Trump-backed candidate Ed Gallrein defeated Massie on Tuesday by a 55% to 45% margin after one of the most expensive Republican primaries in Kentucky history. More than $32 million was reportedly spent between both sides in a race that exposed growing divisions within the GOP.

    Earlier this year, Trump sharply criticized Massie on Truth Social, calling him “the WORST Republican Congressman in the long and fabled history of the United States Congress.” The president had targeted Massie for repeatedly breaking with Republican leadership on several high-profile votes.

    Despite the bitter campaign, Massie remained popular among many libertarian-minded conservatives and supporters of the “America First” movement that helped fuel Trump’s rise in 2016 and again in 2024.

    During his concession speech, Massie defended his record and suggested the conflict centered around a handful of major disagreements rather than broader Republican priorities.

    “It’s only the 10% of the time they’re mad about,” Massie said. “When I won’t vote for a war, when I won’t vote for warrantless spying and when I won’t vote to bankrupt the country.”

    Those positions once aligned closely with Trump’s own campaign rhetoric, particularly his promises to reduce foreign intervention and rein in government spending. Critics now argue Massie stayed consistent while Trump’s priorities shifted after returning to office.

    One issue that reportedly intensified tensions between the two men involved the Epstein files. Trump had previously pledged to release additional documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein, but later backed away from doing so. Massie then supported legislation aimed at forcing the release of the files, a move that angered many within Trump’s circle.

    Farmer and conservative commentator Joel Salatin defended Massie in a recent blog post, comparing him to former Congressman Ron Paul and praising him for resisting pressure from political insiders.

    “Massie, like Congressman Ron Paul before him, could not be bought,” Salatin wrote. “And Washington, both Republicans and Democrats, cannot abide partners who refuse to be bought.”

    Polling data also highlighted a noticeable generational divide among Republican voters in Kentucky. A Big Data Poll conducted May 15 found younger Republicans overwhelmingly backed Massie, while older voters strongly favored Gallrein.

    According to the survey, Massie received support from 81.5% of Generation Z voters and 68.6% of Millennials. Support declined among older groups, with only 38% of Baby Boomers supporting Massie. Gallrein won the Boomer vote decisively.

    Some Republican strategists worry the split could create long-term problems for the party if younger conservatives continue drifting away from establishment-backed candidates.

    At the same time, recent national polling numbers suggest broader concerns for Republicans beyond Kentucky.

    A Fox News poll released May 20 found Trump’s overall approval rating sitting at 39%. The survey showed weaker numbers on key issues, including foreign policy, the economy and inflation.

    Another national survey conducted by VoteHub showed Democrats leading Republicans by 7.5 percentage points on the generic congressional ballot, a potential warning sign ahead of the midterm elections.

    Economic concerns remain a major issue for voters across the country. Rising fuel prices, inflation and higher consumer costs continue weighing heavily on households, and political analysts note that voters often blame the party currently in power when economic conditions worsen.

    The U.S. Labor Department reported this week that producer prices climbed 6% in April compared to a year earlier, fueling concerns that additional inflation could soon hit consumers more directly.

    Trump also faced criticism after dismissing concerns over rising gas prices during a May 19 interview, calling the increases “peanuts.” Democrats are expected to use the comment heavily in campaign advertising this fall as they attempt to paint Republicans as disconnected from everyday financial struggles.

    Although Massie represented a safely Republican district that is expected to remain in GOP hands, some conservatives believe the primary battle reflected deeper frustrations inside the Republican Party over loyalty, ideology and the direction of the movement after Trump’s return to the White House.

    For now, Republicans may have secured a victory in Kentucky. But whether the costly fight strengthens or weakens the party nationally remains an open question heading into November.

The post Trump-Backed Defeat of Thomas Massie Sparks Debate Inside GOP appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Recall the president’s first term was closely shadowed by high-profile breakups from loyalists who disagreed with him on matters of substance. For example, the split with his first Defense secretary, James Mattis, began in 2017 when Mattis, a man who spent more than four decades in uniform, defended the importance of NATO. His successor, Mark Esper, found himself at odds with the president for refusing to use the military on citizens. On his way out the door, Esper told the country that if his replacement was “a real ‘yes man’ … then God help us.”

Some of the highlights from Trump’s second term include squabbles with his biggest donor, Elon Musk, who was upset the president wasn’t lowering the national debt enough; with former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene because millions of Americans faced losing health insurance; and with Rep. Thomas Massie for having the audacity to seek justice for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex-trafficking operation.

Now it appears it’s Carlson’s turn. He, like Pope Leo XIV and many of our allies and nearly 70% of Americans, disapproves of the president’s handling of the war in Iran. On a recent episode of the Carlson podcast, the former Fox News host invited his brother Buckley, himself a former Trump speechwriter, on the show to discuss their buyer’s remorse.

Everyone has that line they won’t cross for the president.

Omarosa Manigault Newman left reality TV to advise Trump. She followed him to the White House, found out there was a lot of racism over in MAGA land, and ended up back on reality TV. For Mattis, it was abandoning our allies. For Esper, it was shooting protesters.

