Mayor Mandani Fits Right into New York City

New York City, the and heart, center and seat of American capitalism, is moving to Florida, Texas and the internet. America should not be shocked by Zohran Mamdani’s win. Let’s look at today’s New York City. The Senate Minority Leader is New Yorker Senator Chuck Schumer, who is steadily, consistently moving to the left of the Democratic Party. He’s scared of a primary challenge by the best-known Representative from New York City, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AOC was once a capitalist who moved to the Democratic Socialist Party when her marketing idea failed. It’s easier to take money from those who succeed rather than earning It on your own. The House Minority Leader is Representative Hakeen Jeffries of New York City. A great photo was published a week ago at a rally on October 26 in Queens. Three New Yorkers embraced: Mamdani, AOC and Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Senator from Brooklyn. That’s today New York City. We also have the New York County (Manhattan) District Attorney, Alvan Bragg, a George Soros District Attorney. New York Attorney General Letitia James hails from Brooklyn. Her campaign plank was to prosecute Donald Trump. Mandani’s campaign was simple: FREE! FREE! FREE! Schumer and Jeffries believe in SPEND! SPEND! SPEND! That’s appealing to a dispirited populace who no longer believe the American Dream and upward mobility exists in New York City. Many New Yorkers have left the City and the State for warmer climes, such as Florida and Texas. Many more will vote with their feet. Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect was the mantra of FDR. It works. New Yorkers today support raising taxes on the rich. The New York City of Rudy Guiliani is no more. It was gone under the 8 years of Major Bill de Blasio, who Mamdani looks up to. New Yorkers have short memories of the 8 years of de Blasio decay. Let’s not read too much into America from New York City. The neighboring Nassau County reelected the Republican Bruce Blakeman as County Executive. The Republican District Attorney was also reelected while in the adjoining Suffolk County the Republican District Attorney was unopposed. The liberal incumbent mayors of Minneapolis and Portland won reelection over Democratic Socialists. Jacob Frey, the ineffectual Mayor of Minneapolis, let the city be looted and burned during the George Floyd riots. Mayor Bruce Harrell is holding onto a lead against a radical in progressive Seattle. Zohran Mandani was elected Mayor of New York when he won the primary by a plurality. The “D” after his name was a guarantee of election in the general election in a city where Republicans are an endangered species. His opponent was the incompetent, sexual harasser, ex-Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, who was loaded with baggage.

