Conservative Blogger
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
Hilton, Becerra Lead in California Governor's Primary
 |
Republican businessman and commentator Steve Hilton emerged as the frontrunner in California’s closely watched gubernatorial primary, leading the race to secure one of two spots in November’s general election. With just over half of ballots counted Wednesday, Hilton held 27.8% of the vote, ahead of former Biden administration official and Democrat Xavier Becerra, who received 25.4%. Under California’s controversial “jungle primary” system, all candidates compete on the same ballot regardless of party, and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election. Democrat billionaire Tom Steyer trailed in third place with 19.6%, leaving Hilton in a strong position as Republicans seek to regain influence in a state long dominated by Democrat leadership. The Associated Press has not yet called the primary for any candidate. The state has a history of substantial vote updates after Election Day that can sometimes shift the outcome of elections as late-arriving mail and drop-off votes are counted. Hilton and Becerra were leading so far, with Steyer running slightly further back. “Change is coming to California, and it’s long overdue,” Hilton told supporters after polls closed, reflecting his campaign message that the state needs a dramatic reset after more than 15 years of Democratic rule. Steyer also campaigned on change, though through a vastly different lens. A former hedge fund manager turned climate activist, he pledged to raise taxes on corporations and the ultrawealthy like himself. He declared Tuesday that he would prevail over monied interests that strived to defeat him. Becerra, meanwhile, pitched himself as the steady hand who can lead the state against intrusions from the Trump administration, touting his decades in public service in Congress, as state attorney general and as federal health secretary. Speaking to supporters, he said voters came around to his message after he initially was counted out. “The underdog stayed in the fight,” Becerra said to applause. California puts all candidates on a single primary ballot regardless of party, and the top two finishers advance to the November general election. About 60 candidates were on the ballot, most of them largely unknown to the state’s roughly 23 million voters. The through line of the race was how to tackle the state's notoriously high cost of living. Drivers were paying $6.08 per gallon at the pump as of the end of May, $1.65 higher than the national average, according to AAA. Meanwhile the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office has estimated that the typical home is about $775,000, more than double the national average. And Californians pay the second-highest residential electricity rates behind Hawaii, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Steyer blamed the state's challenges in part on corporations that he said are ripping off Californians. He supports eliminating private health insurance in favor of a government-run system and pledged to break up major utilities and take on fossil fuel companies. Utility Pacific Gas & Electric was among the businesses spending money to defeat him. “We should have a system based on fairness, not asking for fairness,”
Steyer said Tuesday, adding that his campaign “scared the hell out of
the corporate interests who are used to getting their own way.”
Hilton said he would make Californians' first $100,000 free of income tax, increase oil production and freeze in-state tuition at public colleges and to try to make the state more affordable. He also pledged to slash regulations and to “revive” the state's economic prowess by reversing Democratic policies that make things more expensive. That message resonated with voters like Republican Rosamaria Cerezo, a 57-year-old substitute teacher voted for Hilton. “Both my husband and I have two jobs each just to make ends meet,” she said. Despite the state's challenges, the candidates delivered upbeat messages about its potential. They pledged to ensure government works to serve all of its roughly 39 million residents. “I ran for the job because I know how important California is as a shining light to the world,” Becerra told supporters. He argued that his years of political experience prepared him to lead, and he highlighted his tenure as attorney general, when he filed more than 120 legal actions during Trump's first term, as evidence that he can protect Californians' interests. Democrat Tamara Alton, a 65-year-old marriage and family therapist, was voting for Becerra because of his experience. “I'm going to go with him because I want somebody that knows what they're doing,” Alton said. Becerra also referenced his background as the son of two Mexican immigrants. In a state where nearly a third of voters identify as Hispanic or Latino, he would be the first Latino governor in more than a century. California, he said, “regularly makes the improbable seem inevitable.” Steyer ran the most expensive primary campaign in the country, dumping more than $215 million of his own money into it including a massive amount on advertising. That's likely just a preview of what he would spend should he advance to the general election. His spending prompted some of his rivals to accuse him of trying to buy the election. But some Democratic voters said they chose Steyer despite uneasiness with his wealth because of his focus on tackling climate change. Jude Mayer, 24, said she was not thrilled about voting for a billionaire but Steyer “is talking about the environment in the way that I want to hear about it.” |