For Carlson, it’s Iran. Candidate Trump campaigned on ending endless wars. This week, Trump said there’s no timeline for when the war he started with Iran will end.

“I do think it’s like a moment to wrestle with our own consciences,” Carlson told his brother. “We’ll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be. And I want to say I’m sorry for misleading people.”

Now before Tucker’s apology, Buckley defended his initial support of Trump’s candidacy in 2015 — despite “all of his obvious foibles and his disgusting elements of his personality” — in part because “he built things.” Buckley also said that after the election of President Obama, white Americans in Washington were subjugated by a version of Jim Crow in education and society, and that progressives “would look blank or angry” whenever he asked what Obama was doing to strengthen the nation.

In other words, being red in the face over Trump did not turn the Tucker boys blue. In fact, the episode ended with the two calling the left a bunch of “lunatics,” even after listing the ways the Trump administration was holding back release of the Epstein files and hurting the country.

“Demonic influences concentrate on those who have power. Beware of power,” Tucker warned listeners halfway through the show before his brother chimed in: “And those who seek power.”

Of course, Trump’s ascension to the White House wasn’t solely based on the contributions of media folks. The president entered 2015 having been a public figure for more than 30 years. He’s had the luxury of criticizing elected officials and legislation on camera without the burden of governing for much of that time. When he entered the political arena, he didn’t have a record to defend. He likes being quotable, not being held accountable. That’s why it’s doubtful he would have been elected a second time if not for the support from unscrupulous podcasters masquerading as political journalists such as Joe Rogan, Theo Von and Andrew Schulz, who less than a year ago said everything Trump “campaigned on, I believed he wanted to do. And now he’s doing the exact opposite thing.… I voted for none of this.”

As if “this” had not been clearly spelled out in the pages of Project 2025 for all to see before deciding whether to vote for Trump and that agenda.

Schulz, the comedian and podcaster, might not have read that outline, but Tucker Carlson probably did. That’s why his apology to listeners — like the mea culpas from the discarded loyalists of the past — ultimately won’t mean anything to mainstream Republicans or MAGA. Those who identify with the latter listen only to Trump. As for the former — they have always known that people like Carlson don’t regret supporting Trump. They regret falling out of favor.

The post Tucker Carlson’s reversal on Trump is a familiar script appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

    The proposal has gained momentum, despite concerns that it may drive billionaires out of the state and worsen the very budget issues it seeks to solve. Many Californians support the idea, driven by the belief that the ultra-rich should pay their “fair share.” But what does “fair” actually mean in this context?

    The BWT initiative claims that billionaires have built their vast fortunes using California’s resources. But this argument overlooks the fact that these individuals have paid substantial taxes and contributed to the state’s economy. It’s misleading to suggest that billionaires are using public services more intensely than average citizens, especially given the disproportionate taxes they already pay.

    Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, has publicly expressed that he would pay whatever taxes he is required to in order to maintain access to California’s talent pool. But this assumption is flawed. It’s entrepreneurs like Huang who attract talent, not the state. California’s reputation as a hub for innovation and technology comes from the visionaries who built companies like Nvidia, Google, and Meta—not from an overbearing tax system. These entrepreneurs have compensated their workers generously, with salaries, bonuses, and stock options, not through exploitation.

    Currently, two-thirds of California’s revenue comes from income taxes, with 40% of those funds coming from the top 1% of earners. This disproportionate burden on the wealthiest Californians already feels unjust to many. In fact, most people would recognize a grave injustice in other contexts, such as taking a neighbor’s possessions to pay off a debt. The BWT essentially amounts to a government-sanctioned wealth grab from a select group of people who have already paid their fair share.

    Beyond the moral concerns, there’s the issue of the BWT’s retroactive nature. The tax would apply to billionaires residing in California starting January 1, 2026, even though the vote on the proposal won’t take place until November of this year. Retroactive laws are generally viewed as unconstitutional in the U.S., as they violate principles of fairness and predictability. It would be deeply unfair for the state to change the rules after the fact, essentially punishing billionaires who have been living and investing in California under one set of laws, only to have those laws changed on them years later.

    Even if the BWT were not retroactive, it would still penalize individuals for wealth that was accumulated through past investments and decisions. This creates an environment where business owners and investors are punished for their successes. If billionaires had known that their wealth would be taxed at such a high rate after the fact, many would have reconsidered their investments or even left the state entirely.

    The very concept of the BWT is at odds with the American ideal of protecting individual property rights. According to the U.S. Constitution, the government’s role is to protect citizens’ life, liberty, and property. The BWT, by seizing wealth that individuals have earned through their own efforts, flips this relationship on its head. It essentially turns the government from a servant into a ruler, taking property without just compensation.

    California is certainly facing a budget crisis, but the real problem lies not in the wealth of a few individuals, but in the state’s dysfunctional governance and wasteful spending. Instead of targeting the rich, Californians should focus their anger on the officials who have failed to properly manage the state’s resources. The wealthy are not the cause of the problem; they are being used as scapegoats in a misguided effort to balance the budget.