The Key to Fighting Climate Change is Direct Carbon Removal from the Atmosphere

The Time Has Come to Focus on Direct Carbon Removal in Reducing Global Warming Global warming is an intensifying global problem. No individual city, state, or country can unilaterally reduce the rise in global temperatures. Countries have reached agreements to reduce CO2 emissions. However, the international agreements have failed. The Paris Accords, signed by 195 nations on Earth Day 2016, set a goal of limiting global warning to 1.50C above pre-industrial levels by 2050. It contained detailed steps in reducing CO2 emissions. 2024 averaged the highest recorded temperatures in history. The World Meteorological Society said it reached 1.550C in the past year. Dr. Charles Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography devised an infrared gas analyzer to measure CO2 atmospheric levels. He set it up on the Moana Loa Observatory on the Big Island of Hawaii. The continuous readings form the Keeling Curve. The pre-industrial level was 280. The initial 1958 reading was 313. Earlier this year, it reached 424.81, up 3.53 in one year. The Keeling Curve warns us global warming will continue to rise. The Paris Accords failed, as did the earlier 1992 Rio Convention, 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and 2009 Copenhagen Accords, all with the same internal flaw. None are self-executing. No penalties or sanctions are imposed against violators. None of the 195 signees surrendered their sovereignty. Countries are thus free to violate the accords. China and India are the largest violators. China leads the world in alternative energy, but its insatiable demand for electricity is unsatisfied by alternative energy and EV’s. China and India are increasing their emissions at a greater rate than the United States is decreasing its emissions. For example, the United States’ emissions dropped 12% from 2020 to 5,007 metric tons in 2021 while China’s rose 33% to 11,472 metric tons. India announced it had to postpone the Paris Accords’ 2050 deadline to 2070. The International Court of Justice unanimously held on July 23, 2025 that the urgent and existential treat of climate change exists. All nations have the obligation to limit global warming to the 1.5oC increase of the Paris Accords. The failure to act constitutes intentional wrongdoing. The decision will not reverse global warming, but will unleash a further global flurry of climate change litigation. H.L. Mencken, the great columnist and humorist, wrote in 1920 this pithy comment: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” Once CO2 was recognized as the primary cause of global warming, the simple solution was to drastically reduce CO2 emissions on the assumption that cutting CO2 emissions will reverse global warming. Fossil fuels were identified as the primary source of CO2 emissions. Fossil fuels, whether from oil and its derivatives, coal, and natural gas, were to be replaced by alternative fuels. Clean energy became the apparent solution. California jumped aboard the anti-carbon bandwagon. New cars by 2035 would be all electric, gas appliances, hot water heaters and home furnaces eliminated, and diesel locomotives converted to electric. Solar installations are required on new homes while fireplaces are banned in new construction. The forest is a CO2 sink. Wildfires release millions of metric tons of stored CO2 in the trees and other vegetation. For example, California’s CO2 emission cuts are offset by California’s wildfires. A UCLA and University of Chicago 2022 study of the large 2020 California wildfires found California generated 127mmt (million metric tons) in the 2020 wildfires, roughly double California savings of 65mmt between 2003 and 2019. Wildfires are a global problem. Some nations imposed draconian restrictions, which increasingly ignored reality. The world is dependent on fossil fuels for the generation of electricity. Natural gas is the cleanest burning, but coal is plentiful, accessible and economical in much of the world. Underdeveloped countries are turning to coal. The reality is that even if the global community achieved NetZero, global temperatures would continue to rise because of the rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Nature removes about 20-80% of the CO2 emissions through ocean absorption and photosynthesis in 20-200 years. It gives back large amounts of CO2 through wildfires. The remaining CO2 molecules can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. The normal inclination now will be to unsuccessfully double down on failure. The reaction will be increased political resistance and litigation, The United States since 1970 has created a legal and regulatory regime of resistance to infrastructure improvements. Reducing CO2 emissions and capturing emissions at the source and injecting into the ground may reduce CO2 emissions entering the atmosphere, but not the CO2 levels currently in the atmosphere and rising. Clean energy has several environmental attributes, but it is not a panacea for global