Comey’s Last Moves: Spying on a President, Setting the Trap, Lying About It

American  Thinker 

On January 5, 2017, a bit more than two weeks before Inauguration, Obama met with Biden, James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, and Assistant Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Comey did not disclose this meeting to Congress when asked about how many times he metwith Obama. "Twice," he said, under oath. It was actually three times. This omission is a “tell” as to how sensitive the discussions were in this now infamous meeting. 

The very next day, January 6, Comey went up to New York to tell Trump about the “salacious and unverified” material in the dossier. This was the first time Comey had met Trump, and he had a “goal.” 

We now know his “goal” was to launch the dossier portion of the scheme. His meeting with the president-elect was the news hook they needed to get the dossier into the legacy media bloodstream, and within hours, it was everywhere. 

Even while Comey was briefing Trump on the garbage dossier, his malign machinations were about to bear fruit elsewhere. Via Fox News: 

“FBI Director James Comey considered an anti-Trump dossier compiled by a former British intelligence officer so important that he insisted the document be included in January [6th]’s final intelligence community report on Russian meddling in the U.S. election, [the I.C.A.]…” 

News of the dossier had to compete with the release of this much-anticipated I.C.A., released the same day. Via The Washington Post: 

“The report that Obama had commissioned was released … on Jan. 6. …[It] had concluded… that ‘Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton.’” 

Of course, this was bunk. The dossier was complete garbage. And we now know from the recently declassified Durham annex that Hillary was a much richer mark for an old KGB manipulator like Vladimir Putin.

On January 18, 2017, President-elect Trump informs Comey that it is his intention that he continue in his 10-year term as FBI Director. The very next day, the day before Inauguration, Comey renews the FISA to spy on about-to-be President Trump. Comey’s FBI was now legally authorized to spy on a sitting President of the United States. 

On January 24, 2017, the fateful Lt. Gen.Michael Flynn (Ret.) interview happened. Comey would later go on to laugh about it in a December 2018 interview with Nicolle Wallace. Mind you, this man’s life had been completely ruined. He had to sell his house, go into millions of dollars of debt, suffer permanent reputational damage, etc. There’s absolutely nothing funny about it. At all. 

Via Fox News: 

“Former FBI Director James Comey admitted in a recent interview that he personally made the decision to send a pair of agents to interview President Trump’s national security adviser Michael Flynn in 2017, and acknowledged the arrangement was not typical for dealing with a White House official.” 

[snip]

Asked to describe how two FBI agents ended up at the White House to interview Flynn in January 2017, Comey, speaking to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace during a forum discussion Sunday, said flatly: “I sent them.” [Audience laughs.] 

Comey went on to acknowledge the way the interview was set up – not through the White House counsel’s office, but arranged directly with Flynn – was not standard practice. He called it “something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.”

Comey would go on to lie about the Flynn case to two different committees. 

Not satisfied with setting up a lieutenant general with a spotless record who was a “transformational” lead

er in the gathering and distilling of military intelligence, James Comey’s malign activities now turned back to the sitting president. 

The text in the image says “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons. I asked him to because I thought it might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” [Emphasis added] 

Comey’s a busy boy. On March 5, 2017 “Comey asks the Justice Department to refute Trump’s tweet claiming Trump Tower was wiretapped during the election.” On March 20th “Comey personally refutes Trump’s wiretapping allegations.” Think of the twisted psychology involved here. He ordered a tap on a sitting president, which is active, and he’s balled up over the spying he did on him as a candidate and wants another agency to bail him out so he, personally, doesn’t look bad. It’s staggering. 

Come May, the clock is ticking down on James Comey. He will be fired within days. 

On May 8th, Trump has an Oval Office sit-down with then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then-Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to “discuss his concerns about Comey.” 

On May 9, 2017, Trump fires Comey, citing recommendations from Sessions and Rosenstein.” 

On Thursday June 8, 2017, while testifying on Capitol Hill, now former FBI Director James Comey obfuscates: 

“Comey was asked by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton whether he believed that Trump had colluded with the Russians. 

‘It is a question I don’t think I should answer in an open setting,’ Comey said, adding that the question would be answered by special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.” 

Robert Mueller, the special counsel that he, himself, had engineered. The hubris of the man cannot be calculated. 

