STEVE HILTON: How one-party Democratic rule led to riots, burning American flags and attacks on police in LA
Everything we have seen over the past few days in Los Angeles was avoidable. The chaos, the crime, rocks thrown at police officers, cars set on fire, freeways blocked, small businesses looted, vile graffiti and vandalism everywhere, the despicable sight of law enforcement violently attacked for doing their jobs…all under the revolting shadow of American flags burning while Mexican and Palestinian flags fly high.
All of it was avoidable, and if I were governor right now it would have been avoided. Here's why.
First, because we would never have ended up in this ridiculous and counterproductive confrontational posture with ICE over federal immigration enforcement.
As my good friend, border czar Tom Homan, patiently explains, time after time, it is the lack of cooperation with ICE that provokes the kind of enforcement actions that are most likely to lead to fear and anxiety in immigrant communities.
If state and local law enforcement worked with ICE instead of against it, everyone could focus on removing violent criminals with deportation notices. These criminals have had the "due process" the left keeps demanding. It could all be handled calmly and reasonably within the law enforcement community. That's what happens in other states.
But not in California, where leftist activist groups pull the strings of the people who are supposed to be in charge. So every so-called 'leader' in California, from Gov. Gavin Newsom to L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, to the Police Chief and Sheriff, rushed at the first opportunity to distance themselves from federal law enforcement instead of working in partnership with it. One by one, the pathetic, pandering statements popped up on social media, revealing the real priority: appeasing activists, not protecting the public.
When it became clear that ideological agitators -- some of them, outrageously, funded by California taxpayers -- were hell-bent on causing trouble, I would have clamped down on it immediately. Once you let a situation like this get out of control, it feeds on itself. It was this, not President Donald Trump's intervention, as Newsom dishonestly claims, that led to the escalation, and the shameful scenes that have disfigured America's second-largest city these last few days.
But these riots reveal the deeper, darker malaise caused by fifteen years of one-party rule by Democrats: the upside-down morality where those who do the wrong thing are rewarded while people who do the right thing are punished.
Just the other weekend in L.A., we saw scenes very similar to these riots, just on a smaller scale. After an illegal rooftop party got out of control, hundreds of thugs marauded around a neighborhood, vandalizing local businesses, setting cars on fire, including a police car. What did the police do? Nothing. They just stood back and let it happen. Not a single arrest was made.
No wonder this past weekend's rioters acted so brazenly, assuming there would be no repercussions for their criminal behavior. They're right! In California, it seems, only law-abiding people are chased and harassed by the government.
All this nonsense will end when I am elected in 2026.
The riots in Los Angeles reveal the deeper, darker malaise caused by fifteen years of one-party rule by Democrats: the upside-down morality where those who do the wrong thing are rewarded while people who do the right thing are punished.
Even if I can't overturn it, I will use the discretion contained within California's 'sanctuary' law to work with federal authorities to enforce the law. When states like California refuse to cooperate, it makes everyone less safe, especially the working-class and immigrant communities who are most often the victims of violent crime.
I will support our law enforcement officers and make it absolutely clear that anyone who attacks a police officer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I simply will not tolerate the crime, the chaos, or the breakdown in basic law and order that has become the norm in California today. Rioters will be prosecuted, to deliver the accountability society expects, and the deterrence that we need.
This is about more than just immigration policy. It's about the rule of law. It's about whether we are going to be a state that protects our communities or a state that descends further into chaos and anarchy.
On my watch, California will be a place of law and order. We will choose safety and sanity. We will back the people who wear the uniform and risk their lives every day to keep our streets safe.
Enough of the lies. Enough of the excuses. Enough of the riots.
If I were governor, this would not be happening. And if the people of California give me that honor and responsibility, I will make sure it never happens again.
