https://www.facebook.com/944791548884192/

Let's Talk America, Sacramento, CA (2026)

09/30/2026

He**The Silence Is Deafening — And Selective**

In opposition to Trump's Iran war, the left has made a choice. It has chosen to stand in silent solidarity with the regime that sentenced Parastoo Ahmadi to 74 lashes.

Parastoo is 29. She sang a patriotic song on YouTube without a hijab. For that, an appeals court in Qom upheld: 74 lashes, two years banned from all artistic activity, two years banned from leaving Iran. Her bandmates received the same.

A woman faces being whipped for singing. And from the loudest voices who claim to speak for women, for Muslims, for the oppressed — silence.

Where is ? Silent.

Where is **Mayor ** of New York City? The DSA mayor who can tweet about every other injustice on earth — silent.

Where is ? The Squad member who built her entire political identity on speaking for Muslim women. A Muslim woman in Iran is about to be lashed for refusing compulsory hijab. Not a word.

Where is ? Silent.

Where is **Aisha Wahab**, the first Afghan-American state senator in California who campaigned on women's rights under Sharia law? Silent.

Where is **Lateefah Simon**? Silent.

Where is , one of the first Muslim congressmen in America? Silent.

Where is ? Silent.

Where is the **Hamtramck City Council in Michigan** — the first all-Muslim city council in America, celebrated by every progressive outlet as a historic milestone for representation? The council that governs an American city where women can sing freely — silent about a city in Iran where a woman will be whipped for it.

Where is **London's Mayor Sadiq Khan**? The first Muslim mayor of a Western capital, held up globally as the model of progressive Muslim leadership. He has time to comment on Trump, on Gaza, on climate. On a woman sentenced to 74 lashes for singing without a veil — silence.

And as noted:

**"Members of and DSA and DNC refused to comment because they could not understand the label woman"**

That is the perfect encapsulation. When the left cannot define what a woman is, it cannot defend a woman who is being punished for being a woman.

Parastoo Ahmadi said, "I am Parastoo, a girl who cannot stay silent and refuses to stop singing for the people she loves."

She will not be silent. But Ilhan Omar is silent. Rashida Tlaib is silent. Aisha Wahab is silent. Lateefah Simon is silent. André Carson is silent. Mayor Mamdani is silent. Hamtramck is silent. Sadiq Khan is silent. The DNC, the DSA, and the WNBA are silent.

Their silence is not an accident. It is a political choice. In order to oppose Trump, they will quietly stand with the mullahs — even if it means abandoning a 29-year-old woman to the lash.

08/24/2026

Lord Farquaad Politics:

When Disagreement Becomes a Capital Offense
Modern political discourse has reached a surreal milestone where differing on policy is no longer viewed as a routine debate, but as a treasonous act demanding public execution—metaphorically speaking, of course.

The recent controversy surrounding Abdul El-Sayed's donor-call remarks lays bare a toxic philosophy that has quietly infected modern governance: my way or the highway. In leaked audio, the strategy was laid out with chilling transparency—suggesting that to whip an ideological base into line, one must put an "ogre on a pike" so everyone else gets the message.

And who was cast as this mythical beast? Senator John Fetterman, simply for demonstrating an independent streak and a willingness to engage in bipartisan pragmatism.

The Rule of Absolute Conformity
This mindset reduces complex legislative bodies to a royal court straight out of a fairy tale, with Abdul El-Sayed stepping comfortably into the role of Lord Farquaad. In Farquaad's kingdom, dissent is messy, nuance is banned, and anyone who refuses to march in lockstep is exiled or made an example of.

The "ogre on a pike" methodology relies entirely on intimidation. It sends an unmistakable signal to peers, colleagues, and voters: Fall in line, adopt every ideological purity test, or prepare to have your political head mounted on the castle wall. It treats independent thought not as a healthy pillar of a republic, but as a contamination that must be publicly purged.

Governance vs. Purity Cults
When political figures resort to medieval imagery to punish a fellow lawmaker for straying from the party script, they expose the fatal flaw of modern ideological tribalism. Democracy requires friction, compromise, and the freedom to disagree without facing social or political exile.

If the baseline requirement for participation is total obedience to a self-appointed gatekeeper, we aren't building a better future—we're just constructing a smaller, more tyrannical castle. Fetterman may shrug off the insult with humor, but the underlying threat remains a glaring symptom of a political culture that has stopped listening to voters and started demanding absolute submission.

How do you think everyday voters can start pushing back against this kind of high-control political intimidation?

07/21/2026

I can’t believe that with all of Newsom’s tax hikes and failed policies hurting every Californian, REGARDLESS of POLITICAL partY, some Democrats and RINOs are still pushing write-in votes for candidates who aren’t even on the November ballot.