Comey, now a month removed from his job, knew damned well Trump hadn’t “colluded” with the Russians. He was fired and bitter, and still he played his part.  

In the coming years, he would go on to say more, all of it in furtherance of the conspiracy. At no time has he broken with it, in any way, shape or form. In his mind, as demonstrated through his sometimes untrue testimony, haughty speech and just flat-out strange actions (here, here) he’s still in the part and in character … such as it is. 

Gerrymandering by the Numbers: Democrat-Run State Congressional Maps Disenfranchise Republican Voters

 

Bradley Jaye for BREITBART 11 Aug. 2025

Democrats are claiming the Texas state legislature is attempting to “rig the midterm elections” despite an analysis demonstrating that Democrat-led states disenfranchise Republican voters on a massive scale through gerrymandering.

Across the nation, prominent (and ambitious) Democrat governors like Gavin Newsom (CA), J.B. Pritzker (IL), and Kathy Hochul (NY) are making political hay by claiming Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) is committing an “insurrection” and disenfranchising Democrat voters in his heavily red state through his plan for a rare mid-decade redistricting that would net Republicans more seats.

Despite the performative pearl-clutching, the numbers show all three of those Democrat governors — and many more — benefit from aggressive gerrymandering and redistricting practices.

Conservative Texas, where over 56 percent voted for Trump in 2024, currently sends Republicans to represent 25 of its 38 congressional seats in Washington — with Democrats possessing a generous 34+ percent of the state’s congressional representation. Abbott is proposing new district maps that could net Republicans as many as five seats.

At present, Democrats, in the clear minority in Texas, have it much better than minority Republicans in states steered by Democrat governors and legislatures, with states that voted as high as 46 percent for Donald Trump sending zero Republicans to Congress, largely due to gerrymandering.

Even if Texas Republicans net five seats through redistricting, Democrats would retain over 21 percent of the state’s congressional representation, notably a higher percentage than Republicans possess in California.

Here are nine of the most egregious offenders, which demonstrate how Democrats have gained outsized congressional representation and power in Washington through aggressive maps — and how Republicans have ceded congressional power to Democrats on a massive scale by self-inflicted, timid redistricting.

Connecticut

Trump won just under 42 percent of the vote in the state, but Republicans have zero percent of the congressional seats, with Democrats holding all five of the state’s seats.

Democrats created this advantage by breaking apart Republican areas and adding Democratic portions of the Hartford area into those seats, watering down the voices of Republicans. The state’s 1st district, which forms a backwards “C” to cut out a handful of red counties, stands out as the most geometrically jarring of the gerrymandered districts.

New Mexico

Trump won just under 46 percent of the vote here, but Republicans have zero percent of the state’s three congressional seats.

Democrats have this advantage by breaking up historical communities in Southeast New Mexico that traditionally voted Republican, tactically splicing a handful of counties between districts.

California

Trump won 38 percent of the vote in the state, but Republicans only have nine out of fifty-two congressional seats — a paltry 17 percent of its seats, giving Democrats a staggering 21 percent cushion in congressional representation over actual voter alignment.

Democrats accomplished this through breaking apart Republican communities in Southern California and the Central Valley.

New York

Trump won 43 percent of the state, but Republicans only have seven out of twenty-six seats — less than 26 percent of the state’s congressional delegation, providing Democrats a 13 percent advantage in seats.

Democrats notably accomplished this through a mid-decade redistricting, which Democrats now claim is a criminal act.

Illinois

Trump won 44 percent of the vote in the state, but Republicans only won three out of seventeen seats, a 26 percent Democrat advantage

On Wednesday’s edition of CBS’s Late Show, Pritzker, the state’s governor, acknowledged that Illinois’ congressional maps look like kindergartners drew them.

Colbert asked, “If you’re considering doing a little more redrawing in Illinois, you already have some crazy districts in Illinois. Take a look at this. Look at [the 17th congressional district] here. It does that, then it comes up here and it sneaks around there and it goes all the way up here and then goes right over there like that. And look at this one, it kind of goes up there. It’s like the stinger on a scorpion down here. Is this common for all states to do?”

Pritzker remarked, “Well, we handed it over to a kindergarten class and let them decide. … That’s our independent commission.”

Maryland

Trump won 34 percent of the vote in the state, but Republicans only won one out of eight congressional seats, giving Democrats a 22 percent congressional advantage over their electoral performance in the 2024 presidential election.

