said. …

As election officials continued counting ballots, Pratt made clear he was already looking to the months ahead and a potential showdown with Bass.

“We can do debates every Friday if she’d like,” Pratt repeated. “As many debates as Mayor Bass would like.”

I bet she would like zero; she didn’t do well against him in the first debate. What are his chances of winning? I’d say very very slim, but not zero.

In other California news, this loathsome character won his primary and almost certainly will win the election:

San Francisco state Sen. Scott Wiener dominated early returns in the bitter showdown to replace retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi in Congress, claiming victory in the primary contest.

Wiener won 43.4% of votes in the first batch of returns posted Tuesday night — with Pelosi’s pick Connie Chan and lefty tech millionaire Saikat Chakrabarti trailing behind at 28.5% and 13.5%, respectively.

Why do I call him “loathsome”? He’s one of the most far-left politicians in California, and that’s saying something. I’ve written about him before, for example in this post. And as the Democratic nominee in that particular district, he will win and be going to Congress.

The post California dreaming appeared first on The New Neo.

I’m especially curious about the LA mayoral race and Spencer Pratt. Here’s a poll, for what it’s worth:

A recent poll by UC Berkeley and the Los Angeles Times shows a closely contested race among the top three candidates, while 11 other candidates are trailing significantly. The poll, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, has Bass leading with 26% support among likely voters. Raman follows closely at 25%, with Pratt at 22%.

All are within the margin of error. Interesting.

For the governorship, we have this:

Multiple polls found the crowded race has narrowed to a three-way contest between Democrats Xavier Becerra, a former health secretary and state attorney general, and Tom Steyer, a billionaire climate activist, and Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host.

With its lack of cinematic or political stars, California’s gubernatorial race was atypical from the jump. But a mid-April scandal upended it, essentially allowing candidates to restart their campaigns. Still, Tuesday’s primary could bring unexpected results because more voters than usual held on to their ballots until the final stretch of the competitive race.

Polls for that race show this:

Three key polls were released in recent days and all three of them found former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra several points ahead of both Republican former Fox News host Steve Hilton and investor Tom Steyer. PPIC has Becerra at 23%, IGS has him at 25% and Emerson shows him 28% of the vote. No other candidate received more than 22% of the vote in any of the polls.

Hilton is at 21% and Steyer at 22%.

The post It’s California primary time appeared first on The New Neo.

A mountain lion forced residents of Santa Monica and their tiny pets indoors as officials scoured the area for the apex predator.

The Santa Monica Police Department descended on the residential area of 14th and Montana Friday morning after someone allegedly saw the animal in the area. …

The mountain lion was first located sleeping in a residential backyard, and did not move from that location for several hours, a SMPD spokesperson told The California Post. …

After about six hours, the animal was reportedly hit with a tranquilizer, sending it running through the neighborhood. Officials were seen in a video chasing after the big cat in an attempt to wrangle and capture it. …

Finally, nine hours after it was first reported, the animal was successfully tranquilized and removed.

Just a few years ago I was staying with a friend in the suburbs of Los Angeles. It was April, and I went for a walk in a very built-up area of many homes. And yet I saw a mountain lion walking through a group of bushes not more than 50 yards away from me. I turned and slowly walked in another direction, heart pounding but trying not to transmit fear although I was quite frightened.

When that happened to me, it made me think of this old Kingston Trio song from my youth. It’s a California song:

And now of course we have to have the song “Wimoweh,” later called “The Lion Sleeps Tonight.” I prefer this older Weavers version (1955) to the later pop version by the Tokens:

Here is the original South African group who created the song. You can see how closely the Weavers stuck to this version:

The post The mountain lion sleeps tonight appeared first on The New Neo.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) presents itself as an innocuous Muslim civil rights group—a reputation it reinforces with litigation and claims of anti-Muslim bigotry. But the group finds itself under increasing scrutiny for alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot, Hamas. Last November, Texas Governor Greg Abbott designated CAIR a terrorist organization. The following month, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis followed suit, citing CAIR’s being listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorism financing case.

But as other states move to sideline CAIR, California is embracing this alleged terror front. CAIR-CA, the organization’s largest statewide affiliate, is flush with taxpayer cash. In the last five years, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has rubberstamped at least $41 million in funding to the group. The vast majority of that money, it turns out, comes from the federal government. These federal dollars are flowing into CAIR-CA’s coffers even after it was the target of a recent Department of Justice investigation.

The article goes on to describe the evidence that CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front. I’ve read about it before and find the argument quite compelling. I remember first hearing about CAIR after 9/11, raising the “Islamophobia” charge in order to somehow turn the whole thing into a defense of Muslims in the US.

More:

“You can’t look at what CAIR is doing today in isolation,” Burns said. “The government established the fact [during the trial] that a conspiracy existed among these organizations, including CAIR, to support Hamas, and that acts were taken in furtherance of that conspiracy. . . . CAIR’s role was to operate an entity out of Washington, D.C. that would serve to defend the interests of the rest of the network—against scrutiny from the media, against scrutiny from law enforcement. . . . In my opinion, the executive director, Nihad Awad, and other components of CAIR that were a part of this original infrastructure, are still operating CAIR in furtherance of an agenda to support Hamas.” …

One would think that CAIR’s ties to an Islamist terror group would make government agencies pause before providing it with public funds. But under Governor Gavin Newsom, California’s state government has seemingly never met a “marginalized group” it did not want to shower with other people’s money. CAIR-CA is rolling in tax dollars.

NOTE: I seem to be writing a lot about California today.

The post Gavin Newsom gave taxpayer money to CAIR appeared first on The New Neo.