    Rather than punishing the productive members of society, California should address the root causes of its budget issues and reform the systems that are driving the state’s financial problems. Taxing the wealth of a few to cover the state’s mismanagement only worsens the problem and drives innovation and talent away from California. The solution lies not in expropriating wealth, but in ensuring that the government operates efficiently and transparently for all citizens.

The post California’s Billionaire Tax: A Unjust Grab for Wealth and Freedom appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A U.S. missile strike. An initial statement emphasizing precision. Then, later, reports that civilians — including many children — were among the dead. In Afghanistan, through the early and mid-2000s, these reports came so often they formed a grim pattern. Each incident is explained as an anomaly, but over time, the pattern itself became the story.

Now similar reports are emerging from Iran. A new investigation alleges that a Feb. 28 strike by the U.S. hit an elementary school and sports hall in the southern city of Lamerd, with children once again among the dead. U.S. Central Command has since denied carrying out any strike in or near Lamerd that day, calling the reports false.

Independent verification is difficult because Iran shut down its internet, but Americans should nevertheless be concerned, especially after at least 175 people including many children were reported killed in a U.S. strike on a different school in Minab that same day. The cycle is familiar, with allegations of civilian harm followed by official denials, and no independent access to quickly verify the facts.

I was a civilian protection advisor to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the first Trump administration. I worked inside the Pentagon with military professionals who took the issue of civilian harm seriously. They saw avoiding civilian casualties as a matter of military discipline and their own humanity. I know what it looks like when civilian protection works. This isn’t it.

Over more than two decades of armed conflict, U.S. efforts to reduce civilian harm have moved in fits and starts, with periods of progress followed by setbacks and recurring mass casualty events. Pressure often came from civil society, public outrage and negative headlines, but also from within the armed forces. Senior commanders came to see civilian casualties not just as “collateral damage,” but also as operationally counterproductive.

That recognition led to real changes including tighter rules, better intelligence practices and eventually the creation of systems within the Pentagon meant to track, investigate and learn lessons to reduce harm. By the time U.S. troops were withdrawing from Kabul in 2021, those lessons were just beginning to be institutionalized across the armed forces.

What is happening now is undoing that progress. Safeguards built over years are being torn down, and it is unclear whether senior military leaders are willing to push back.

One major incident of harm to civilians can be a mistake. But when reports come in about multiple strikes on a variety of places where families and children gather, it raises a question about whether something larger is at work. It could be failures of intelligence or targeting decisions, or that the level of risk to civilians now being accepted has risen.

There are warning signs that in this policy environment, the U.S. military will not be led to correct its course. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth publicly dismissed what he calls “stupid rules of engagement” and emphasized making the military “more lethal.” At the same time, Hegseth has weakened or sidelined efforts designed to reduce civilian harm in war. Those signals matter because they shape what military lawyers, analysts and commanders understand to be expected of them. In short, they shape the military’s culture.

We don’t know all the facts yet about the Minab school strike or the disputed one at the sports complex in Lamerd, but we’ve seen enough to know that the attacks can’t be written off as isolated mistakes. Before and since the start of the U.S. war on Iran in February, there has been little sustained public debate and no congressional hearings about the risks of American military action in Iran, including the inevitable civilian casualties that result from using powerful explosive weapons in populated areas. During the war in Afghanistan, each deadly strike on a wedding party or family compound did more than take civilian lives. It fueled anger at the U.S. and magnified skepticism that our military was trying to minimize civilian harm in any way.

Americans are entitled to clear answers about who and what is being targeted, what its military is doing to protect Iranian civilians and how possible violations of the laws of war are being investigated. This is basic public oversight that should accompany the use of military force. When incidents are openly disputed, as in the Lamerd strike, the need for impartial and transparent investigations becomes more, not less, important. If the U.S. military was acting lawfully, it should show it. But if it wasn’t, the public deserves to know that too.

The United States has long claimed to fight according to international law and to benefit from doing so. But that means little if the rules are mocked and actions don’t match reality. Waiting to recognize these patterns of civilian harm, and to correct them, will once again cost lives.

The post Americans deserve answers about civilian casualties in Iran appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The absurdity is that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in California by nearly 2 to 1. But the voters’ choices for governor could be restricted to just two Republicans — both disciples of President Trump, who is despised in this state.

We’d be electing our first GOP governor in 20 years.

The odds against this scenario are high. But it’s an increasing possibility.

It’s conceivable because of a crowded Democratic field of candidates and a 2010 reform placed on the ballot after a late-night deal demanded by a Republican state senator — Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria — in exchange for his vote to pass a stalled budget and tax increase.

The compromise led to voter approval of California’s unique top-two open primary. The top two vote-getters advance to the November runoff, regardless of party. It’s called an open primary because voters can choose any candidate, no matter their party.

So two Democrats or two Republicans might be the only choices in November — in statewide, congressional and legislative races. That doesn’t happen often, but it has a few times.