Despite this, Democrat Gov. Wes Moore said he would consider “all options” regarding redistricting to retaliate against Texas’s redistricting, suggesting he could see to oust the state’s GOP Rep. Andy Harris through redistricting.

New Jersey

Trump won 46 percent of the vote in the Garden State, but Republicans hold only three out of twelve congressional seats, a 21 percent Democrat advantage in congressional representation over their share of the 2024 electoral pie.

Despite the huge advantage for his party, Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy refused to rule out retaliatory redistricting.

Oregon

Trump won 41 percent of the vote in Oregon, but Republicans only won one out of six seats, giving Democrats a 24 percent representational advantage over their 2024 presidential election results.

Democrats achieved their advantage in the state by splitting the liberal stronghold of Portland and its suburbs between four districts, sending additional Democrat voters to the 6th and, most notably, the 5th district, where current Rep. Janelle Bynum won a close race over incumbent Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer despite earning just 47.69 percent of the vote.

Massachusetts

Trump won over 36 percent of Massachusetts in 2024, yet Republicans hold zero percent of the gerrymandered state, with Democrats holding all nine seats.

In a sign of the performative nature of Democrats’ redistricting outrage, Gov. Maura Healey (D-MA) threatened retaliatory redistricting in response to Texas, despite none of the state’s heavily gerrymandered districts currently sending Republicans to Washington.

Bradley Jaye is Deputy Political Editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on X/Twitter and Instagram @BradleyAJaye.

Photos: Getty Images

On the Fringe and Badlands Media- August 13

 

Zelenskyy’s War Without an Endgame

American  Thinker 

Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s latest vow is not a strategy—it’s theater, the kind that ends with the curtain falling on Ukrainian sovereignty.

On the eve of the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska, Zelenskyy again rejected any settlement requiring the formal cession of territory.

Not Crimea. Not the Donbas. Not a single acre seized in 2014—or since 2022.

Zelenskyy insists Ukraine must be at the table and will not trade land for peace. Fine. 

But diplomacy is not magic—it is leverage, and after more than three years of war, Kyiv has none sufficient to force Moscow to surrender what it holds. Pretending otherwise is delusion.

Zelenskyy speaks like a man convinced he is winning—and as if Moscow were the one suing for peace. It is fantasy. Ukraine is not winning—nowhere close.

His demand for every inch of territory he cannot retake on the battlefield is proof enough.

Simply put, Ukraine is fighting bravely but losing—slowly, inexorably, irreversibly. Drag this war out, as some insist, and it will end with the fall of Kyiv—sooner than they dare admit.

Zelenskyy vows he will not cede territory, yet for approaching four years he has done precisely that—trading land and soldiers, acre by acre, village by village, unit by unit, for time. Time to pull America and Europe deeper into a war that serves no one’s strategic interests. Time to chase a NATO invitation and an EU flag that will not arrive in time to save him.

Russia is waging a war of attrition—true to its doctrine for generations. Trump and Putin meet because both see the battlefield for what it is: a slow-motion grind on Moscow’s terms, not Kyiv’s. Trump sees an opening for peace; Putin sees a path to victory.

That path has been paved in part by Russia’s ability to sidestep Western sanctions, using a web of BRICS partners to keep its war machine supplied and funded.

China funnels dual-use electronics and buys Russian oil by the tanker. India refines and resells that crude, blunting Western embargoes.

Iran ships drones, ammunition, and operates a shadow fleet carrying Russian petroleum to China, India, and beyond—sometimes through intermediaries as far as South Africa. Under the BRICS umbrella, South Africa lends diplomatic cover. Even NATO’s Turkey acts as a sanctions safety valve, importing Russian energy and serving as a transshipment hub.

For years, Europe’s own energy purchases bankrolled the Kremlin before belated LNG shifts began to bite.

Far from starving Russia’s war machine, the world has been feeding it.

On Ukraine’s side, the 2023 counteroffensive is a fading memory—and where it succeeded, it was a pyrrhic victory.

The front is now marked by small, costly advances—quickly erased by larger Russian gains.

This is the attrition curve: manpower dwindles, shells run short, lines thin.

Losses compound in reverse—slowly at first, then all at once.

