The NRA Is Resetting, Aiming for Higher Targets

The NRA has been through tough times:

·         The 1994 assault weapons ban.

·         The “academic” consensus that gun control would control gun crime.

·         “Conservative” presidents like Ronald Reagan signaling support for gun restrictions.

The latest setback involved Wayne LaPierre, the previous EVP and CEO. He wisely and courageously rebuffed the post-Sandy Hook mass shooting hysteria with “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” Recently, LaPierre was found liable for misappropriating NRA funds. Internal dramas exploded to the forefront, distracting from the core mission: protect the gun rights of Americans and ensure full enforcement of the Second Amendment.

The good news is that the NRA is getting back on track, based on the latest meeting of the South Bay, Los Angeles County NRA chapter in Redondo Beach, CA.

California is about as hostile as it gets for gun rights, and Los Angeles is one of the most hostile sections on top of that. Why would the NRA show any signs of hope, let alone comity, there?

Four reps from the NRA addressed the club: National Manager David Holbrook, Managing Director Lexi Higgins, Grassroots Field Coordinator Darius Diggs, and California state director Clay Kimberling. They gave upbeat updates. The worst of the NRA leadership drama is over. Better executives have taken, and their focus is winning, even in gun-control hellhole California.

State Director Kimberling discussed key bills, good and bad, working their way through the state capitol. In the midst of all the bad news, one good bill passed: AB 1948. Newsom recently signed off on this legislation, which allows CCW permit holders to renew their permits only every three years, instead of every two years. I had to press in on this news, since Newsom is the last guy who would want to look pro-gun.

Kimberling explained that sheriff’s departments throughout the state were complaining about their increased permit renewal backlogs, and they need some relief. Starting June 30^th, 2026, California residents who obtain a CCW can wait three years before having to renew. Of course, we would prefer to carry without having to obtain a permit, but every step towards freedom is better than nothing.

Unfortunately, one of the notorious pieces of legislation in Sacramento, as if the hyperbole seems unfitting or unnecessary, is Senate Bill 948. The radical former mayor of the People’s Republic of Berkeley, CA (and now state senator), Jesse Arreguin has filed this bill.

 

This legislation would require every prospective gun owner in the state to take a 4-hour training class before they could take the firearms safety certificate questionnaire—in order to have permission to buy guns! What’s the real purpose? National Manager Holbrook explained that SB 948 is about enacting a de facto gun ban. How many are prepared to jump through a bunch of hoops, take extra time, and spend $200 at a shooting range looking for a trainer so they can get the 4 hours in, and then take a written test, which they also must pay for? Can you imagine any state imposing a set of certificated requirements for you to publish an opinion? Or to write a blog? 

Can you imagine any state requiring you to take a class and be certificated so that you could assert your 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure? All of this is ridiculous. And yet this is the latest deceptive legislative scam that California gun-control fanatics are pushing. The legislation has already passed the state senate and it's facing a vote before the State Assembly appropriations committee in the next month. There is some good news, however, as even some Democratic lawmakers are uncomfortable with the extra, onerous requirements in SB 948. 

Of course, the NRA and its grassroots networks have found success not just in stopping bad bills, not just in getting good pills to pass, even in California, but have won key court cases with their excellent legal team. From the NYPRA v Bruen in 2022 to today, the United State Supreme Court and lowers courts have rendered more decisions favoring gun rights and upholding the strength of the Second Amendment. 

Aren’t legal victories a good enough remedy for dealing with bad laws coming out of California? It's important to recognize that California Democrats are pushing horrific gun laws precisely so that they can bleed gun owners and gun rights groups dry with vexatious litigation and forced appeals. The whole purpose of the left’s legal onslaught against our constitutional rights is about discouraging citizens from exercising them in the first place! 

The four NRA advocates could not make it clearer: don't stop making the phone calls, don't stop confronting your representatives, don't stop making your voices heard. 

James Ma, the South Bay NRA chapter leader, stressed winning not just at the state level but the local level. Gun control advocates are using every tool, including targeting local planning commissions so that gun stores cannot open in cities. In 2022, Torrance, California, was considering a gun store in the Downtown area. Gun owners and gun rights activists throughout the region were convinced that the mayor and a majority of council members would do the common-sense thing and allow the gun store to open. However, the local school district and local indivisible groups lined up and induced high school students to attend the city council meeting all calling for the gun store to be denied.

And they won.  This loss reminded everyone that the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance, and gun owners need to stay alert. The NRA leaders stressed this principle, too.

One of the most engaging of the four speakers, Darius Diggs, reminded the South Bay audience of how free and open gun culture is next door in Arizona. The residents of the Grand Canyon State don’t even have to obtain a Firearms Safety Certificate to purchase guns. How much are California gun owners willing to tolerate? This is outrageous! Diggs invited the room to join the NRA as FrontLines Activist Leaders. Don’t just make phone calls from home. Network with fellow gun owners and Second Amendment advocates. Come prepared to testify for and against gun-related bills in Sacramento.

The NRA leaders left the South Bay NRA chapter with one final point: the fight for gun rights matters even in the bluest of states. Most gun control plots emanate out of California. If we can stop them here, we keep them from advancing across the country. 

According to Managing Director Higgins, the Trump Administration has been the most gun friendly administration in our nation's history. She identified steady victories from the Trump DOJ, plus their ongoing lawsuits and piecemeal legislative victories, passing good policy and stopping a lot of bad legislation. With these victories, California can be a battleground for long-term victory in the fight to protect our constitutional rights 

The upbeat but serious speeches from the four NRA advocates encouraged everyone with hope and purpose. The large turnout for the chapter meeting showed that the NRA outreach is working. A new spirit is invigorating the NRA, and if gun owners sense hope in California, you know that things are looking good for the rest of the country.