It doesn’t reflect the current reality of American politics, with voters sharply polarized between Democrats and Republicans. They want to vote for someone from their own party and are not interested in choosing among two perceived evils.

We should consider returning to a primary system that produces party nominees — one Democrat and one Republican — to give voters a more varied selection in November. Maybe even allow a third or fourth candidate to emerge from minority parties.

It’s too late to change for this year, but we could for future elections. It would require voter approval.

For the present, we’re saddled with the unwieldy dilemma of there being eight major Democratic candidates and just two Republicans. If the combined Democratic vote is splintered among the eight Democrats in the June 2 primary, the two Republicans could end up finishing first and second.

Political data guru Paul Mitchell, who has been running primary election simulations, pegs the chances of a Democratic lockout at 20%.

“There’s only a one-in-five chance, but you don’t want to see a one-in-five chance with something this important,” says the statistician, who works mostly for Democrats.

“To be safe, the Democratic Party needs to have a candidate polling at 20% or more. And none of the Democratic candidates are half way there. It’s scary.”

Mitchell bases his assessment on a poll released last week by state Democratic chairman Rusty Hicks, part of an effort to pressure low-polling Democratic candidates to step out of the race.

The survey showed both Republicans leading the field — former Fox News host Steve Hilton with 16% and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco at 14%. At 10% each were three Democrats: Rep. Eric Swalwell of the San Francisco Bay Area, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and wealthy climate activist Tom Steyer. No other Democrat registered above 3%. There were 24% undecided.

The straggling candidates need to ask themselves, Hicks says: “if you’re polling 1% to 2%, do you have a path to get to 20?

“All of these candidates are experienced. They know in their gut when they’re viable or not.”

Mitchell says, “A lot of folks are now looking at why we have a wacky system that causes [a party chair] to tell candidates they should drop out of a race.”

Yes, it does smack of being undemocratic even if it’s practical politics.

Mitchell says the top-two system should be scrapped.

Hicks agrees.

“Things that were promised [by top-two promoters] have not been delivered,” the state party chairman told me. “It’s time to consider going back to the kind of system voters like.”

Appealing to the middle

I called around and got different views from veteran Democratic strategists.

“It was sold as reform, but it’s not reform. It’s a distortion of the process,” one former political consultant told me, asking for anonymity because of his current employment. “Everybody thought it would yield more moderate, consensus candidates, but that’s not what’s happening.”

Consultant Steve Maviglito, who ran the 2010 campaign against the top-two system, says it’s undemocratic because it risks not giving voters “a chance to cast a ballot for a candidate they have some belief in. That’s what our system is built on.”

The grand theory, he notes, was that candidates would be forced to appeal to the middle.

“Just the opposite,” Maviglio argues. “Democrats want a strong Democrat and Republicans want a strong Republican. The only thing in the middle of the road is a dead armadillo.”

Moreover, he points out, the top-two system has been manipulated by Democrats — including Sen. Adam Schiff and Gov. Gavin Newsom — to boost a Republican in the primary to guarantee a non-competitive, easy election in November.

That’s a bit sleazy.

“The top-two has actually been hugely good to Democrats,” says Democratic strategist Garry South. “They need to think this through. Since the top-two primary was implemented, there have only been three same-party runoffs for state office out of 26 races — all three of them Democrats.

“The current specter of two Republicans [in November] is not the fault of the top-two primary system. It’s due to every Democrat and their brother — or sister — taking a flier and filing for governor.”

“Never,” replies consultant David Townsend when asked whether the top-two primary should be junked. He ran the ballot campaign authorizing it. Townsend insists today’s Legislature contains more moderate Democrats because of the top-two and that they provide a check on the liberal majority.

That’s true to some degree.

OK, we could leave the top-two system for the Legislature and scuttle it for statewide offices.

The thought of being limited to a choice between two Republicans — or two Democrats — for governor is unacceptable and un-American.

The post The time has come to discard California’s top-two open primary appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The audience went wild, and Schwarzenegger went on to become governor and deliver on his promise to roll back a car tax increase, thereby blowing a $4-billion hole in the state budget.

I think it’s fair to say that in the current gubernatorial campaign season, the excitement level is several decibels below what we experienced in 2003. But once again, it’s fair to say we’ve not seen anything quite like this year’s derby.

“There’s no historical precedent in modern California history for a governor’s race with such a large field or such an amorphous field of candidates,” said longtime political observer Dan Schnur. “Unless you’re paying very close attention, it feels like a big multi-headed political blob.”

To break that down, eight Democrats and two Republicans are running in the primary, and here’s the craziest thing about that:

The two Republicans could be the top two vote-getters because the Democrats have arranged themselves into a circular firing squad. While the Dems scramble for votes in the June 2 primary, the two Republicans lead in the polls because they’re splitting the GOP vote, and under the rules of the top-two primary, they could face off in the November election.

That means that California, which is one of the bluest states in the country and has nearly twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, could end up with a Republican governor, which would be like having a Dodgers manager who wears a Yankees jersey in the dugout.