We all know write-ins are a wasted vote that only helps keep the same broken Sacramento machine in power. Californians deserve real change, not symbolic gestures that change nothing.

It’s time to vote like our future depends on it, because it does!

Support the candidate with a clear plan to fix our state: cut taxes, restore sanity, and put Californians first.

Let’s reject the status quo. California is worth fighting for.

07/16/2026

The Primary Is Over. Now It’s Time for the Right to Unite.

THE PRIMARY IS OVER.

NOW THE REAL CHOICE BEGINS.

Whether your preferred candidate won or lost, California now faces a decision that will shape the next four years.

If the Republican nominee is Steve Hilton and the Democratic nominee is Xavier Becerra, the question is no longer who your favorite candidate was.

The question is simple:

Who do you want governing California for the next four years?

⸻

PRIMARY ELECTIONS

Choose a nominee.

GENERAL ELECTIONS

Choose the direction of the state.

Many conservatives and right-of-center voters invested time, money, and energy behind another candidate.

That is democracy.

But once the voters have spoken, the focus must shift.

If stopping another Democratic administration is your priority, division only helps Xavier Becerra.

⸻

WHAT IS AT STAKE?

PUBLIC SAFETY

If you supported Proposition 36 for tougher penalties on repeat offenders and organized retail theft, can you afford four more years of policies you believe weaken public safety?

PROPERTY TAXES

If you want to protect Proposition 13 and keep property taxes from rising without limit, who is more likely to defend it?

PARENTAL RIGHTS

If you believe parents should have a stronger voice in their children’s education, which candidate is more likely to stand with you?

LAW AND ORDER

If you want criminals to face real consequences instead of revolving-door justice, which direction do you want California to take?

THE SUPERMAJORITY

California’s problem is not just bad policy.

It is too much unchecked power in Sacramento.

The supermajority has allowed one party to dominate the Legislature, raise taxes, expand spending, and push radical policies without meaningful opposition or accountability.

That is not balance.

That is one-party rule.

If Californians want a government that listens, they must eliminate the supermajority and force Sacramento to negotiate again.

We need to go back to the days of Willie Brown’s wheeling and dealing — when politics meant bargaining, compromise, and coalition-building, not rubber-stamp rule from a single party.

California works better when leaders have to talk, negotiate, and answer to voters across the political spectrum.

⸻

THE NOVEMBER QUESTION

These are the questions that matter in November.

No candidate is perfect, and every voter has disagreements.

But elections are about choosing between competing visions, not ideal options.

If Steve Hilton was not your first choice, that disappointment is understandable.

But refusing to unite behind the nominee does not change the primary result.

It only weakens the chances in the general election.

History shows that political movements lose when they stay divided after the primary while their opponents rally behind one candidate.

⸻

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR

If your priorities are:

* Safer communities
* Lower taxes
* Stronger parental rights
* Protection of Proposition 13
* Support for law enforcement
* A change in California’s direction
* An end to the supermajority in Sacramento
* A return to real negotiation, accountability, and balance

Then the general election is about those principles — not about reliving the primary.

The ballot in November will not ask who should have won the Republican primary.

It will ask one question:

Who should be California’s next governor?

⸻

FOR VOTERS ON THE RIGHT

FOR INDEPENDENTS

FOR CONSERVATIVES

The primary battle is over.

The choice now is whether to remain divided — or unite behind a common goal.

Because if those who oppose Xavier Becerra stay home or refuse to support the Republican nominee simply because Steve Hilton was not their first choice, they may help deliver exactly what they say they oppose:

Four more years of Democratic control of California.

⸻

THE CHOICE BELONGS TO EVERY VOTER.

THE CONSEQUENCES BELONG TO ALL CALIFORNIANS.

07/12/2026

Dance Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee: Did Party Elites Turn Voters Into Spectators?

Muhammad Ali understood something about the fight game: the smartest fighter does not always win by throwing the most punches. He wins by controlling the ring.

In today’s political arena, critics argue the Democratic Party has perfected a similar strategy — let voters enter the ring, let them believe they are choosing the champion, and then have the establishment decide who actually gets to wear the belt.

The question is no longer just about candidates.

The question is about control.

Democratic voters participated in the 2024 presidential primaries and selected Joe Biden as their nominee. But after concerns about his debate performance and electability intensified, pressure mounted from Democratic elected officials, donors, and influential voices for him to step aside.

President Biden ultimately announced he would not seek reelection. But critics argue this was not a normal political retirement or a candidate accepting defeat. They argue he was politically cornered — a sitting president who won the primary process but lost the confidence of the party establishment.

The message critics say voters received was clear:

Your vote matters — until the people with more influence decide it doesn’t.