One month the map looks stable; weeks later the line buckles, reserves vanish, logistics are exposed—and there is no depth left to trade for time.

When the breaking point comes, Moscow will not nibble at the edges. Expect full-frontal assaults, followed by pincer movements and deep envelopments—to encircle and annihilate brigades, not merely push them back. Fronts don’t “bend” at that moment—they collapse.

Yet Zelenskyy’s fatal political error is negotiating for total victory as if it were already won. It isn’t. You don’t demand unconditional surrender when you lack the power to enforce it—and the wider the gap between rhetoric and reality, the sooner Ukraine risks the very outcome it claims to prevent: the loss of its statehood, on Russian terms.

That delusion persists in Washington, kept alive by voices from the Biden-Blinken school of foreign policy romanticism—still peddling the fairy tale: one more tranche, one more package, one more spring.

In reality, it buys Ukraine’s destruction—its soldiers bled out, its cities dark, its economy gutted, its people scattered. A strategy that assumes time favors Kyiv is, in practice, a strategy that runs out the clock on Ukrainian sovereignty—whether or not its architects intend it.

And the romanticism—the framing of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict as a 21st-century morality play—obscures the deeper rot in Western policy.

It began with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, when Ukraine surrendered the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for vague “security assurances” from the U.S., U.K., and Russia—not treaty guarantees, but paper promises.

John Mearsheimer and other realists warned that NATO’s eastward flirtations would eventually collide with Russian red lines and be seen in Moscow as an existential threat.

That warning became reality in 2008, when the Bucharest Summit declared Ukraine “will become a member” of NATO yet offered no Membership Action Plan—dangling the prize without the means to claim it.

Clinton, G.W. Bush, Obama, and Biden all reinforced those mixed signals, holding out false hope while doing nothing to make it real.

We disarmed Ukraine, baited Russia, and never built the deterrence to back our words.

Only President Trump broke that pattern—refusing to make entangling promises Washington had neither the will nor the means to keep.

Which brings us to Alaska. This may be the last real chance to trade maximalist fantasy for achievable peace—and that requires compromise.

Putin is not returning to the 1991 borders. Zelenskyy is not retaking Crimea by communiqué. Pretending otherwise isn’t diplomacy—it’s denial, and a fool’s errand.

And here’s the hard truth for Americans: the only force on earth capable of pushing Russia back to its pre-2014 lines is the United States military—Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines.

Doing so would mean a major U.S.-NATO war with Russia, fought on the European continent for years.

Donald Trump—who has the sense to avoid such folly—will never commit to that catastrophic proposition.

A future Democrat president might stumble into it—or rush headlong—without hesitation.

If realism ever penetrates Kyiv’s thinking, there are options short of surrender: a cease-fire with a buffer zone, a frozen conflict, verifiable limits on deployments, phased sanctions relief conditioned on compliance, and yes—allowing the Donbas to decide its fate in an internationally supervised plebiscite.

Kyiv resists such measures because many in these regions, who never backed Zelenskyy to begin with, would likely vote to cast their lot with Moscow.

The West’s policy elites are content to stall until what they hope will be a more pliant American president takes office in 2029. Ukraine will not last that long. It will fall slowly—until it falls all at once.

Wars usually end in one of two ways: decisive victory or negotiated settlement. Ukraine has no path to the first, and rejecting the second risks drifting into something worse—a collapse without terms, on Russia’s timetable.

The Alaska summit is a step toward negotiation—and a warning. Ukraine must move toward a settlement grounded in realistic, attainable goals, not a war plan marching steadily toward the end of its sovereignty.

Trilateral talks will fail if Ukraine or Russia remains recalcitrant.

Whether Kyiv has a seat at the table or not, the clock is running out.

Yes Stopping Crime Is Actually a Good Thing

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

The only thing that makes Democrats madder than the elimination of one of their slave classes, whether via bayonets or by the intervention of the heroes of ICE, is when Republicans show up Democrats by demonstrating that cities don't have to be urban petri dishes of social pathology and crime. As Rudy Giuliani and el Presidente of El Salvador have conclusively demonstrated, there's a simple solution to crime – crush the criminals. Kudos to Donald Trump for establishing semi-martial law in our nation's capital, a city that should be a shining beacon of efficiency, beauty, and order, and instead is a bubbling cesspool of all the things that happen when Democrat rule festers in an urban environment.