And by the way, if it happens, the Republican would be able to shuffle regulatory boards, attempt to squeeze budgets and create a bit of chaos, but still not get much accomplished because of Democratic super-majorities in the Senate and Assembly.

And he would be targeted for recall even before he takes office. (More on that in a minute.)

There is a way for the Democrats to avoid this humiliation, but they can’t seem to agree on anything at the moment. Party leaders have all but asked the candidates at the bottom of the polls to bow out, but understandably the response has been, “Why me? I’m no worse than the others.”

USC decided to host a debate night, a simple enough proposition, but then flubbed the deal by leaving four candidates off the invitation list — four candidates of color. A kerfuffle followed, and the debate was dumped, and an attempt to let everyone into the party fell apart.

So now what?

It’s possible the Dems will huddle around one or two candidates who then move up in the polls and remove the threat of the unthinkable — two Republicans head-to-head. That would be Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco going against former Fox TV host Steve Hilton.

It’s also possible the Dems will play dirty and either spend money to promote one of the two Republican candidates or torpedo one of them. All they want, at the moment, is for a Democrat to make it past the primary, because that would all but ensure victory in November, given voter registration advantages.

And then, if that doesn’t work, there’s the recall scenario.

“You could shut it down probably within five or six months,” said Mike Madrid, a longtime California GOP political consultant.

“It would surely happen,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who helped Schwarzenegger knock Gov. Gray Davis out of office, and take his job, in the 2003 recall.

A wealthy Democratic donor could bankroll the recall campaign, Stutzman said. Or public employee unions might put up the money, given that a Republican winner is likely to create a state version of Elon Musk’s ham-handed attempt to fire nearly everyone on the federal payroll.

“The pitch,” Stutzman said of the recall strategy in an email, would be that “Trump still looms and CA must resist, and a GOP gov is a fluke of weird election law. Difficult to imagine it wouldn’t succeed.”

I thought of one more approach the Democrats could use to make sure at least one of them is on the ballot in November. Tom Steyer, a leader for many years on one of the most critical issues in California and the world, climate change, has already spent tens of millions of dollars on TV ads that run about every two minutes, promoting him as the best candidate for governor.

They’re so repetitious, you can’t help but tune them out.

But everyone would pay close attention if Steyer instead ran ads offering incentives for either Bianco or Hilton to leave the state. Steyer could offer $10 million cash for Bianco to move to Hawaii, and maybe throw in a beach house. He could buy a private jet for Hilton to take him back to his native Britain. Every day, there could be new ads upping the ante until one of them leaves the Golden State.

Wouldn’t that be a better use of Steyer’s money? It might even get him elected.

To be honest, having some honest pushback against Democratic authority in California wouldn’t be a terrible thing. It’s not as if Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats are winning the battle against homelessness, housing shortages, affordability and other big challenges, and voters understandably want more — way more — for their tax dollars.

An experienced, no-nonsense, sensible, fiscally conservative GOP candidate would do the state good.

The problem is that the two Republicans in the running, Bianco and Hilton, are Trump toadies.

In an embarrassingly amateurish political stunt, Bianco blew the president a kiss and all but begged for an endorsement by seizing 650,000 ballots from last November’s election to determine whether they were fraudulently counted.

Hilton recently said in an interview with ABC’s Eyewitness News 7 that he believes “everybody supports” Trump’s immigration policies.

Hilton might have missed the news that U.S.-born residents are carrying their passports in case they’re targeted by skin color. That Californians by the thousands have joined the resistance. That despite claims, most deportees don’t have criminal records. And that even some of the state’s GOP lawmakers have begged Trump to stop raiding industries that rely on immigrant help (and are often owned by Republicans).

And by the way, is this a smart time for a GOP candidate in California to be doing his best Trump impression?

The president’s popularity is down, consumer prices are up, he’s shamelessly pardoned drug lords and Jan. 6 barbarians, he thinks the presidency is a game of Battleship after promising to keep us out of wars, gas prices are sky high, he just said he was glad that Vietnam War hero and former FBI Director Robert Mueller had died, and he’s playing golf all day as if everything’s hunky dory.

Like I said, there’s not a big-name character like Schwarzenegger in the race, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good options. If you like Bianco or Hilton, so be it. Otherwise I suggest you read up on the other eight:

Steyer, Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former L.A. Mayor and legislative leader Antonio Villaraigosa, former Rep. Katie Porter, former state attorney general and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former State Controller Betty Yee, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, and U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell.

And you better act fast.

The primary is less than 10 weeks away.

The post Yes, a Republican could be California’s next governor. And a recall would begin immediately appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

    The comment leans into a familiar kind of political attack, but it also echoes a long-standing contradiction. Newsom has been open for years about living with dyslexia, a condition that can make reading and writing more challenging but does not limit intelligence or the ability to lead. By most measures, he has managed it effectively throughout his career.

    Dyslexia forces people to approach learning differently, not less successfully. Newsom has described how he prepares extensively for speeches, often reviewing material multiple times and relying on notes or memorization to stay on track. It’s something he’s dealt with since his teenage years.