Now, with the controversy surrounding Daniel Platner, critics see a familiar pattern. They argue that when a candidate no longer fits the preferred image of party leadership, the pressure campaign begins. The candidate becomes the problem, the headlines become the weapon, and the exit door becomes the solution.

The critics’ charge is that the modern Democratic Party has created a “golden child” system:

Let the voters choose the nominee.

But keep an establishment-approved replacement ready if the choice becomes inconvenient.

It is a political version of bait and switch:

* The voter gets the microphone.
* The party keeps the final edit.
* The grassroots cast the vote.
* The insiders decide the acceptable outcome.

Democrats will argue that political parties have always influenced nominations and that leaders have a responsibility to support candidates they believe can win. But critics counter that there is a difference between guiding a party and overriding the very voters a party claims to represent.

A democracy depends on a simple principle:

The people choose the leaders — not the leaders choosing the people’s choices.

Because if primary elections become nothing more than auditions, and party elites reserve the right to replace the winner when the performance does not meet expectations, then voters are not selecting champions.

They are selecting finalists for a decision already made behind closed doors.

The political fight ahead is not just about Republicans versus Democrats.

It is about a deeper question:

Who owns the future of a political party — the voters who cast the ballots, or the insiders who control the battlefield?

In the words of the great Muhammad Ali, the champion knows when to move and when to strike.

The voters may throw the first punch.

But critics argue the party establishment still believes it owns the ring.

07/12/2026

Another Democratic Vetting Failure—or Another Case of Party Insiders Choosing the Outcome?

The spectacular collapse of Graham Platner’s Senate campaign has become more than an embarrassment for Maine Democrats. It has become a case study in whether today’s Democratic Party has a serious problem with candidate vetting—or whether party insiders increasingly believe they can manage elections by choosing candidates behind the scenes.

Platner’s campaign imploded after a sexual assault allegation, which he denies, along with renewed attention to offensive past comments and controversy surrounding a tattoo that many critics said resembled N**i imagery. These were not issues that suddenly appeared overnight. They raise an obvious question: Why weren’t they identified before he became the Democratic nominee?

The Hegseth Double Standard

Conservatives will remember the intense criticism directed at Pete Hegseth over his Jerusalem Cross tattoo. Progressive activists and many media outlets questioned whether a centuries-old Christian symbol represented extremism, forcing Hegseth to defend his faith and his character.

Yet when Platner faced scrutiny over a tattoo that critics argued resembled N**i symbolism, the response from many on the left was notably more restrained. Rather than sustained outrage, there were explanations, calls for context, and appeals to move forward.

Whether one believes either controversy was overblown is beside the point.

The issue is consistency.

If one tattoo justified weeks of national controversy, why didn’t the other receive the same level of concern before Democratic leaders embraced the candidate?

Vetting Means Asking Difficult Questions

Political consultants are hired to uncover problems before voters do.

Recent reporting has also renewed attention on strategist Daniel Moraff, who helped recruit Platner. Moraff has previously been the subject of allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior, which he has denied. While those allegations have not resulted in criminal findings, they nevertheless raise legitimate questions about judgment and accountability.

An uncomfortable question follows.

If a consultant carries personal controversy that could damage his own reputation, is he less likely to aggressively examine similar issues in the backgrounds of the candidates he recruits?

No one can answer that definitively without evidence.

But it is a fair question for voters to ask.

A Pattern That Invites Questions

The Platner episode also reminds many Americans of another controversy.

In 2024, after President Joe Biden’s widely criticized debate performance, Democratic leaders ultimately rallied behind then-Vice President Kamala Harris after Biden ended his reelection campaign. Republicans argued at the time that party elites—not primary voters—effectively determined the nominee.

That history naturally leads some observers to ask another question today:

Did Democratic leaders genuinely believe Platner was their best candidate until these controversies surfaced? Or were influential figures prepared to move in another direction once political conditions changed?

There is no public evidence proving party leaders orchestrated Platner’s rise only to replace him later. But given recent history, skepticism about how candidates are selected is understandable, and party leaders should expect those questions.

Accountability Shouldn’t Stop With the Candidate

When a campaign collapses over problems routine vetting should have caught, blame does not end with the candidate.

It falls on the consultants who recruited him, the leaders who backed him, and the party officials who looked the other way.

If they missed the warning signs, they failed. If they saw them and stayed silent, they were complicit.

Either way, the lesson is the same: Democrats have a vetting problem, a judgment problem, and a trust problem.

The takeaway is simple: a party that cannot police its own candidates has no business asking voters to trust its process.

07/02/2026

Fed’s investigation Newsom??

Yes, but it is not Trump’s DOJ that is after Newsom!

The investigation was started by Biden’s administration.

Let's Talk America

09/30/2026

08/24/2026

07/21/2026

07/16/2026

07/12/2026

07/12/2026

07/02/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Listing takedown request