To say that the Democrats coddle criminals is to misunderstand the situation. They don't coddle criminals. They embrace criminals. They love the violence and disorder, the cruelty and the greed. Criminality is the essence of the leftist ideology Democrats adhere to, and it always has been. Although it first really manifested in America in the 60s – remember that “Gee, Officer Krupke” song from West Side Story (I know my show tunes, fellow future conservative cruiser Larry O'Connor!) where the social worker says the little punk is depraved on account of him being deprived – the idea that barbarians should somehow be celebrated goes back to the awful Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He popularized the Noble Savage nonsense. In fact, savages are just that – savages – and normal, decent people should brutally and forcefully suppress them. But the left doesn't see it that way. It sees them as pure and wonderful and deserving of protection and indulgence. This idiocy is why you can't walk around at night in our nation's capital. Or in the day, for that matter.

But soon you may be able to again. Donald Trump has deployed the National Guard and seized control of the useless DC police department. As with most big cities, their choice of police chief was purely a diversity hire. This one's yet another fat woman, like the one in Cincinnati who excused the pack of feral youths who were filmed beating a couple of people for the crime of being white. They are impotent and ridiculous, wielding not a truncheon but shrill pleas to felons to use their inside voices. All they have are excuses. They're not real cops. The one in DC started out as a diversity officer and, of course, she centers diversity in everything she does. This has resulted in a diversity of felonies occurring on the streets of her city.

Of course, there's a Soros prosecutor for low-level crimes in Washington, DC. You've got to give these communists credit; they realize they could do incredible damage by putting a lot of money into low-turnout elections for what should essentially be a nonpartisan office. But they turned them partisan, freeing the criminals and coming down like a ton of bricks on normal people. That's part of the communist game. Alexander Solzhenitsyn explained that the communists would empty the prisons and free the criminals, but heaven forbid any decent citizens cross the line. After all, decent people are easy to bully because they actually care about the law. The law becomes a weapon of control, not of the beast who should be controlled, but of the regular folks who just want to live in peace.

But the left doesn't want us to live in peace. It hates us and wants us to suffer. It likes crime. It thinks we deserve it. That's why it's so against the idea of us keeping and bearing arms. The idea that we should be able to defend ourselves against the semi-human thugs that are its constituents is an abomination to the left. A regular person with a gun defeats the entire scam. That's why, if you're a normal person and you're caught with a gun in one of the regions that remain Second Amendment-free, you're totally going to get prosecuted and your life is going to get ruined. But if some criminal gets caught with a gun, the charge is going to get dismissed. Count on it. The justice system is not designed to provide justice or even public order. It's designed as a tool to maintain Democratic power.

They call it an anarcho-tyranny, where the law is used as a weapon against the people and the criminals are allowed to run free – when people are scared and societies are disordered, revolution is that much easier to ignite. We see it in every single big city that Democrats dominate; every one is a jungle of violence and crime. Don't believe their lies about the crime statistics – they've discovered a way around that, too. They just don't report them, but they also make it impossible for normal people to report crimes. One gentleman on Twitter had to fight off two dirtbags on a Los Angeles subway who were trying to steal his phone and, as normal people normally would, went to report it to the police department. The police told him it would take him 8 to 12 hours. They don't want him to report it. No report, no crime.

But we know there's crime. We feel it. We see it. Every one of us has a crime story. Every one of us knows a victim. But being creatures without a soul, Democrats continue to lie about it. If DOGE legend “Big Balls” had not lived up to his name and saved a woman from robbery and probably rape at the hands of a pack of bipedal animals, earning himself a concussion in the process, we might not have seen Trump act so soon. But he is acting now, and thank goodness.

Sure, the Democrats are mad. Of course, they get mad about everything Trump does. If he cured cancer, they'd be literally shaking. But they're really mad about this because they like crime, and they hate the idea that voters will see an example of a big city that doesn't have to be Thunderdome. 

DC must be tamed. We can do it, and we should. Like terrorists, communists, and other assorted degenerates, criminals should be ruthlessly suppressed to the point that they live in unrelieved terror at the thought that the attention of decent people will fall upon them and righteous retribution will follow. It's time to make the scumbags scared. It's time to free the decent people of Washington, DC, and every other city. Compassion to the cruel is cruelty to the compassionate. Washington, DC, should be a violent city – unapologetically violent toward criminals.