warming. The subsidies and regulations, the ICJ, green architecture and building codes, compensatory and regulatory litigation and regulation, EV’s, clean energy, alternative fuels, and NetZero will not lower global temperatures. Only refocusing on direct carbon removal can temper the rising climate change. The key to controlling global warming is degasification of the atmosphere, direct carbon removal. The moneys to be spent on research and subsidies on the way to NetZero can better be invested, redirected and focused on degasification. The technology exists, but is not commercially viable today. The Paris Accords failed, as did the earlier 1992 Rio Convention, 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and 2009 Copenhagen Accords, all with the same internal flaw. None are self-executing. No penalties or sanctions are imposed against violators. None of the 195 signees surrendered their sovereignty. Countries are thus free to violate the accords. China and India are the largest violators. China leads the world in alternative energy, but its insatiable demand for electricity is unsatisfied by alternative energy and EV’s. China and India are increasing their emissions at a greater rate than the United States is decreasing its emissions. For example, the United States’ emissions dropped 12% from 2020 to 5,007 metric tons in 2021 while China’s rose 33% to 11,472 metric tons. India announced it had to postpone the Paris Accords’ 2050 deadline to 2070. The International Court of Justice unanimously held on July 23, 2025 that the urgent and existential treat of climate change exists. All nations have the obligation to limit global warming to the 1.5oC increase of the Paris Accords. The failure to act constitutes intentional wrongdoing. The decision will not reverse global warming, but will unleash a further global flurry of climate change litigation. H.L. Mencken, the great columnist and humorist, wrote in 1920 this pithy comment: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” Once CO2 was recognized as the primary cause of global warming, the simple solution was to drastically reduce CO2 emissions on the assumption that cutting CO2 emissions will reverse global warming. Fossil fuels were identified as the primary source of CO2 emissions. Fossil fuels, whether from oil and its derivatives, coal, and natural gas, were to be replaced by alternative fuels. Clean energy became the apparent solution. California jumped aboard the anti-carbon bandwagon. New cars by 2035 would be all electric, gas appliances, hot water heaters and home furnaces eliminated, and diesel locomotives converted to electric. Solar installations are required on new homes while fireplaces are banned in new construction. The forest is a CO2 sink. Wildfires release millions of metric tons of stored CO2 in the trees and other vegetation. For example, California’s CO2 emission cuts are offset by California’s wildfires. A UCLA and University of Chicago 2022 study of the large 2020 California wildfires found California generated 127mmt (million metric tons) in the 2020 wildfires, roughly double California savings of 65mmt between 2003 and 2019. Wildfires are a global problem. Some nations imposed draconian restrictions, which increasingly ignored reality. The world is dependent on fossil fuels for the generation of electricity. Natural gas is the cleanest burning, but coal is plentiful, accessible and economical in much of the world. Underdeveloped countries are turning to coal. The reality is that even if the global community achieved NetZero, global temperatures would continue to rise because of the rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Nature removes about 20-80% of the CO2 emissions through ocean absorption and photosynthesis in 20-200 years. It gives back large amounts of CO2 through wildfires. The remaining CO2 molecules can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. The normal inclination now will be to unsuccessfully double down on failure. The reaction will be increased political resistance and litigation, The United States since 1970 has created a legal and regulatory regime of resistance to infrastructure improvements. Reducing CO2 emissions and capturing emissions at the source and injecting into the ground may reduce CO2 emissions entering the atmosphere, but not the CO2 levels currently in the atmosphere and rising. Clean energy has several environmental attributes, but it is not a panacea for global warming. The subsidies and regulations, the ICJ, green architecture and building codes, compensatory and regulatory litigation and regulation, EV’s, clean energy, alternative fuels, and NetZero will not lower global temperatures. Only refocusing on direct carbon removal can temper the rising climate change. The key to controlling global warming is degasification of the atmosphere, direct carbon removal. The moneys to be spent on research and subsidies on the way to NetZero can better be invested, redirected and focused on degasification. The technology exists, but is not commercially viable today.