The People Who Enable Men in Women’s Sports

 

The United States Supreme Court has weighed in, and in a welcome 6-3 decision, they have determined that states can bar confused men from women’s sports.

This conflict was an 80-20 political winner for Republicans, and it remains a winning issue for them, since the regressive left has no interest in backing away from their (shotgun wedding) support for the LGBT cult.

They are running into a buzzsaw of political self-immolation on this issue, nonetheless. No matter how liberal, brazenly progressive, and just plain insane Democratic activists and their coterie of political coalitions may get, anyone with two eyes can see that men are different, and they have insurmountable advantages over women.

Even left-leaning news anchors on The Hill acknowledged the unavoidable injustice of allowing these biological men to compete against women and romp them again and again.

For men to step into the identities of women and then push them off the competition field is just brazenly wrong. Women’s groups were rightly up in arms about this whole affair of anti-biological folly. For decades, they had fought to ensure their own competitive opportunities, and now another interest group was charging in to take away their game.

As of now, twenty-seven states refuse to allow confused men in women’s sports.

The Supreme Court ruling is a big win for women.

It’s clearly wrong, and it’s evidently evil, to allow this abuse of rights and the language of fairness to erase women’s sports.

But deeper issues remain unresolved.

Obviously, men should not pretend to be women and invade women’s sports. Yet how many of the women in these different fields took a stance early on to stop the insanity? Why did the coaches and administrators across the country not speak up and shut down these barbarians in women’s clothing from entering women’s arenas to begin with?

Too many were quiet when they needed to be loud—or louder.

Many of them tried to hide behind the middle route.

Breitbart News claimed that the judges in a California sporting event made a bold decision during a very contested competition. True, the tournament judges awarded first place to a confused male athlete who placed first in a female competition. But they also handed a first-place medal to the female who placed second.

Such compromised cowardice is not a bold decision.

Such posturing is a marked capitulation. A BizPacReview op-ed captured the spirit of this barren attempt to save face for the competition while also recognizing the unfairness of the whole setup: “High school competition devolves into public humiliation ritual for girls.”

The girls had to stand on the stage with a man, pretend that he is a she, let HIM win first place, wave and smile as though all is well with the world, that this is normal. They might as well stop using podiums and invest in Podi-Hims at this point.

And the adults enabled it.

All of the adults monitoring the young women, the larger audience of parents watching these competitions, with their clapping and celebrating, all sat by and watched a confused (creepy) biological male compete and best young women in their field.

The adults are complicit. That’s the problem. The decision-makers didn’t declare the obvious and end the madness at the outset.

As long as the emperor marches in the street wearing nothing, and no one says anything, then the lie continues. That’s the larger point.

Transgenderism at its core is a lie, a corrupted ideology born out of the evil fruit of Marxist indoctrination and machinations. Truth no longer matters, no matter how political or ideologically incorrect it may seem on the surface.

The fight against “Transgender women in women’s sports” is not over because of the refusal to attack the core lie. Feminists focus on fairness, and they speak from identity politics. They posit the whole fight based on women’s rights and women’s place in the public square. What about right and wrong?

Parents are focusing on their daughters and their college futures. What about everyone else’s kids? Sure, they oppose some confused boy competing against their daughter, but they don’t have anything to say about the other confused boys invading women’s sports elsewhere?

What steps have these parents, these adults, taken to encourage their daughters to speak up and stop the trans insanity? For the past five years, I have watched dumbfounded as young women said nothing while men invaded their spaces. Confused men crashed into women’s beauty pageants. Men would push their way into dart competitions. Men would insist on using the same bathrooms, locker rooms, and fitting rooms, and it seemed as though they acquiesced to the madness.

I was too hard on the girls. The adults who were supposed to be protecting them, who were supposed to be defending them, who should have put aside their reputation and their reception among the local leaders in the community, didn’t speak up. They didn’t want to appear phobic, hateful, disgraceful in front of their peers.

If the adults wouldn’t step up, no surprise that the kids didn’t say anything, either.

And how could they speak up? They didn’t have any foundation of authority. If fairness is the standard, then truth doesn’t matter.

And that’s yet another point.

Where’s the discussion on the basic facts? Men cannot become women. Men are not women, and women cannot be men. Fairness alone as the main doctrine fails in the long run. Why? Because the LGBT activists and their sheepish, sheeplike allies are also arguing from a place of fairness.

“These transgender-identified individuals want to play sports, too. Why are you discriminating against them? It’s not fair!”

Thus, the insanity continues. Why do the common people stay quiet?

Too many in the general public have been sucked into the discrimination dungeon. They don’t want to be labeled something mean. They fear the social media backlash. They have bought into the corruption of civil rights, and they don’t want to be compared to the KKK or Bull Connor because they don’t want confused men invading their daughters’ spaces, sports, and very selves.

I have listened to countless testimonies from frustrated parents of daughters who complain to school boards about the violation of their daughters’ personal space and place on the field.

Yet all too often, these parents will preface their speeches with: “I don’t hate the transgender community,” or “I have nothing against transgender people,” or “I love transgender kids, and some of my friends are transgender, too, but ….”

Does anyone not see the problem here? Too many adults still don’t.