    Trump, who has not been diagnosed with dyslexia, framed the issue as disqualifying. In remarks to reporters, he said he supports people with learning disabilities “but not for my president,” adding criticism of Newsom’s abilities. Similar comments followed in radio interviews and on social media, where Trump argued that a president should not have what he called a “cognitive deficiency.”

    The criticism drew attention not only for its tone but for its premise. Learning disabilities have been present among prominent figures throughout history, including U.S. presidents. Historians have noted that individuals such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson struggled with spelling and written communication, while others like John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower are also believed to have had learning challenges.

    Beyond politics, well-known figures such as Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, and Apple co-founder Steve Jobs have also been associated with dyslexia. Researchers estimate the condition affects roughly one in five Americans to some degree.

    Newsom has spoken candidly about how it shaped his development. In his autobiography, Young Man in a Hurry, he describes school as inconsistent and the SAT as particularly difficult. Early in his career, he said public speaking carried the same anxiety he once felt reading aloud in class. Over time, he adapted by memorizing key points and focusing on connecting with audiences.

    That ability, he has argued, became a strength — allowing him to read a room and adjust his message in real time. It’s a skill that carried him through his time as San Francisco mayor and later as California governor.

    During a recent State of the State address, Newsom acknowledged his struggles directly, noting that reading prepared text can still be difficult and requires extra effort.

    None of that settles the broader political question of whether he should one day be president. Voters will ultimately weigh his policies, leadership style, and record in office.

    But reducing that debate to a learning disability misses the mark — and, critics argue, crosses a line that has little to do with governing.

The post Trump’s remarks about Gavin Newsom’s dyslexia spark criticism and renew debate over leadership, disability, and politics appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Inland Empire Economic Partnership released its economic analysis and forecast for 2026 at its State of the Region event last month. We presented the national and state outlook previously. Now, we’ll focus on the current economic situation in the Inland Empire and the short-term and long-term outlook. A subsequent piece will look at the housing market.

2025 was not an easy year for the Inland Empire economy. The Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area, known as the Inland Empire (Riverside County and San Bernardino County), made it through the year primarily on the strength of a few industries. Looking at the region’s economic activity, we think of it as a house with a good view that is supported by three stilts. These are logistics, health industries, and local government expenditures, primarily public education. Take away one of the pillars, and the house will tumble. Over the last year, two of these three industries prevented the area from experiencing a significant number of job losses.

In 2025, there were only 3,200 job gains for the two counties, a 0.2% growth in employment. The two largest employment sectors — health and local government — created 24,400 new jobs, meaning all other sectors combined lost 21,100 jobs.

The logistics sector, the third largest employer in the region and the largest in San Bernardino County, lost 6,100 positions, continuing the “freight recession,” which started in mid-2022. Other sectors losing jobs were manufacturing (-3,500), construction (-8,200), professional and business services (200), financial services (-1,200) and information (-500).

The unemployment rate increased slightly from 4.9% to 5.1% during the year. However, this was due to the labor force growth outpacing the employment growth, which is a relatively healthy picture.

The unemployment rate ended up at the same level as the state unemployment rate, which currently is the highest among the 50 states. Both the Inland Empire and the California unemployment rates are a percentage point higher than the national rate.

Looking through 2026, job growth will be weak and will be adversely affected by national policies. Tariffs will have a lingering effect on logistics and cutbacks in Medicaid (MediCal) will temper growth in the health sector. Meanwhile, public education will face challenges in terms of funding cuts and demographics, with the number of school-age children continuing to decline. Most likely we will see a flat or shrinking labor force in the area.

In short, the Inland Empire economy may find itself treading water for most of the year. There are threats to the logistics industry due to the recent price increases at the pump. However, we assume the Middle East conflict will not result in oil prices last reached in 2022, when they were over $130 per barrel.

The long-term outlook for the Inland Empire must be viewed through the lens of today’s economy.

With 4.7 million residents, the region is already the state’s second largest metro area and the 12th largest nationally. The region will grow in the coming years, faster than the coastal counties but at a slower pace than in the past. The foundation of the economy will continue to be logistics, health care and population-serving industries. Because the region’s housing is more affordable than along the coast, and because the coastal counties offer a wider array of jobs, large numbers of workers will choose to live in the region and commute. At recent count, approximately 350,000 commuters endure long commutes. This includes younger members of the workforce, who grew up in the region and attended local colleges, but found more and better employment opportunities elsewhere, since there are too few well-paying job opportunities within the region.

The trajectory of the region can be altered by attracting and growing firms in industries that feature better paying jobs, including those for better-educated workers. These industries can lure workers back.

The challenge is to envision the future the Inland Empire wants and to undertake a strategic plan to realize that vision. The region can identify and attract growth-oriented industries that have the potential to move here and can work alongside the industries that currently support the regional economy. The region’s colleges and universities turn out thousands of graduates each year, but these numbers are not well reflected in the region’s educational attainment statistics: Only 25% of residents ages 25 to 45 hold at least a bachelor’s degree compared to 37% for the state and the nation. Higher paying firms are reluctant to move into the area. While the cost of living in the region is better than in coastal communities, firms that may consider relocating from elsewhere in the country will hesitate because housing costs in the region exceed those in other parts of the country with whom we must compete. The region must take steps to rein in housing costs if it wants to attract firms from outside the state. This means increasing the supply of housing beyond recent levels of new construction, and meeting the housing needs of all households, including market rate housing, affordable housing, and rental housing.