The California Supreme Court May Save California Solar

The Trump Administration’s ending solar and wind subsidies Is generating criticism. It substantially discourages solar installations by making them less economical without the tax credits. However, the three large California public utilities, Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, and San Diego Gas & Electric, through the California Public Utilities Commission two years ago, threw cold water on the California solar industry. California strongly supports solar energy, except when it doesn’t. All new residential buildings up to three stories must include solar. Developers are building four story multi-unit housing. Solar energy generated on the grid is sold and transmitted to the utility. The customer then repurchases electricity from the grid at the designated price at that time. California originally favored solar energy through a favorable credit program. California’s Net Energy Metering (NEM) plan sets the rates the three large public utilities will pay per kwh (kilowatt hour) for solar and the billing rate for energy from the grid. NEM applies to both retail and commercial customers. The first plan, NEM I, was effective in 1996. It allowed a 1:1 tradeoff. A unit of solar could be applied to any KWH drawn from the grid. For example, solar generated at 3:00pm could offset a draw from the grid at the peak time, such as 8:00pm. Consumers with positive balances at the end of the year receive a cash payment for the balance. NEM 2 from 2016-2023 partially changed the payout. The utilities will continue to purchase excess electricity at the going rate, but resell at peak time at the higher peak time rate. The 1:1 tradeoff no longer exists. This is the NEM 2 current rate schedule: Summer Weekdays Weekends Mid Peak: 4-9 PM .60 .48 Off-Peak: 9PM-8 AM .37 .37 Super Off-Peak: 8AM-4PM .37 .37 Winter Weekdays Weekends Mid-Peak: 4-9PM. .53 .53 Off-Peak: 9PM-8AM .40 .40 Super Off-Peak: 8AM-4PM .36 .36 Solar panels applied for after April 14, 2023 are placed in the new NEM 3, the “Net Billing Tariff,” under which new solar owners will no longer receive the retail price for that time, but the utilities’ avoided costs; i.e. what the utilities could pay in the wholesale market for electricity, which could be 75-80% lower than the retail price. The owners then pay the retail price for any electricity they consume during the peak period of 4-9pm offset by the discounted credit. In short, they are selling low and buying high. The result is that newer solar customers will probably owe a balance, perhaps high, to the utility at the end of the year. Consumers understand the basic economics. One goal of the new plan is to encourage solar users to install batteries to store the excess solar generated during the day, but the subsidies for batteries have also ended. Californians currently generate more energy in the warm afternoons than the utilities can store in their increasing battery capacity. Customers in NEM 1 and NEM 2 are grand parented into their existing plans. If they find their existing solar installation is inadequate, their ability to add more panels is limited. If they add 1KW or 10% or over of the original capacity, they will then be moved into NEM 3. The effect of NEM 3.0 is a substantial reduction in solar installations. Solar installations under way reached record levels before the new rates went into effect April 15, 2023. Then they plunged in the first quarter of 2024 to about 8,000/month, the lowest since May 2020. On the other hand, 60% of the new installations also installed batteries. The utilities claim the two earlier NEMs gave an unfair advantage to solar users because the non-solar customers had to pay more to cover maintenance on the grid. The PUC and the utilities ignore the fact that the solar users invested a large sum into the solar panels and set-up. The payback period has substantially increased, making solar less attractive. A spokesperson for the twice bankrupt Pacific Gas & Electric Company said PG&E is “a strong advocate for solar energy and the deployment of solar energy that uses the sun in ways that are cost-effective for all of our customers.” Solar installations are limited to 115% of peak capacity. We could only install 10 panels because we now had an empty nest and were electrically frugal. We would like to add a few more panels today, which the new rules effectively preclude. We would move into NEM3. The three utilities want consumers to install storage batteries on their residences, another still high cost to be imposed on solar owners. The Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group, and Protect Our Communities Foundation filed against the NEM 3. The California Court of Appeals tossed the lawsuit, looking to a 1911 statute which barred lawsuits so long as the PUC had “regularly pursued its authority.” It barred any further reviews of the PUC’s action. The California Supreme Court had interpreted the statute to mean the PUC’s “interpretation of the Public Utilities Code should not be disturbed unless it fails to bear a reasonable relation to statutory purposes and language.” The Court of Appeals applied a “uniquely deferential” analysis. The California Supreme Court on August 7, 2025 unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court looked to more recent enactments that adopted an abuse of discretion standard. It reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case. The Court of Appeals will now have to look at the merits, but may still decide for the utilities.