Granted, the Supreme Court took a stand where many of the adult leaders, coaches, and administrators refused. Yet even their stance has limits. The states that have banned men from women’s sports may maintain and enforce those prohibitions.

What about the states without those protections? What about the states where the powers that be insist on protecting the “rights” of the cross-dressers with cross-sex hormones instead of the rights of real girls and women? This conflict has not been resolved.

Reverse peer pressure could force transgender holdouts to get in line with biological reality. Then again, very few said anything before. Why should the transgender cultists change now?

Save California: After the Flag Waving, a Serious Look at Our Troubled Republic

 

Hi Arthur, For those of us who have witnessed the steady slide of societal decay and have watched with alarm the ever-increasing occurrences of godless, animalistic anarchy, celebrating the 250th birthday of our country is more like celebrating an ideal than a reality. For if the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees you freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of self-defense and the right to be fairly judged in the courts, and your guaranteed pre-constitutional, God-given, natural liberties are parental rights and property rights and medical freedom, yet today's American culture threatens, oppresses, punishes, or eliminates your rights and liberties, we must ask: Is our constitutional republic alive or dead?

Since most Americans are government-schooled, with today's universities teaching young people to hate America, we're now faced with many "Americans" who actually hate the wonderful goodness that our U.S. founding fathers gave us. According to a CNN poll released June 17, 2026: Only 29% of Democrats are "very proud" to be an American Only 27% of Democrats said they'd fly the U.S. flag on Independence Day And a June 19-22 survey by The Economist/YouGov found only 8% of Democrats think the United States is the greatest country in the world. As Breitbart reported June 29: Opinions vary significantly among political parties. Republicans are far more likely to describe America as the greatest country – 52 percent – followed by 28 percent of Republicans who said it is “among the greatest” countries. Democrats, however, do not feel as proud. Only eight percent of Democrats describe America as the “greatest” country, while 16 percent said it is “among the greatest.” Stunningly, a plurality of Democrats, 23 percent, describe America as “worse than average” compared to other countries, and 15 percent said the U.S. is “among the worst.” Four percent said America is “the worst” altogether. And to top it off, a June 30 - July 2 YouGov survey found Democrats value the "Black Lives Matter" flag more than the American flag (74% to 72%). So, did America really reach 250 years, or is that its "body" only, and the "mind, heart, and soul" of America actually died decades ago -- but with God's grace and patience, has a chance to return and be restored? This question is neither radical nor cynical. Because historically, the average "life" of a civilization is either 200 or 250 years. As researcher Michael R. Cronin wrote: The Tytler Cycle warns that democracies tend to follow a predictable path from liberty to decline due to human nature and fiscal irresponsibility, with a commonly cited average lifespan of around 200 years. Sir John Glubb’s later research on empires suggested a slightly longer but still finite average of about 250 years. Both frameworks are frequently used today to analyze the trajectory of the United States as it approaches and passes its 250th anniversary in 2026. In 2016, writer Reginald Pulliam quoted historian Alexander Fraser Tytler's solemn observation that a civilization's decay begins with forgetting God, triggered by the love of money replacing the love of God: According to Lord Tytler, a Scottish Historian, the average age of the world's democracies is around 200 years. After two hundred years, the nations collapse due to various economic policies and [are] followed by a dictatorship. Lord Tytler identified "Eight Stages of a Democracy", from beginning to end. The eight stages go from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence, and finally from dependence back to bondage. Life and our universe moves in cycles, and history is no different. So, in our Democratic form of a Republic, which stage do you suppose we are in? Another valid question is, if the United States of America was founded as a constitutional republic, is it still that today, and if not, when did we lose it? Our U.S. founding father and 2nd U.S. president, John Adams, a strong Christian, wrote these solemn words: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." If Adams' words are true, it's arguable and logical that America ceased being a constitutional republic in the early 1900s, nearly 150 years after its founding. Here's evidence suggesting it: 1. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat who was the 28th president of the United States from 1913 to 1921, disliked how the Constitution limited the federal government, so he brutally attacked and redefined the Constitution. Judge Andrew Napolitano explains the damage that Woodrow Wilson did: America from its founding to the early part of the 20th century more or less enjoyed the James Madison model for the federal government. Under this model, the federal government could only legislate, regulate, spend and govern in the 16 discrete areas of human behavior that the Constitution delegated to it. All other areas of human behavior were left free to individual choices or governance by the states. From and after Wilson’s presidency, the Madisonian model was replaced by the Wilsonian one. Under this model, the feds could legislate, regulate, spend and govern in any areas of human behavior for which there was a national political will, except for those areas that are expressly prohibited to them by the Constitution. It would take another generation before the courts fully caught up to this, during which they gradually permitted Congress basically to write any law, regulate any behavior, spend any money, tax any event and intrude upon any relationship so long as it did not confront an express constitutional prohibition. 2. Then, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt became president in 1933, and quickly grew a mammoth-sized federal government and eliminated the gold standard. As Conservapedia reports: ...FDR remains a hero to liberals and heavily criticized by conservatives for shifting the nation to the Left, growing the federal government, imposing regulations on business, following a no-growth economic policy, catering to labor unions, and building a permanent New Deal Coalition. Conservatives further disagree with Roosevelt's concealment of his declining health from American voters in the 1944 election, and Roosevelt's weak stance towards the Communist Soviet Union which enabled it to gain control over Eastern Europe for the following half-century. His New Deal was a very large, complex interlocking set of programs designed to produce relief (especially government jobs for the unemployed), recovery (of the economy), and reform (by which he meant regulation of Wall Street, banks and transportation), as well as Reelection (in 1936, 1940 and 1944) and Realignment of the Fifth Party System. Conservatives strongly opposed many, but not all, of the New Deal programs. Conservatives abolished most of the relief programs when unemployment practically ended during World War II. Most of the regulations on business were ended about 1975–85, except for the regulation of Wall Street by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which still exists. The major surviving program is Social Security, which Congress passed in 1935. Conservatives at the time denounced his bids for presidential power, including building a national political machine through the WPA (it lasted from 1935 to 1943), attempting to take control of the Supreme Court by adding new liberal judges (an attempt which failed, 1937), and trying to purge the Democratic party of moderate-to-conservative congressmen (an attempt which failed in 1938). The failures of those attempts can be attributed to the Conservative Coalition which emerged in Congress in 1937 as a coalition of most northern Republicans and most Southern Democrats. 3. And then in the early 1960s, the Democrats and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) on the U.S. Supreme Court killed off corporate Bible reading and prayer in American "public school" classrooms. Is it any wonder that theft is rampant today? For the majority of American schoolchildren, through the 1950s, were taught the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:1-17 -- until the unconstitutional SCOTUS redefined "establishment" and "religion" in the First Amendment. As accurately reported here, in 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court redefined "establishment" in order to begin banning Christianity in the laws: On June 25, 1962 and a year later on June 17, 1963 this country has staggered from a wound that it has never really recovered from. You might scratch your head and wonder what that might be. These two dates will live in infamy in this nation along with one from February 10, 1947. These dates are when Christianity in America was rejected in the public square and in the schools. In February 10, 1947, the US Supreme Court decided the case of Everson v Board of Education. It changed the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment’s meaning from not establishing a National Religion to the current interpretation. The way the US Government treats religion is that one can’t practice it in public. The Court used 8 words out of context of a President Thomas Jefferson Letter that was written to the Danbury Baptist Church in 1801. This decision is one that the US Supreme Court needs to overturn along with the ones above from 1962 & 1963. On June 25, 1962, the US Supreme Court decided that a 22 word prayer was unconstitutional in the case of Engel v Vitale. “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.” — the 22 word prayer that was the subject of the school prayer ban. On June 17, 1963, the US Supreme Court decided in Abington School District v Schempp that Bible Study could not occur in Public Schools. Since those cases SAT & ACT scores have taken a nose dive. So, as we celebrate the 250th "birthday" of our country, let's remember the Bible-based founding of America, which made America great -- and blessed by God. Because the Bible defines “freedom” to mean a) freedom from the bondage of sin, and b) freedom to obey God without punishment.  This second definition was the rallying cry of our U.S. founding fathers, who desired biblical values rather than the tyrannical theft committed against them by the British Crown. Our founders called this independence. So, Americans don't need "freedom" as the world defines it (which is to do whatever you want, which is the modus operandi of criminals and anarchists). Instead, we need freedom from sin. Because, for this nation to be protected and blessed by God again, people need to see the Bible as their standard of truth, confess and repent of their sins, trust in Savior Jesus Christ to forgive them, and experience true freedom from the bondage of various sins. And then, if most Americans, as John Adams described, become "a moral and religious people," they can give us back our constitutional republic. It's definitely worth fighting for!