The Inland Empire Economic Partnership’s mission is to help create a regional voice for business and quality of life in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Its membership includes organizations in the private and public sector.

The post What’s the current economic outlook for the Inland Empire? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

That’s wholly subjective on my part, but I doubt I’m alone. Which is why I was far from surprised at the outrage that accompanied two recent, successful parole hearings for convicted serial child predators in Sacramento.

Gregory Lee Vogelsang, 57, and David Funston, 64, both attacked children and were granted parole through California’s elderly parole program — though both remain behind bars for now.

But the fury over the possibility of their freedom has put the state’s controversial elderly parole program under scrutiny — again — and led to a flurry of legislation to add new restrictions. Should sex offenders be excluded? Especially heinous murderers? Everyone under the age of 75?

It’s easy to answer “yes” to all of the above.

“Part of the problem we have is we shouldn’t be making policy decisions based on speculation and on scary rhetoric that’s disconnected from the facts,” Keith Wattley told me. He’s the founder and director of UnCommon Law, a nonprofit that provides legal services and parole advocacy.

“That’s how politicians make people afraid, but it shouldn’t be how we make law,” he said.

And he’s right, as grotesque as these headline-grabbing cases are. In 2024, there were 3,580 elderly parole hearings and 606 people were granted that relief. Most have remained law-abiding. In the 2019-20 year, the most recent recidivism statistics available from CDCR, 221 people were granted elderly parole. Within three years, only four had been convicted of new crimes, and only one of those was a felony for a crime against a person. That tracks with lots of data that shows men generally age out of violent crimes.

But Funston and Vogelsang are the worst of what we fear when we talk about parole, and their cases rightfully make us wonder what the heck the parole board is doing. Though Gov. Gavin Newsom sent both of these decisions back for review, it’s easy to imagine the attack ads should he run for president: Under Newsom’s watch, child rapists walked free.

“Elder parole has gone too far,” Thien Ho, the Sacramento district attorney whose office prosecuted both men, told me. “I support the opportunity of people to be rehabilitated. But I think that certain individuals, in my opinion, and in my experience, cannot be rehabilitated.”

Here’s where I’m going to make a lot of folks mad on both sides of this issue. I agree with Ho, but also, I agree with Wattley. I don’t think we can pass laws based on our grimmest view of humanity. Removing hope from the system turns our prisons into dungeons and does not ultimately serve public safety.

But then, neither does releasing child molesters into our communities.

Lost in all the wrath about these two cases is the difficult business of justice that led to the early release law in 2014, and any interest in the hard and nuanced conversation that we need to have around terrible crimes. It’s easy and popular to say no violent criminal should ever be released, but we can’t just lock up everyone with no possibility of ever getting out because the “R” in CDCR stands for “rehabilitation,” and also — we just can’t afford the forever scenario, morally or fiscally.

California tried the throw-away-the-key model in the 1980s and ‘90s and ended up with prisons so overcrowded that the federal courts stepped in. The original elderly parole effort came through a 2014 court decision on overcrowding that gave inmates 60 or older who had served at least 25 years a chance to go before the parole board. A chance — no guaranteed freedom, and usually it takes multiple hearings years apart before the board approves it.

Later, the Legislature expanded elderly parole to inmates 50 or older who had served 20 years, but excluded those sentenced under the “three strikes” law or those who had murdered peace officers.

The reality is California has a lot of old, aging and sick people behind bars — at great expense. As we grapple with the idea of universal healthcare, there’s one place in California where it already exists — our prisons and jails. We currently pay more than $41,000 in healthcare costs per inmate per year, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

I’m not going to tell you it’s the best healthcare, but it’s taxpayer-funded, and includes even long-term dementia care. And yes, we do have incarcerated dementia patients.

“This is about reducing our prison population and our liability to cover housing and healthcare for an aging prison population, and we have to balance that with the safety of the community and the rights of victims,” state Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) told me. She’s sponsoring a bill that would create an additional layer of safety around sex crimes by referring these possible parolees to the civil system that evaluates sexually violent predators for confinement in mental facilities after their prison terms.

“Under some circumstances, it is worth considering paroling some of these defendants,” she said, with the kind of thoughtful rationality sure to offend many. “But the cases that you’re seeing right now are completely egregious, and those defendants should not be released.”

Vogelsang was convicted of almost 30 counts of kidnapping and sex crimes, against kids as young as 5. He’s served 27 years of a 355-year sentence.

David Allen Funston was convicted in 1999 of 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation for kids as young as toddlers. He was sentenced to three consecutive 25-to-life prison sentences. Newsom bounced his first successful parole bid back to the parole board for a review, and on Feb. 18, it affirmed its decision.