Don't Munich Ukraine

Don’t Turn Ukraine into a Second Munich Adolph Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. The revered President Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934. Hitler assumed total power and became the Fuhrer; the Nazi dictatorship began. Hitler, like many megalomaniacs, had dreams of conquest. He started by uniting the Germanic people. Germany at the end of WWI had to turn the demilitarized Rhineland over to France control. The nascent German Army entered the Rhineland on March 7, 1936. Neither France nor England were willing to fight. The German Army marched into Austria on March 12, 1938. The Anschluss reunited Germany and Austria. Austria at the end of WWI was forced to cede the German populated Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia. Hitler then eyed the Sudetenland, threatening to use force to free the German population. England and France were again unwilling to go to war. The British and French people were also anti-war at that time. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain flew to Munich to meet with Hitler. An agreement was reached on September 30, 1938. Germany would receive the Sudetenland in exchange for a promise by Hitler that “he had no more territorial demands to make in Europe.” Germany invaded Czechoslovakia on March 15,1039. England and France were once again unwilling to fight Germany. Chamberlain flew back to England. He received strong support by the British people. He spoke his famous/infamous remark: “We have achieved peace in our time.” The phrase Minich arose out of Chamberlain’s mouth. Valdimir Putin does not just seek to unite the Russia people. He wants to reunite the old Russian Empire. He sliced off part of Geogia on August 8, 2008. He annexed Crimea in 2014. He sponsored guerilla warfare in the Donbass oblast of Ukraine, seizing much of it. He twice waged war on Chechnya. Prime Minister Putin has clearly stated he wants all of Ukraine. He also eyes Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. History tells us he would also want Poland and Finland. He hasn’t asked for the return of Alaska. Vladimir Putin, like Adolph Hitler, has a unsatiable hunger for seizing land. Security agreements mean nothing to him. They’re barely worth the paper they’re inscribed on. Catherine the Great by 1784 had consolidated all of Ukraine into the Russian Empire. Ukraine had a short, very short, period of independence at the end of World War II. Stalin brutalized Ukraine, killing millions in the Great famine of 1933-34. The Soviet Union Collapsed. Ukraine declared its independence in 1994. The departing Russians left behind about 1700 nuclear warheads, delivery weapons, and maintenance. Ukraine was third largest nuclear country for a few years. A global drive for non-proliferation, fostered by President Clinton, led to Ukraine. Ukraine was persuaded to surrender its nuclear weapons to Russia. Ukraine in return received guarantees of Ukraine’s independence, a security agreement, called the Budapest Manifesto. The United States, United Kingdom, and Russia promised to protect Ukraine’s independence. Russia violated it in 2014 and 2024. How has that security guarantee worked out? Remember, Putin wants all of Ukraine.

Memo to President Xi, President Putin, President Kim Jung Un, Ayatollah Khamenei, Governor Newsom, and Mayor Bass, et al

Memo to President Xi Jinping, President Vladimir Putin, President Kim Jung Un, Ayatollah Khamenei, Governor Gavin Newsom, and Mayor Karen Bass: There’s a New Sheriff in Town and he’s unpredictable. Opponents called President Trump “TACO,” “Trump Always Chickens Out.” A catchy phrase divorced from reality. Others call him Hitler or a king. President Trump is an indefatigable, forceful man of action, which is why he succeeded in the byzantine world of New York construction. He often negotiates with bluster. He engages in hyperbole. Part of President Trump’s strength comes from his unorthodoxy and unpredictability. Foreign leaders cannot be sure of what he will do next. The answer is easy – what’s best for America. It’s not the status quo. He knows what his goal is, the endgame. He has consistently said for the past decade: “Iran cannot have the Bomb.” We can assume that Israel had the schematics for the underground Fordow site, including utilities, back doors, and ventilation openings (like the first Star Wars movie). If it can be taken out by Israel, they will do so. Israel left it to President Trump. The Pentagon also had the schematics. The MOB bomb was designed to take out Fordow. President Trump may be flexible on the means, but not the ultimate goal. Iran will not have the Bomb. If Iran unconditionally surrendered, that would have been great. Iran refused to negotiate. They were warned. President Obama once “drew a red line in the sand” if Libya’s President Bashar al-Assad used poisonous gas on his people). Bashar did on March 19, 2013. President Obama’s response was muted. President Obama would not have taken out Fordow. He probably would have restrained Israel from attacking Iran. The story is during his administration he told Israel the U.S. military would shoot down Israeli attack planes headed for the Iranian nuclear facilities. It’s believable. President Trump gave Iran 60 days. Israel attacked Iran on Day 61. President Biden bugged out of Afghanistan and viewed it a victory. He, actually his staff, would not have bombed Fordow. Neither President Obama nor President Biden would have given 60 days notice. Even if they did, China, Iran, Russia wouldn’t give credence to it. President Biden’s Defense Department and security advisors couldn’t figure out for days what to do with a Chinese spy ballon that hovered over military facilities on the mainland. President Trump would have immediately ordered it shot down. President Xi should think twice about invading Taiwan, at least during the Trump Administration. Chairman Mao once called the United States “a Paper Tiger.” Paper Tiger, TACO, President Trump is not! He doesn’t bluff.