A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy—A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it. From Secretary of War James McHenry's journal of the 1787 Constitutional Convention Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." Jesus Christ, Savior of the world and God in the flesh, in John 8:34-36

SaveCalifornia.com is part of Campaign for Children and Families, a statewide 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization working, leading, fighting, and championing your rock-solid values and hard-won liberties since 1999. Your confidential, tax-deductible gift of any size empowers our work for your family and other families, and reaches Californians with important facts the Big Media won’t report. Thank you for standing with us!

If a friend forwarded you this, but you don’t want it, ask them to remove you from their list. If you received this email directly from us, but don't want it, scroll down to unsubscribe.

California Primary Election 2026: A Reflection

 

The California Election 2026 primary is over.

And yet, it’s not over because the counting continues.

Democratic leaders will justify the Golden State’s drawn-out counting because they emphasize ease for everyone to vote. Everyone gets a mail-in ballot; everyone can vote wherever they please in the state; and everyone should like it.

The state allows ballots to be counted up to seven days after Election Day, provided that the ballots are postmarked ON Election Day, too. UGH! It’s Election Day, as Justice Alito commented in a recent Supreme Court case, which could have upended this month and a half of counting long after Election Day.

Republicans are right to call foul on this inordinate amount of time to collect and count California’s ballots. How can anyone trust an election system in which ballots keep rolling in day after day, and certain margins start flipping seats here and there? Republicans have benefited from sudden changes in the voting, sure, but Democrats, by and large, benefit even more. It’s not a sound, integrated system.

Thankfully, the federal government is investigating the election centers. The California Post exposed the LA County voting center for having only one person manning a desk while all the other desks sat empty, all with a $336 million budget! After the expose, lots of employees showed up to start counting ballots.

So far, so good.

Let’s set aside the recriminations about voter fraud, and let’s assume the results as they stand statewide will remain relatively stable until certification. Who are the winners and losers on California’s Primary Election Night 2026?

Let’s start with the biggest winner: Trump.

He endorsed British Fox News anchor and author Steve Hilton in April (Easter Sunday, in fact), and the momentum never stopped building for him. His main rival, the Riverside County Sheriff, had launched his campaign in February 2025, and then Hilton followed about two months later. Early in the election, polls indicated that Hilton and Bianco would take up the Top Two spots. Hilton alone made it, all because of Trump.