Republican Steve Hilton is a candidate for governor of California. He previously served as senior policy and strategy advisor to former U.K. prime minister David Cameron. He is a former host of "The Next Revolution" on Fox News.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Factbox-Breakdown of U.S. tariffs on China since Trump's first term
BEIJING (Reuters) -Billions of dollars of Chinese goods have been impacted by additional U.S. tariffs since 2018, initially under the first Donald Trump presidency and later under the Biden administration. Returning to the White House this year, Trump has imposed even more duties on China. The U.S. tariffs range from those imposed under Section 301 of its trade act due to what Washington claims are unfair Chinese trade practices, to duties under Section 232 levied for national security reasons. This year, Trump has imposed another 20% levies on all Chinese goods, saying Beijing has not done enough to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States. So-called reciprocal tariffs, under which the U.S. will match duties imposed by other countries, have also been levied in a bid to rebalance trade flows. Below are the U.S. tariffs on China effective as of June 12, 2025: Tariff Rate Products Effective date Reciprocal 10% All Paused for 90 days until Aug 10, 2025 Fentanyl 20% All Mar 4, 2025 Section Up to List 1: Pharmaceuticals, July 6, 2018 301 25% iron and steel, aluminium, vehicles and aircraft, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 2: Vehicles, Aug 23, 2018 railway or tramway locomotives, aircraft and their parts, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus and more. List 3: Prepared May 10, 2019 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, wood products, textiles, precious and base metals, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, machinery and mechanical appliances and more. List 4A: Prepared Feb 14, 2020 foodstuffs, beverages, mineral products, fertilizers, footwear, wood products, ceramic products, glass, textiles, precious and base metals, machinery and mechanical appliances, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, art, antiques and more. In September 2019, the U.S. imposed 15% tariffs on more than $120 billion of Chinese goods under Section 301, which it then halved to 7.5% less than six months later. The 25% U.S. tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods under the earlier List 1-3 remain unchanged. In September 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative under the Biden administration announced additional tariffs of 25-100% on 14 product groups following a four-year review of the Section 301 tariff actions. The levies were imposed on strategic Chinese sectors or sectors where the United States has made significant domestic investments. Additional tariffs on goods under Section 301: Effective date EVs 100% Sep 27, 2024 Solar cells, syringes and 50% needles Non-lithium-ion battery parts, 25% lithium-ion electrical vehicle batteries, other critical minerals, ship-to-shore cranes, steel and aluminium products, facemasks Semiconductors 50% Jan 1, 2025 Lithium-ion non-electrical 25% Jan 1, 2026 vehicle batteries, medical gloves, natural graphite, permanent magnets In addition to the above duties, the first Trump administration in 2018 imposed a range of tariffs under Section 232 aimed at restricting goods deemed a threat to national security, including all aluminium and steel imports, shutting most Chinese suppliers out of the U.S. market. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CaaStle Meltdown: P180 Sues ‘The Hunsicker Enterprise' for Conspiracy
It took Christine Hunsicker 14 years to build CaaStle up into what looked like a pioneering fashion rental service with hundreds of thousands of subscribers and a $1.4 billion valuation. But it took almost no time at all for the start-up case study to move from helping to buy fashion brands to devolving almost entirely into scandal. More from WWD Vince Sees Q4 Sales and Profitability Gains, but Projects Q1 Declines Amid Macro Uncertainties Fashion's Enron? P180 Blasts CaaStle's Christine Hunsicker in Fraud Lawsuit CaaStle Gets $2.75M Bridge Loan to Plan Chapter 11 Filing and Weigh Strategic Transactions Hunsicker was working with Brendan Hoffman's P180 to buy control of Vince Holding Corp. in late January and just two months later was out as CaaStle's chief executive officer, accused of doctoring financial statements, racking up losses of more than $510 million and more. The narrative is flipping again, from business breakdown to legal fallout. Already law enforcement was said to be investigating. Now P180 — which was cofounded by Hoffman and Hunsicker and minority-owned by CaaStle — is arguing in a new federal lawsuit that Hunsicker is more than a solitary bad actor, but the 'ringleader of a conspiracy' that violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. 