The Seven B-2 Bombers Mark the internment Of President Obama's Disastrous pro-Iran Foreign Policy

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry took the lead in negotiations with Iran to stop its nuclear program. They announced an agreement, technically The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), between the Islamic Republic of Iran, United States, United Kingdom, China, France, Russia, EU and Germany. Iran promised to give up its efforts to build the bomb Iran, they said, would cease its efforts to build the bomb and allow inspectors into its facilities. All Obama did in fact was to kick the can, in this case a nuclear bomb, down the road for ten years. Iran was free under the terms of the agreement to resume work on the bomb in ten years. Iran, of course, continued to work on the bomb during the ten years. Iran, as many sceptics predicted, cheated. The JCPOA was even worse in two ways by what it excluded. No restrictions were placed on Iran developing, manufacturing, and possessing ballistic missiles, which is why Iran is unleashed its ballistic missiles on Israel. Iran possessed somewhere at least 2,000 leading up to 8,000 excellent ballistic missiles when war broke out on. The second omission is the lack of any restrain on funding, aiding and supplying terrorists, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Iran, in exchange for agreeing to the JCPOA, had sanctions lifted, which meant it made billions by selling its oil in open markets. President Obama followed up JCPOA by shipping at midnight $400 million in hard cash to Tehran. He later followed up with an additional $1.3 billion. President Biden outdid President Obama by releasing $4 billion to Iran. Presidents Obama and Biden partially funded Iran’s terrorist activities. The common denominator between President Obama’s actions and President Biden’s was Jake Sullivan. He was involved in the Obama negotiations and became Biden’s National Security Advisor. Susan Rice was also involved both times. Ayatollah Khamenei used the oil receipts and $5.7 billion Obama-Biden moneys to fund terrorism, build up his military, strengthen his security forces, and fund the bomb. What a waste of money; The Iranian people became poorer, being left with tons of scrap metal. The JCPOA was effective January 20, 2016, almost ten years ago. President Obama had a penchant for Iran. Various theories try to explain it. One explanation I read was that he wanted to move Iran back to the United States and the West – truly a naïve conception of religious zealots whose daily chants include Death to Israel and Death to the United States, the Great Satan with Israel the Little Satan. Another theory is that he envisioned Iran becoming the pillar of stability in the Mideast. The Sunni-Shite split would prevent that. Another is that President Obama was anti-Semitic, but was politically savvy enough to mostly muzzle it. His contempt for Benjamin Netanyahu was not a secret. Another possibility is he was imbued for two decades with Liberation Theory from sitting in Reverend’s Jeremiah Wright’s Church, pursuant to which Israel is a colonizer/settler forcing out the indigenous Arabs. He viewed the United States as an imperialist country. Senator Obama five days before his inauguration said his goal was to transform America. He certainly did internationally with Iran. Then maybe he reasoned he could receive the Nobel Peace Prize for disarming Iran’s bomb threat. Great theory, but he already won the Nobel for doing nothing. Then there’s the premise that President Obama would do everything to appease Iran as the price of getting Iran’s agreement His eight years in office consistently favored Iran. Then came the Green Revolution on June 12, 2009. Iran rigs its elections by vetting the candidates. The 2009 Election was totally rigged so that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected. The public courageously rebelled and marched on the streets. President Obama was silent. No actual or moral support was extended to the Iranians. He told the CIA to cut off all contacts with opposition groups. President Trump is digging America out of the Obama-Biden foreign policy morass.