The next winner: Xavier Becerra.

This long-time politico was struggling along with single-digit support for a greater part of the campaign season. As candidates began dropping out, including serial #MeToo creep former Congressman Eric Swalwell, Becerra’s chances increased. Democratic activists (including Indivisible chapters) networked to push back on the single-digit gubernatorial contenders, and a wide array of liberal coalitions lined up behind the former Assemblyman, Congressman, state attorney general, and Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Another winner: Steve Hilton, obviously.

A Republican made it into the Top Two again for Governor, when some of the polling disturbingly indicated that two Democrats could lock out Republicans from the governor’s race! Hilton had some slips along the way, and at one point, his opponent alleged that Hilton had run out of money. Yet he persisted, and Trump gave him another boost a week before the primary election day. Some of my friends were pledging to vote for Sheriff Bianco, but changed their minds following Trump’s reminder endorsements. So far, that boost has paid off.

Now, let’s talk about the losers:

Left-wing cosplaying billionaire Tom Steyer went down in flames yet again. He was much closer to getting the gubernatorial nomination this year compared to his silly bid for President in 2020. Not only did Steyer lose the race, he wasted $200 million for the privilege of losing again. He flooded mailboxes with campaign literature. As a high-propensity Republican voter, even I received six campaign mailers from the Steyer campaign, including a big gloss-up slamming Becerra for mismanagement, scandal, and incompetence.

None of it worked. I visited his final rally in Downtown Los Angeles, and it was a pretty middling crowd. Becerra had a rally a few hours later, with three times the attendees, endorsements, and lots of energy. Money can’t buy a politician love (just ask Hillary and Kamala!), and Steyer had to relearn that lesson.

Former Congresswoman, US Senate candidate, and now gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter burned up again during her campaign, too. Democratic operatives have never liked her, yet she didn’t get the message in 2024 when she played victim and cried about a rigged primary. In 2026, her polling bottomed out worse. It’s stunning to see how even registered Democrats had enough self-respect that they didn’t want to give the Orange County harridan Karen a chance at further political power. The nasty videos of her cursing out staff, her heated and unpleasant interview with a CBS reporter, all of which showcased her arrogance and diffidence towards others, revealed how out of touch and out of place Porter was in pursuing elected office again. She believed all the progressive headlines when she got elected to Congress, but never realized that the political aura of winning a seat in once-conservative Orange County, California, would wear off.

The Progressive-Berniecrat wing of the Democratic Party lost big time. Our Revolution, THE Bernie Sanders-aligned PAC, endorsed Tom Steyer, undermining their messaging and hurting their credibility. For years, Bernie and his bros have been railing against the billionaire class. Then they line up behind a billionaire? Steyer’s biggest promoters struggled to justify their clashing endorsement, and voters didn’t buy it. Will this latest capitulation signal the end of Bernie Sanders’ influence in national politics?

Other losers include the Republican Party establishment. California’s Republican state legislators all lined up behind Sheriff Bianco early in the race, and now they have egg on their faces. A majority of California county central committees also endorsed Bianco, yet their say didn’t amount to much. Republican leaders need to consider what role they play in California politics now that Trump is calling the shots so squarely.

On a similar note, Republican conservative grassroots, specifically the California Republican Assembly (CRA), also lost big with this primary election. As early as February 2026, Sheriff Bianco had lined up conservative support. The CRA convention endorsed Bianco overwhelmingly for Governor v. Hilton. That didn’t matter at all. The Trump endorsement wiped out any influence of this organization, and Republican voters who just vote, voted for Hilton.

This outcome should prompt reflection among conservatives and other Republican groups in California. If they differ from Trump, do they have any strategy or resources to sway voters? If they don’t have the time or energy to make their case, then why gather and organize in the first place?

The ballots are still being counted, but these results will pretty much pan out by July and into the November general election. Does Hilton have a chance against Becerra in November? It will take a miracle. If progressive voters sit out the election, and Republican turnout exceeds prior off-year general elections, Hilton has a chance. But Becerra has arranged key endorsements from major companies, and he has gathered enough support from disparate factions of the Democratic Party that he has the momentum and the message that a two-to-one Democratic state wants to hear.

One should also add that California, yet again, is the biggest loser of them all. If the election turns out as expected, we can expect four to eight more years of performative progressive government, complete with malfeasance, scandal, and incompetence.

Will California voters ever learn?

Politics Isn't Fair (Bianco Should Have Won)

 

You can have the right resume, an excellent pedigree, a great record of accomplishment, and you still don’t get elected. Politics isn’t fair. Oftentimes, it isn’t moral. The outcomes come and go depending on the place, time, candidate, or the other opponent making one more mistake than the winner.

Sometimes, though, a candidate doesn’t make any mistakes. Public sentiment drifts in a different direction.

I still remember the student council election for my senior year. A young lady, beautiful in spirit and form, let’s call her Patty, had served on the student council for our class for three years in a row. She did the hard work when no one was looking. She fundraised for the class programs. She attended the high school sports events. She was a good student, too.

When the race for senior class president rolled out, she was the lead contender. Then stepped in a relative nobody named Jenny. She was a nice girl, someone I had known from elementary school. She was quiet and unassuming, and she had never done anything major on campus. Never participated in extracurricular activities. Never worked for any school cause. Come student council election day, Jenny won the Senior Class President. Patty quietly rushed to the student library (where I was studying at the time), and she just sobbed: “It’s not fair!” and crashed into her friend’s arms.