'This case is a tale of lies, betrayal and cover up,' said the P180 suit, which was filed May 27 and also names Jaswinder Pal Singh, George Goldenberg, Scott Callon and Chirag Jain as defendants. They are all tied to CaaStle. A spokesperson for the rental service did not immediately address WWD questions regarding the company or the suit on Tuesday. Hunsicker could not be reached. The federal case follows similar lines as a New York state suit that P180 filed against CaaStle, but adds more details and implicates more players. It is still Hunsicker at the center, though. Hoffman had worked with her before, during his first stint as CEO of Vince, when he dabbled in rental. But it was later, after he left the top job at Wolverine Worldwide in 2023, that Hunsicker made him a real rental believer. According to the suit, Hoffman came to believe that, 'Apparel retailers could reclaim — and perhaps even multiply — their valuation by increasing their marginal gains on discounted merchandise. For years, valuation of apparel companies had declined to be just pennies per dollar of revenue. Hunsicker promised e-commerce scale — specifically, technology and logistics that would enable regular clothing shipments to customers on a massive level — that would allow apparel companies to increase their margin on what otherwise would be discounted merchandise.' In a nutshell, the premise was that renting out instead of discounting goods that don't sell at full price would boost margins. It was a revelation profound enough that Hoffman created P180, marrying his expertise and relationships with Hunsicker's 'self-proclaimed technological and e-commerce prowess,' the suit said. 'What Hoffman did not know — but which eventually has become clear — is that Hunsicker is a world-class fraudster ranking alongside the likes of Bernie Madoff and Elizabeth Holmes,' the suit claimed. 'She lied to the world to make it appear that CaaStle was a success, lied specifically to Hoffman about CaaStle and hid CaaStle's financial data from Hoffman. She presented herself as a skillful and successful entrepreneur who built a robust e-commerce business, raised hundreds of millions of dollars for it and commanded a board of notable leaders in corporate governance. 'Hunsicker, though, did not act alone. She had co-conspirators…with whom she created her house of cards. Hunsicker and her co-conspirators repeatedly stated or implied that CaaStle had a large scale, a huge subscriber base and spectacular financials.' Instead of 'hundreds of thousands of subscribers and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, CaaStle itself had just a fraction of those subscribers, barely had any revenue, had supposedly spent hundreds of millions of dollars it received from investors, and had no viable business,' the suit said. 'The whole thing was a sham perpetuated by a pattern of persistent lying, obfuscation and, eventually, cover-up.' The suit repeatedly refers to the alleged conspiracy as 'The Hunsicker Enterprise.' Susan Scafidi, founder and director of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham Law School, said the complaint 'recasts' the scandal, replacing a single mastermind with a conspiracy. 'It appears intended not only to get ahead of a government investigation but also to distribute the blame — and thus the potential financial liability — for alleged extreme financial misrepresentations, and also to tap into the enhanced damages available under RICO,' Scafidi said. 'If, as JFK noted, success has many fathers but failure is an orphan, this lawsuit aims to bring in as many key CaaStle players as possible for paternity tests — and the discovery process is likely to be in-depth and painful. 'The concept behind CaaStle was very compelling, and from a social perspective it's a pity that the circular and sharing economies of fashion seem so hard to monetize. But the big winners here may be the legal teams working to unravel the plot twists,' she said. There will be plenty to work with. P180's suit claims that 'The Hunsicker Enterprise' induced it to take self-dealing loans and had money 'fraudulently transferred out' of its bank account to both CaaStle and personal accounts. The alleged conspirators also overstated CaaStle's capabilities while P180 lined up investments in Vince and Altuzarra. Separately, CaaStle denied allegations in two cases filed against it in state court, one by a company that owns the name Express over use of the name Express Style Trial and the other by P180. CaaStle tried to get the state court suit by P180 thrown out, claiming it doesn't have standing to bring the case. But a P180 spokesperson said, 'CaaStle filed a motion to dismiss on a technicality that will soon be remedied and will not prevent the case from moving forward.' Best of WWD The Biggest Legal Battles Shaping the Fashion Industry Today PETA Asks Lululemon About Slaughterhouse Practices China's Livestreaming Star Viya Fined $210 Million for Tax Evasion
CNN
35 minutes ago
- CNN
Why Trump's move toward using the military on US soil is so fraught
The country hangs on a hugely significant precipice, as President Donald Trump moves toward making good on his long-running suggestions of an extraordinary step: deploying the military on US soil. About 700 Marines have now been mobilized to join the National Guard in Los Angeles to deal with demonstrations over federal immigration raids, CNN reports. The Marines were previously on 'ready to deploy' status. (It is still unclear what their specific task will be once in Los Angeles, sources told CNN. And like the National Guard troops, they are prohibited from conducting law enforcement activity such as making arrests unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act.) But to hear the White House tell it, this show of force is not just the right thing to do but also a political winner. Responding to a poll showing 54% of Americans approved of Trump's deportation program, White House spokesman Steven Cheung wrote on X Sunday, 'And the approval number will be even higher after the national guard was sent to LA to beat back the violence this weekend.' But whether the American people actually want this military activation isn't nearly so clear. In fact, they've rejected such things in the past. The administration may be making a huge gamble on the American people's tolerance for a heavy-handed federal