Memo to Governor Newsom: The Berkeley Riots Elected Ronald Reagan Governor

Memo to Governor Newsom: The Berkeley Riots Elected Ronald Reagan Governor Governor Pat Brown was salivating in his 1966 reelection campaign. He wanted to run against Ronald Reagan a “washed-up B Actor.” California voters were fed up with the riots at Berkeley, other campuses, and Watts. Ronald Reagan won in a landslide. He was on his way to the White House. Reagan received 57.5% of the vote with a winning margin of 993,739 votes. Gavin Newsom is term-limited out of office. The Democrats are lining up to succeed him. Only one, the former Los Angeles Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa, is running as a moderate. California may not be as progressive as they think. San Francisco recalled the radical District Attorney and the DEI Board of Election, and voted out the progressive Mayor London Brood. Los Angeles and Alameda County voters tossed progressive district attorneys out of office. Every Bay Area County voted for Prop 36, which recriminalizes crimes. Shoplifters and gangs of shoplifters, will no longer get a free pass. Governor Newsom opposed the referendum and refuses to fund the law. The anti-Ice riots may have had less actual violence against the federal officials - not as in previous large-scale L.A. riots, Watts in 1965, Rodney King in 1991, and George Floyd in 2020 were horrific, but the optics of rioters attacking federal facilities, waving Mexican flags, and taking over a major freeway will not help your nascent Presidential campaign. Do you understand that peaceful protests do not include looting an Apple Store and other retailers? Do you understand the federal government has the right to protect federal law enforcement officers and federal facilities? Do you understand the LAPD waited two hours before responding to a call for assistance by the federal ICE agents? Do you remember the 2020 LA riots? the looting and torching as police looked the other way. Do you remember Governor Walz not calling out the Minnesota National Guard as Minneapolis burnt, including a police station. Memo to Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass: President Trump is not popular with many Californians, but neither are you two. The Homeless debacle, the Altadena and Palisades Wildfires, the French Laundry, and now the LA riots, magnify your incompetence. The budget deficit, and soon large gas tax increase, all combined, may elect Republicans to state-wide and legislative elections. The 2026 Democratic primaries may not be a coronation next year. Governor Newsom, Mayor Bass, and Vice President Harris illustrate several principles. First, one party states, rather blue or red, often result in climbing the political ladder to the top. They are often not leaders. The same is true in the academic world and the peacetime military. Second is that they can lose touch with reality. They are so embedded in the political milieu, the echo chamber of their states. Third, they are correct in that these riots would not have occurred without the Trump immigration raids. Yes, they are correct. President Joe Biden never would have arrested and deported rapists, murderers, and pedophiles. Nor would President Biden have called out federal forces to combat riots. Governor Newsom, do you think the American people will accept your claim that the protests were peaceful until President Trump called out the National Guard? This example of George Orwell’s Big Lie is being repeated by several politicians. This riot is directed at the federal government enforcing federal law. No way would President Trump have ignored this direct attack on the federal government. Governor Newsom is daring President Trump to jail him. President Trump is smart enough not to make a martyr out of Governor Newsom. The real threat to our democracy is if San Francisco, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Portland and perhaps Atlanta, Chicago, Denver and New York City break out with similar, uncontrolled riots. The President would be sorely tempted to call it an insurrection, followed by the suspension of Habeas Corpus. One final question Governor Newsom. Are you stupid? You’re seeking billions of dollars for the Bullet Train, recovery from the Alhambra and Palisades fires, and the current disturbances. Yet, you engage in harangues against President Trump.