All her work meant nothing to the rest of the student body. Her pain still sticks out in my memory, and it underscores clearly how politics isn’t fair.

At the end of it all, campaigning is an amoral quest to get the most votes. Sadly, sometimes the contenders lie, cheat, and steal to win. Even setting aside outright fraud, elections can turn up winners who don’t deserve the win on many levels.

That’s a lesson I wasn’t happy to relearn following last week’s California primary.

From the moment he announced, I supported Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco for governor.

He was already an effective elected executive. He had served thirty-three years in law enforcement, having defeated a corrupt incumbent to lead one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the country.

He made national news when he revolted against California Governor Gavin Newsom’s lockdown orders and mask mandates in 2020. Most elected officials were biding their time, wondering when the worst of the lockdown madness would blow over.

Bianco didn’t wait. He told the Riverside County Board of Supervisors plainly that he would not enforce those mandates. No one was going to jail for refusing to wear a mask or choosing to keep his business open.

In early January 2021, I attended a “Stop the Steal” rally in Murietta, and I enjoyed visiting the department stores and eating at the local restaurants—and without having to wear a mask or show proof of vaccination. I live in Los Angeles County, and the most I could get away with was not wearing a mask outside. Businesses and government buildings insisted on the mask, even when I voted in the recall to get rid of Newsom in August 2021 (which crashed and burned, by a worse margin than expected).

Sheriff Bianco set the standard for resistance to medical tyranny. He set the standard that other sheriffs would follow, even the Democratic Sheriff of Los Angeles County Alex Villanueva, who announced in July, 2021 his refusal to enforce the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors’ reinstatement of the indoor mask mandate.

For years, I have been fighting illegal immigration at the local and state levels in California. Many of the city council and county supervisor meetings I attended had to do with immigration: partner with ICE, work with the federal government, reject California’s sanctuary state policies.

The health freedom fight replaced my activism against illegal immigration. Rallies and protests erupted across Los Angeles and Orange Counties. More Californians found out that they can—they must—reject COVID-19 tyranny.

And Bianco represented that courage, a red-blooded American sheriff in a blue state standing strong for the United States Constitution.

And not just for health freedom.

Bianco bucked the gun-control trends of the Golden State, setting up a one-stop shop for concealed carry weapons permitting. While most sheriffs rarely issued CCWs to law-abiding citizens, Riverside County boasted 60,000 permits. That’s a tsunami of Second Amendment support compared to other more conservative counties like Orange, Placer, or San Bernardino counties!

That’s leadership, and you cannot manufacture that.

Bianco worked with federal law enforcement to deport as many illegals as possible from county jails. He didn’t send deputies to accompany ICE raids (that is illegal under SB 54), but Bianco did everything he could within the law to ensure a safer county.

I have many friends in Riverside County, and they love their sheriff. They came out in droves to support him in two elections for the top law enforcement job. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans supported him, too.

Sheriff Bianco didn’t sit on the sidelines when it came to parents' rights in education. He endorsed conservative candidates, including outspoken mama bear Sonja Shaw—who is in the running for the State Superintendent of Schools this fall.

Bianco is pro-life, pro-family, unafraid to share his Christian faith in public. He also openly endorsed President Trump in 2024, declaring half-jokingly: “It’s time to elect a felon for the White House.”

February 2025, Bianco announced his bid for governor. I thought he was a shoo-in for the general election.

Then Steve Hilton launched for governor two months later.

Hilton had never been elected to office. He served as a campaign strategist for the UK Conservative Party under David Cameron for two years. He dragged the center-right party to the left on abortion, LGBT issues, climate change, and guns.

He was a Fox News anchor who advocated for lockdowns during the first months of the COVID-19 outbreak. He talked about asset reparations for black Americans. On “The Young Turks,” he openly admitted that he was to the left of socialist US Senator Bernie Sanders on economic issues.

This guy was no conservative, and he had admitted that he was not a Republican at one time, too!

Conservative activists in California were not impressed. We gathered at the California Republican Assembly convention in February 2026, and during the endorsement process, Bianco was far ahead of the other Republican challengers. In the end, Bianco received the endorsement with 71% of the vote compared to 29% for Hilton.

It was a shut-out!

Then came Easter 2026—and President Trump issued his endorsement for Steve Hilton.

Despite an incredible resume and record of accomplishment, Bianco lost traction. Hilton surged ahead and backed Bianco into fourth place. His supporters believed that the polls were wrong and that Trump’s endorsement wouldn’t matter come election day. We were wrong, and Hilton won.

The sheriff had leadership experience, skill, and an enviable record. Yet the news commentator had the anti-establishment (?) Trump endorsement, and voters went along.

It’s not fair. I don’t think it’s right, and I think it jeopardizes an otherwise winnable governor’s race for November. Will some Democrats and Independent voters look past Hilton’s Trump endorsement and his tenure on Fox News to elect him governor? I doubt it.

Amador County Sheriff Gary Redman Won't Comply with Sanctuary State Law

This is the kind of leadership we need to see across the state of California.

Doctrine of Lesser Magistrates must become the norm, the rule, the necessity from all our constitutional officers throughout the state of California.

Sheriffs are special, noble officers. They are duty-bound to the United States Constitution, and they answr directly to the people, not to the Governor. not to the Board of Supervisors, and not to any federal official, either.

God bless this Sheriff!

Meet the only sheriff vowing to defy California’s sanctuarylaw

By Connor Letourneau,Enterprise reporterMarch 30, 2025

Amador County Sheriff Gary Redman stands in the middle of Main Street in the town of Jackson, Calif., the most populated municipality in Amador County. Redman has courted controversy by saying he won’t enforce the state’s immigration sanctuary laws.