Alabama Victorious As SCOTUS Decides They Can Use 2023 Maps, Eliminating One Majority-Minority District
 |
In a Tuesday night per curiam order, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the State of Alabama, allowing them to proceed with using maps drawn in 2023 for the 2026 midterm elections. These maps included only one majority-minority district. In a lower court ruling, a three-judge panel ordered the state to implement a second majority-minority district under the claim that the 2023 maps violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). On May 11, SCOTUS vacated that ruling and sent it back to the lower court. On May 26, this same three-judge panel once again blocked the use of 2023 maps on the same basis of violation of the VRA, without any consideration of the decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which held that maps drawn along racial lines under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were no longer valid. Alabama immediately filed an emergency petition to SCOTUS, which brings us to here. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney-Barrett ruled in favor of the state. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson
 In the order, the court noted Alabama showed it was entitled to interim relief from the district court’s injunction and that the state would have likely succeeded with its appeals. It dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of "intentional vote dilution," stating, "the District Court did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith, see Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U. S. 1, 10 (2024), because it interpreted the State’s legal disagreement with the court’s earlier remedial order as proof of discriminatory animus." It was also concluded that the district court's analysis "departed from Callais, and that Alabama "made a strong showing of irreparable harm and that the equities and public interest favor it." Then they issued this slap on the wrist to the district court:
The Alabama legislature had already scheduled an August 11 special election to reconfigure the formerly two majority-minority districts to conform to the Callais ruling. The actions by the district court would have prevented that election from occurring. Justice Sotomayor wrote in her 17-page dissent:
Read More: Alabama Redistricting Battle Is Back at SCOTUS, With a Lay-Up From the DOJ's Civil Rights Division Alabama Map Fight Erupts Again As Federal Panel Defies SCOTUS Momentum After receiving Alabama's emergency petition on May 27, Justice Clarence Thomas, who oversees the Northern District of Alabama, requested the plaintiffs respond by Monday, June 1. The plaintiffs did so and were extremely adamant that SCOTUS reject the petition, claiming:
The plaintiffs' reply was rebuffed. As stated in the SCOTUS order, it gave the appearance of interference to prevent the August 11 special election from moving forward, which was not within the court's powers. Now that SCOTUS has ruled, Alabama can get to the work of reassigning voters to appropriate districts. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued this statement on SCOTUS' decision.
|
DHS Sec. Mullin Delivers Epic Takedown of Chris Murphy and His Attack on the DHS
 |
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (D-NJ)
is one of the more odious people in Congress (I don't use the words "odious" and "execrable" for that many people, but he certainly fits the bill). He was at it again, attacking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during a hearing with DHS head Markwayne Mullin. Murphy ridiculously claimed that the DHS was violating the law and the Constitution every day, which is truly ugly stuff because Murphy doesn't give a darn about all the good men and women he is smearing when he makes comments like that. He does it because the Democrats are desperate to attack President Donald Trump and wrest power from the Republicans. And that's despicable. But Mullin, Murphy's former colleague, brought Murphy up short with a little reality. Murphy deserves this, and so much more.
Mullin put Murphy on the spot on the danger he was helping to cause to law enforcement.
Then Mullin really nailed Murphy over his political ambitions and what he really cares about.
The agents were willing to do it, Mullin said, because of the reckless Biden administration and the problem they left behind. READ MORE: DHS Sec. Mullin Provides a Telling Detail About Arrested NJ Agitators Which Explains a Lot But they shouldn't have to, and that's all the fault of the Democrats, who refuse to support enforcing the law when it stands in the way of their political agenda. |
Scott, You're Fired: Longtime CBS News Reporter and 60 Minutes Host Has Been Fired
 |
It was a tough meeting this morning, ending with long-time CBS News reporter and 60 Minutes co-host Scott Pelley being shown the door. He was fired after a complete meltdown over the changes at the network led by editor-in-chief Bari Weiss. Amy had the story this morning.