Code Red: The Trojan Horse Parents Don't See Coming — How AB 495 Threatens Your Family’s Freedom

 By Steve Williams  | August 13, 2025  |  RedState

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

Giovanna Dell'Orto

California Democrats are unleashing their own brand of Greek mythological trickery, with AB 495 as the latest Trojan Horse. What’s being sold as a compassionate family safeguard actually hides a dangerous power grab, adding to their long list of government overreach.

The Family Preparedness Plan Act, authored by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez (D–San Fernando), pushes California’s sanctuary policies further while stealthily eroding parental rights and quietly delivering government control into the homes of every California family.

At its core, AB 495 requires any local body responsible for public education to assist parents and guardians in creating a “Family Preparedness Plan” that identifies a trusted adult to care for a child if the parent or guardian becomes absent or unavailable due to detention, deportation, or other circumstances.

In addition, the bill prohibits school officials and employees from requesting, collecting, or maintaining information about the citizenship or immigration status of students or their family members, except when required by state or federal law or necessary to administer government programs.

However, any information obtained must be kept confidential and cannot be shared with federal immigration authorities.

In typical cases, arrangements for a child’s care during a parent’s absence happen privately within families or through the courts, not through direct government coordination.

AB 495 changes this dynamic by institutionalizing government involvement through “Family Preparedness Plans,” thrusting local educational agencies into a proactive role of managing caregiving contingencies — effectively inserting government into what should be private family decisions.

California parents should recognize AB 495 for what it truly is: a stealthy government takeover of family authority disguised as protection from lawful federal immigration enforcement.

---

RELATED: California Pastor Warns AB 495 '100 Percent' Strips Parents of Their Rights

---

Sanctuary Entrenchment

Immigration is a federal responsibility. Yet, AB 495 brazenly tramples on that authority and further entrenches California Democrats' power to thumb their noses at federal law whenever it suits their radical agenda.

Angelica Salas, Executive Director of the taxpayer-funded, Marxist agitator training organization, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), spelled it out loud and clear in a statement of support:

“The federal government is terrorizing our immigrant communities with their plans of mass deportation... We must ensure children in mixed-status households are being properly cared for in the case of their parents being detained or deported by Immigration Enforcement... AB 495 aims to protect children with immigrant parents.”

This so-called “emergency response” is a Trojan Horse for permanent government intrusion. Once bureaucrats are trained, protocols locked in, and paperwork standardized, this becomes another brick in the Democrats' wall against federal immigration enforcement and a direct attack on parental rights.

---

SEE ALSO: Vice Chair of La Raza Unida Arrested for Tire Spiking Border Patrol Vehicles in CA - Is CHIRLA Involved?

Taxpayer-Funded Riots: Here's What We Found When We Followed the Money in Los Angeles

---

Trojan Horse

Here lies the real danger of AB 495. The bill doesn’t simply prepare for one narrowly defined scenario; it creates a legal foothold for California Democrats to determine what circumstances justify state intervention in family life — shifting ultimate authority from parents to government.

Today, the focus is on deportation as the reason to step in.

But tomorrow? This “preparedness” framework could be expanded to include vaccine refusal, gender dysphoria-affirming care, homeschooling, political activism, or any parental choice that state officials decide threatens a child’s welfare.

By embedding itself into family decision-making under the vague banner of “preparedness,” the state gains the power to redefine what qualifies as a threat — turning parental rights into a political bargaining chip and placing family autonomy directly on the chopping block.

This is how government power creeps forward. Not through sweeping changes overnight, but by quietly building broad authority under the guise of protection.

Bottom Line

Authoritarianism doesn’t arrive with a bang. It seeps in quietly, wrapped in “well-intentioned” policies that chip away at family freedom and expand government control, one small step at a time.

AB 495 is a direct assault on limited government, federalism, and parental sovereignty. It further obstructs federal immigration enforcement, injects the state into private family decisions, and sets a dangerous precedent for government overreach inside every California home.

The bill has already cleared the State Assembly and now faces a critical hearing in the State Senate Appropriations Committee on August 18th.

California parents — and anyone who values constitutional limits on government — must rise up and say “no” before this Trojan horse rolls right through your front door.