response. And while Americans might not have much sympathy for the demonstrators in Los Angeles who engage in violence or for undocumented immigrants, recent surveys have shown they often say Trump goes too far in his attempts to address such problems. There is something of an analog for the current situation. It came in 2020 when federal law enforcement suddenly moved to clear Lafayette Square, near the White House, of racial justice demonstrators, resulting in violent scenes. This wasn't the military, but it was controversial – in part because Trump then walked across the square with military leaders for a photo-op. (Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper also resisted Trump's suggestions of using active-duty military at the time.) The American people did not like what they saw. A USA Today/Ipsos poll conducted a week later showed 63% of Americans opposed the use of rubber bullets and tear gas that day. It also showed Americans opposed deploying military forces in other states by 10 points, 51-41%. Similarly a CNN poll conducted by SSRS at the time asked a broader question – whether it would be appropriate for a president to 'deploy the U.S. military in response to protests in the United States.' Americans said this would be 'inappropriate' by a wide margin, 60-36%. All of which suggest Americans are predisposed to viewing such actions skeptically. These numbers come with caveats, though. The CNN poll question is a great window into how this could be received. But it's possible people's views have shifted or could shift with circumstances, including the role the Marines end up playing in Los Angeles. Back in 2020, the racial justice protests were relatively popular, and people didn't view them as particularly violent. Americans sympathized with the cause, believing George Floyd had been murdered by police. It's too early to tell how people view the demonstrators in Los Angeles. And the plight of the undocumented immigrants whom the administration is trying to deport is probably less sympathetic than the racial justice protesters' cause. (Clear majorities generally support deporting undocumented immigrants, who are in this country without authorization.) But when it comes to the administration's immigration crackdown, Americans have also expressed nuanced feelings. And the poll the White House cited this weekend is a case in point. In the CBS News/YouGov survey, which was conducted before Saturday's protests broke out in Los Angeles, Americans said they approved of Trump's deportation program, 54-46%. They also liked its 'goals,' 55-45%. But that's not quite the same as saying they approved of the administration's actions, full stop. The same poll asked whether people liked 'the way you think [Trump] is going about' the deportations. And there, Americans actually disliked his approach by double-digits, 56-44%. While independents were about evenly split on Trump's deportation program, they disliked how he's gone about it by 30 points , 65-35%. This is a dichotomy we see in lots of polling of Trump's deportation actions. Americans like the idea of mass deportation, but not so much the implementation. They like the president a lot on securing the border. But they like him significantly less on 'immigration,' and they like him even less when 'deportation,' specifically, is invoked in the question. One possible reason: Americans see the administration moving haphazardly. That could most notably be the case with things like deporting the wrong people and actions that have been halted by the courts, including ones in which judges have said people haven't been given enough due process. It's possible that people could come to sympathize with the cause of the Los Angeles protesters – if not the violent ones – at least to some degree. While Americans generally favor mass deportation, those numbers decline significantly when you mention the prospect of deporting otherwise-law-abiding people with jobs and those who have been in this country for a long time. (For example, a recent Pew Research Center poll showed Americans opposed deporting undocumented immigrants who have jobs, 56-41%, and they opposed deporting the parents of US citizen children 60-37%.) But the raids that set off the protests have been directed at workplaces generally – not necessarily at criminals or gang members. The Department of Homeland Security has claimed at least five of the people arrested during Sunday immigration sweeps in Los Angeles had criminal convictions or were accused of crimes. Through it all, the administration has made a rather Machiavellian political calculation: that however much people dislike the means, their support for the ends will carry the day. Maybe people say they don't like the lack of due process the administration has provided – or the wrong people getting sent to a brutal Salvadoran prison – but how much do they really care if the end result is lots of deportations? Similarly, the administration could be making the calculation that scenes of violence in Los Angeles could marshal support for a previously unthinkable step of deploying the military domestically against protesters – something Americans opposed by 24 points just five years ago. So much depends on what the Marines end up doing in Los Angeles and whether Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to allow them to engage in policing activities. But the Trump administration has clearly gone too far for people before as part of their deportation efforts. And the one big crackdown on protesters we have seen in the Trump era didn't go well. This would appear pretty fraught – not just practically, but politically.