But Placer County prosecutors quickly charged him with an old crime that had never been filed due to the Sacramento case, and he remains incarcerated awaiting trial on those charges.

Vogelsang’s case particularly raised a red flag for me. He told the parole board he’s been working successfully for about five years to control his thoughts about children.

“I don’t want to become aroused, but I know it’s always going to be there,” he said during the hearing.

Newsom also sent Vogelsang’s case back for review, and he will go before the board again on March 18. Vogelsang’s testimony was concerning enough that if I had a vote in this, I’d probably ask him to come back again in a few years, but we’ll see what the board does.

I’ll admit my decision would be emotional, and these cases do make me wonder. But Wattley is right that condemning elderly parole based on the monstrous deeds of these child predators is shortsighted. There is likely little to no public safety benefit in raising the overall age for elderly parole, and certainly no fiscal benefit.

“When you’re paying for older, sicker people to be incarcerated, and they don’t pose a risk to public safety, what are we actually getting for that? We’re not getting anything that supports survivors. We’re not getting anything that prevents crime. We’re just spending taxpayer dollars on something that doesn’t correlate with the public safety risk,” Wattley pointed out.

As hard as it is to wrap our minds around, it’s best for public safety to allow even the worst of the worst their chance in front of the parole board. It may even make sense for some who have committed truly terrible crimes decades ago to be released, if there is strong evidence of change and a low risk to public safety. That’s the kind of fair and realistic justice that no one on either side of the issue wants to talk about.

I’m not convinced Vogelsang and Funston have met those bars. But that doesn’t mean we should throw out the bars.

The post Should child rapists be released just because they’re old? Maybe appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Class of 2030 was supposed to be first to experience this change. These students are now freshmen, but the policy is still lacking necessary support. 

In a 2021 letter to lawmakers, Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote, “Ethnic studies courses enable students to learn their own stories.” 

He went on to say: “America is shaped by our shared history, much of it painful and etched with woeful injustice. Students deserve to see themselves in their studies, and they must understand our nation’s full history if we expect them to one day build a more just society.”

Despite such statements, Newsom’s 2025 state budget allocated zero funding for the introduction of ethnic studies. 

Implementation of AB 101 hinges on individual school districts’ actions. Those who opt not to participate can do so, ostensibly without official consequence. 

Avoiding racial divisions?

The unofficial consequences can be significant, however. 

In December 2022, Temecula Valley Unified in Southern California passed a resolution banning “critical race theory,” insisting it would prove divisive for students. 

In fact, the ban contributed to the division. In a conversation with NPR, Temecula students talked about peers claiming to “own” Black kids as slaves, calling students the N-word and doing Nazi salutes in class.

I grew up in this area and played midfield in Temecula soccer tournaments. I am a daughter of Italian and Filipino immigrants and a product of public schools in Orange County. In my experience, though districts claimed to teach from a colorblind perspective, divisive opinions on race were expressed nonetheless.

The divisions go beyond hateful speech. 

Black students are disciplined at rates unmatched by white peers. Black boys are most likely to be suspended or expelled. In 2024, Sacramento schools led the state in suspensions of Black students.

Suspension rates have been linked to the school-to-prison pipeline. Black Californians are nine times more likely to be imprisoned than white peers. Black and Latino men constitute 74% of the men’s prison population in California, though Black men are only 6% and Latino men are 38% of all unincarcerated men.

How would teaching ethnic studies help alleviate these disparities?

Social scientists say knowledge is first shaped socially before it’s internalized individually. School communities set an example for how students will behave as adults. 

If students are labeled troublemakers, they internalize and accept the label as truth. Those who succeed in making a new impression carry their troubled past with them. 

The consequences of inaction

There is a range between what a student learns on their own and what they’ll learn with  a teacher’s support. Without support, students risk perpetuating systemic racial abuse — regardless of their own racial identity.

Students learn to make racial distinctions without necessarily saying the words out loud. They’re ill-equipped to elucidate their own patterns of perception and reasoning. And they learn to desensitize themselves to violence, both subtle and blatant. 

Given these consequences of inaction, we shouldn’t wait for the perfect ethnic studies curriculum. 

After all, race is a component of every subject, from history to economics. To deny the influence of racial constructs is to uphold a false sense of neutrality. Explain the coincidence of 44 white male presidents, for instance.

Civics teaches students to be engaged citizens, to know the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the distribution of democratic power. Teach students that Black Panther Party cofounder Bobby Seale was a graduate of Berkeley High. 

Some districts host social-emotional literacy specialists and classes. Teach students to recognize their harmful and inaccurate thoughts about their peers’ perceived identities.

It’s not enough to rely on a single ethnic studies class. I didn’t learn that the U.S. occupied the Philippines in a history class. I learned it from my family. 

If we want to reduce racial inequality in California, we must collectively share the responsibility of facilitating conversations on race. Making ethnic studies a high school requirement would be a great place to start.

The post California’s high schools should be teaching ethnic studies courses but aren’t appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.