Louis Bryant III/For the S.F. Chronicle

JACKSON, Amador County — Sheriff Gary Redman guided his gray Ford Expedition down Highway 49, past the oak-studded foothills and 19th century barns of Northern California’s Gold Country. 

“I love this place,” he said. “I’d do anything to protect my county. If I have to break state law to do it, that’s what I’ll do.” 

Even if that means taking a surprising stand in a state known for protecting its immigrants. In a 274-word announcement posted last month to the Amador County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page, Redman pledged to break California’s sanctuary law by informing Immigration and Customs Enforcement of any undocumented immigrants in his jail whom he deems “a serious threat.” 

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Never mind that Redman serves an oft-overlooked county about 130 miles northeast of San Francisco where less than 6% of the roughly 40,000 residents are foreign-born. Though President Donald Trump’s return to office in late January emboldened his supporters to challenge California’s pro-immigration laws that some view as anti-public safety, Redman remains the only sheriff in the state who has pledged to defy state sanctuary law, which largely forbids police from participating in immigration issues. 

Amador County Sheriff Gary Redman, March 12, 2025, cites statistics justifying his decision to defy California’s sanctuary state law and report undocumented violent offenders to ICE.

Louis Bryant III/For the S.F. Chronicle

In doing so, he vaulted Amador County to the center of a heated statewide debate on immigration enforcement. When Redman’s inbox began to flood post-announcement with interview requests, he cut short his off day, shaved his 5 o’clock shadow and told his wife she had been right: This was becoming a big deal. 

Whether people considered the 57-year-old Redman a traitor to his community or a patriot might have depended on their perspective. Passed in 2017 during the first Trump administration, California’s sanctuary law was created to make undocumented immigrants feel comfortable seeking out local police when problems arise. 

The law’s advocates, who include many sheriff’s departments, now worry that Redman’s decision to break it would have the opposite effect as intended. Rather than making Amador County safer by notifying ICE of certain violent people who are in the country illegally, he might in fact hurt public safety. Many unauthorized immigrants wouldn’t cooperate with police on non-immigration matters, Redman’s critics argue, out of fear that they could get deported. 

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

“When a sheriff comes out and proclaims, ‘We want to work with ICE and violate state law,’ it doesn’t inspire public safety — especially among the immigrant community,” said Maria Romani, immigrant rights program director at the ACLU of Northern California. “Now is the time to be working with the immigrant community, not against it.” 

Romani was among the many people who were confused when Redman took such a brazen stand against state sanctuary law. Unlike their counterparts in certain other Trump-supporting counties in California, Amador County officials didn’t have a history of vocally opposing immigration policy, which made some wonder: Does Redman have a political agenda? And if so, is he elevating it over the public safety of his community? 

Amador County Sheriff Gary Redman speaking with Amador County Sergeant Casey Ryan as he drives down the main street of Jackson, Calif.

Louis Bryant III/For the S.F. Chronicle

Redman plans to run for reelection in 2028. Though he’s adamant that his public rejection of state sanctuary law is not politically motivated, few doubt that the move only buoyed his already favorable odds of serving his red-majority county beyond this term.  

“It’s not his job to enforce immigration law, and the state Legislature has made that extremely clear,” Romani said. “It’s frightening to me that he’s taking this stand when it doesn’t serve the greater good of his community.” 

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Most people in Amador County, which has nearly twice as many registered Republicans as registered Democrats, see things differently. On top of touting a burgeoning wine-making scene, two large casinos and several old-timey main streets reminiscent of its gold-rush heyday of the mid-1800s, this rural region nestled into the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada features serpentine roads dotted with numerous Trump signs. 

Many residents know the name of Laken Riley, the nursing student who was murdered last year in Georgia by an unauthorized immigrant from Venezuela. The Laken Riley Act, the first piece of legislation that Trump signed into law at the start of his second term, directs authorities to detain and deport immigrants who are accused — not yet convicted — of specific crimes, if they are in the U.S. illegally.

“Gary’s for law and order and safety, and this is a safety issue,” said Jim Guidi, who owns and operates a popular radio station, KVGC, in Amador County. “These people we’re talking about came here illegally, so they need to go. Simple as that.”  

The United States flag waves in the center of the former mining town of Amador City, Calif., with the historic brick Imperial Hotel in the background.

Louis Bryant III/For the S.F. Chronicle

Federal courts upheld California’s sanctuary law during Trump’s first term, yet Redman still felt compelled to assert his belief in that Feb. 18 news release posted to Facebook that following it would violate federal law. Many locals not only agreed with him — they lauded him as a hero. 

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

By becoming the state’s only sheriff to announce his intention to outright break state sanctuary law, Redman endeared himself to ardent Trump supporters who fear California could lose federal funding if the state doesn’t cooperate with Trump’s mass deportation agenda. This perhaps helps explain why a Change.org petition pleading for Redman’s removal as sheriff has netted only 24 signatures in five weeks. 

“I think Republicans throughout the state saw an opportunity when Trump was reelected to push back against the state’s more liberal approach to immigration policy,” said Cathy Abernathy, a Republican strategist based in Bakersfield. “People like (Sheriff Redman) probably feel more comfortable doing what they always wanted to do now that Trump is back in office.”