And now, Scott has been fired:
This marks the end of the network's red wedding moment, where top producer and reporter Cecilia Vega was fired. Of course, everyone acted as if it were a Soviet-style media takeover. Sorry, kids, you can’t push your DNC talking points at will anymore (via NY Post):
It’s not an erosion of editorial independence when they’re trying to prevent you from lying, Cecilia. You’re gone, so sayonara. Also, it kills me that people think Weiss is some MAGA acolyte. She is decidedly not that—she’s a classic liberal. You may smear her that way because she doesn’t toe the woke line like you clowns, but a conservative she is not. It seems Pelley knew he couldn’t stay there, so he went out with a bang. UPDATE: This really was a mess:
More backstory:
|
Jill Biden's Answer to This Question About the 2024 Election IS NOT What Dems Want to Hear Right Now
 |
Democrats 😭 likely winced when former First Lady Jill Biden predicted what we all suspected: Joe Biden would have beaten Donald Trump in the 2024 election. She made that statement on Morning Joe Tuesday morning, while promoting her new book about her time in the White House. The party doesn’t want to see or hear her speak, and this only clarifies their reasons—it simply reopens old wounds. So, please, Jill, by all means, keep talking. The Bidens still cling to this illusion that Joe, who was beaten badly, who couldn’t do the job, and was suffering from stage IV prostate cancer, could have beaten Trump. There is no evidence to support this, other than arrogance and dementia. It also feeds into a main criticism of the work, which is that everyone was to blame but this family. I don’t think even Jill believes this, but maybe she knows it makes her party mad, and this is another way to troll and take shots at the people who dumped her husband in 2024. Again, that’s your fault. The president and his team shouldn’t be outmaneuvered and completely owned so easily. You guys made it that way with your weak, failed presidency. What’s embarrassing is how Nancy Pelosi, a former friend of the Bidens, was able to pull this operation off in like two weeks. It showed who can really wield power in DC; Pelosi, love her or hate her, knows how to get things done, friendship be damned. Jill has also made some strange comments, like wondering if her husband was drugged or having a stroke when Trump wrecked him in that June debate on CNN that ended his presidency. She couldn't answer what if we saw what happened on the debate stage—Joe’s complete mental breakdown—in front of foreign leaders, and she was cautious about questions about pushing Joe to run again. But hey, they apparently need the money. |
WH Physician Memo: Trump in 'excellent health,' scored 30 out of 30 on cognitive assessment (Democrats 😭)
 |
President Donald Trump’s physician announced that the U.S. Commander-in-Chief is in “excellent health” via a medical report released by the White House — following the president’s physical at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Dr. Sean Barbabella, the official White House physician, wrote in a memo released on Friday, that President Trump demonstrates “strong cardiac, pulmonary, neurological and overall physical function,” being “fully fit to carry out all duties of the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State.”
Trump underwent an array of physical and mental tests, including an echocardiogram, an ultrasound of the carotid arteries, examinations of the lungs and eyes, screenings for anxiety and depression and routine blood tests. Barbabella also noted that an AI-enhanced electrocardiogram analysis estimated the president’s cardiac age to be “approximately 14 year younger than his chronological age.” In the preventative care section of the memo, the doctor noted, “preventative counseling was provided, including guidance on diet, recommendation to take a low-dose aspirin, increased physical activity, and continued weight loss.” He also added that at 75 inches tall and weighing 238 pounds, Trump has a body mass index (BMI) of 29.7, sitting just below the clinical threshold for obesity — which begins at 30. The president currently takes two medications, rosuvastatin and ezetimibe, to treat high cholesterol. The report also addressed visible bruising on Trump’s hands, characterizing it as minor soft tissue irritation due to frequent handshaking—a common side effect of his medication. The president had previously been taking 325 milligrams of aspirin, which is four times the standard low-dose amount of 81 milligrams.
He also expressed a strong preference for golf over traditional exercise routines.
Additionally, the doctor noted slight lower leg swelling. Trump was previously diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a benign condition occurring when the valves in the legs fail to efficiently pump blood back to the heart, causing fluid to temporarily pool in the lower limbs. Lastly, the report stated that Trump scored a perfect 30 out of 30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a standard screening tool used to evaluate cognitive health. |
Jury Clears Store Owner Who Shot Armed 14‑Year‑Old, Outrage Grows
The headlines this week say a Richland County jury found convenience store owner Chikei Rick Chow not guilty in the shooting death of 14‑year‑old Cyrus Carmack‑Belton. The verdict ended a short criminal trial but opened a long list of questions about self‑defense, juvenile crime, and how communities pick up the pieces after a tragic confrontation.