Along the way, Redman has put himself at risk of state retribution. Asked about potential punishments for Redman, California Attorney General Rob Bonta reiterated in an email to the Chronicle that federal courts have found that the state sanctuary law doesn’t conflict with federal law, and that he is “closely monitoring law enforcement compliance.”

In what could be a sign of things to come, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown filed a lawsuit three weeks ago saying the sheriff in a rural, predominantly red county in the southeastern part of that state had been breaking state sanctuary law for at least three years by helping federal immigration officers round up suspected undocumented immigrants. The lawsuit alleges that Adams County Sheriff Dale J. Wagner has gone out of his way “to enable federal immigration agents to interview or question people in custody.”

A pedestrian, seen from Amador County Sheriff Gary Redman’s unmarked patrol vehicle window, waits for an opportuntity to cross the road in the small town of Plymouth, Calif.

Louis Bryant III/For the S.F. Chronicle

On an overcast Wednesday morning in mid-March, Redman leaned forward at his desk as he stressed that he has no intention of following Wagner’s example and rounding up unauthorized immigrants for mass deportations. Three different American flags hung prominently on the adjacent walls.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

“I know people think I’m some far right winger, but I’m really not,” said Redman, who considers himself a moderate Republican. “I’m just a guy trying to do right by the county I love.” 

A self-described “surf bum” from the sandy beaches just south of Los Angeles, Redman was an unmotivated 19-year-old when his father gave him an ultimatum in 1988: “Either get a full-time job or attend college full-time.” After dropping out of the couple of classes he was taking at the local community college, he enlisted in the Air Force, where he was randomly assigned a job as a police officer. 

While stationed in Germany, Redman met and married a woman from near Amador County. After finishing his four-year commitment to the Air Force, he moved to his new wife’s hometown, where he found work in her family’s concrete-pumping business. It didn’t take Redman long to regret leaving law enforcement. 

Then, when he was finally hired by the Los Angeles Police Department in 1996 after three separate attempts, he began to miss Gold Country. Two years later, Redman took a 26% pay cut to join the Amador County Sheriff’s Office as a lateral deputy and raise kids in a more peaceful environment. 

Locals having afternoon food and drinks at Mel & Fayes Diner, a well-known eating spot in the town of Jackson, Calif.

Louis Bryant III/For the S.F. Chronicle

While cruising the remote county’s backroads earlier this month, he chuckled when a police dispatcher radioed for help moving a herd of goats blocking a nearby street. 

“That’s life in Amador right there,” Redman said. “I can’t tell you how many ostriches, emus and cows I’ve had to chase over the years.”

But in a county with the state’s third-highest suicide rate, Redman also has far-grimmer responsibilities. His jurisdiction is so tiny that he moonlights as its coroner. 

By investigating deaths up close, he has a near-constant reminder of all that must still be done to improve Amador County’s quality of life, which is why he plans to break state sanctuary law if he feels a specific circumstance warrants an undocumented immigrant being turned over to ICE against protocol. As he acknowledged, such situations are rare — especially in a 605-square-mile area where roughly 75% of residents are white and almost 98% are U.S. citizens. 

According to state sanctuary law, police can actually inform immigration agents about an undocumented immigrant once that person has served the court-mandated sentence for what the penal code considers a “serious” or “violent” felony — a wide-spanning list that includes everything from a felony DUI, to obstruction of justice and bribery. To justify breaking state law, Redman said, he would need an inmate in his 76-person jail who’s in the U.S. illegally, poses a danger to the community and is in custody for an offense that wouldn’t otherwise enable Redman to contact immigration agents lawfully. 

A Main Street scene in the small town of Jackson, Calif., located in Amador County.

Louis Bryant III/For the S.F. Chronicle

Though Amador County has one of the smallest foreign-born populations in the state, Redman said local police officers most frequently come across unauthorized immigrants during raids at illegal marijuana grows. According to stats compiled by Redman’s office, this scenic region known as the “heart of the Mother Lode” has had 73 illegal marijuana operations over the past decade that resulted in the arrests of 232 immigrants, many of whom police believed were undocumented. 

“There’s absolutely no good reason why a locally-elected sheriff should not be able to report an illegal marijuana grower to immigration authorities if he’s worried about what that person could do next,” said Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin, who recently introduced a federal bill that would allow local police to ignore state sanctuary laws. “The idea that the state would try to impose itself in that situation is completely irrational.” 

Still, that’s not why Redman published last month’s now-infamous news release. All he wanted was to quell the relentless questions he had fielded from residents — and even some deputies — about how his office would handle immigration issues during Trump’s second term. 

Perhaps more startling than the backlash to that announcement: None of California’s 57 other sheriffs have joined him in vowing to defy state sanctuary law. 

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a top Trump ally who’s running for governor, would only go so far as to promise he’d work “around” the liberal-leaning statute to assist federal immigration enforcement. In recent weeks, at least two California towns, Oroville and Huntington Beach, reinforced the awkward political minefield some conservative leaders are navigating: They declared themselves “non-sanctuary” cities, yet promised to continue complying with state sanctuary law. 

Sheriff Gary Redman said, “I became a cop to help people. I guess in a way, I like taking bad people to jail, which is helping people.”

Louis Bryant III/For the S.F. Chronicle

Redman figures he doesn’t have an aptitude for such posturing. 

After an hour-long drive through Amador County’s rolling green hills and steep canyons, he walked through the lobby of his sheriff’s office and stopped at a large American flag banner. Six words were emblazoned across it in big block letters: “PROUD TO SERVE, READY TO PROTECT.”

“Seeing that every day is just a good reminder of why we do what we do,” Redman said. “No state law can change that.”