What the jury decided and why it matters
Jurors concluded that Chow acted in defense of his son after the teen approached him with a semiautomatic handgun. Prosecutors told the court they suspected the boy had stolen water bottles and that Chow pursued him more than 100 yards before the fatal shot. The defense said the teen aimed the weapon and that Chow reasonably feared for his child. After several hours of deliberation, the panel acquitted Chow of murder. That simple verdict will now be the starting point for messy public debate—not the final word on whether the shooting should have happened.
How the case split a town
The killing and the verdict have inflamed strong feelings on all sides. Family members cried out in court. House Minority Leader J. Todd Rutherford
said the ruling made the community feel like their children “don’t matter” and vowed to help pursue a civil lawsuit. Others saw the jury’s decision as a recognition of a parent’s right to protect a child from an armed threat. With the county roughly half Black, the case has become a flashpoint over race, justice, and who gets the benefit of doubt when a gun shows up in public.
The legal reality: self‑defense, pursuit, and reasonable doubt
Legally the fight came down to what a reasonable person would do when a loaded gun appears. Prosecutors argued the teen didn’t point the weapon and that the pursuit turned a suspected shoplifting into an unnecessary death. The defense said an armed teen in a crowded place posed a real danger to Chow’s son. Juries are asked to weigh evidence and give the defendant the doubt that remains. Conservatives who support firm self‑defense laws should also admit a hard truth: chasing someone over a $2 item is a dangerous gamble. Common sense and clear law need to meet in the middle so citizens know when they can defend themselves without becoming the one who breaks a life.
What comes next: civil suits, policy fixes, and cooling tempers
The family intends to file a civil suit, which will test many of the same facts under a different legal standard. Beyond court filings, leaders should focus on real fixes: stop the rise of armed juveniles on city streets, invest in store security and cameras, and give prosecutors and officers clear rules about pursuit and use of force. No verdict will erase the loss. But lawmakers and local leaders can choose whether this moment becomes another political powder keg—or the prompt for practical steps that keep kids safe and protect families who face real threats.
BllsBailey: Blacks need to start taking care of their children, 14 year old with a gun can kill you just as dead as an adult could.
US Forces Shoot Down Iranian Missiles, Strike Qeshm Island
Something happened in the Gulf that ordinary Americans need to understand: U.S. forces and partners shot down Iranian missiles and drones, then struck a command facility on Qeshm Island. CENTCOM says American troops took the hits and answered — no U.S. casualties — but the ripple effects hit civilians and global shipping lanes hard.
What happened in the Gulf
U.S. Central Command reported that American and partner forces “defeated” multiple Iranian ballistic missiles and one‑way attack drones and then carried out self‑defense strikes against an Iranian military ground control station on Qeshm Island. CENTCOM says two missiles toward Kuwait fell short, three launched at Bahrain were intercepted, and U.S. forces shot down three attack drones aimed at civilian mariners. Tehran’s Revolutionary Guard claims it struck U.S. targets; CENTCOM flatly rejects those claims and says all Iranian attacks on American forces failed.
Real consequences, not newsroom drama
This wasn’t just another cable‑news skirmish. Kuwaiti authorities reported damage and injuries at Kuwait International Airport after one drone hit Terminal 1, grounding flights and scrambling families and freight. For service members and merchants in the region — and the Americans depending on goods that move through these routes — every intercepted drone or missile is also a reminder that the peace of faraway waters can translate into delays, danger, and real human costs back home.
Politics at home: authority and accountability
Back in Washington, the military developments landed in the middle of a war‑powers fight. Rep. Bill Huizenga, U.S. Representative from Michigan’s 4th District, told Fox viewers Democrats are “playing political games” by pushing measures to limit the President’s ability to respond — and plenty of Republicans have been reluctant to hand the White House more red tape when troops are in harm’s way. Still, Congress has a constitutional duty here; oversight isn’t partisan theater when Americans are facing missiles and drones abroad.
So where do we go from here? We can applaud that CENTCOM intercepted threats and protected U.S. personnel, while demanding clarity about what comes next — because freedom at sea and safety for our troops depend on leaders who both act decisively and explain themselves honestly. Which is it going to be: leadership or talking points?
Tuesday, June 2, 2026
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
How many times do we need to say this? If you’re here illegally and get caught, you’re going back. It’s the la...
-
CNN’s Scott Jennings once again took liberals to the cleaners on the Abrego Garcia case, the ‘Maryland man... -
The problem with the courts is the same as the problem with many of our other institutions. Called the Skins...
