Pornography publisher Larry Flynt is offering “up to $10 million” to anyone who produces information that leads to President Donald Trump’s impeachment and removal from office.

So, I decided to do this…let’s see what happens.

— Larry Flynt (@ImLarryFlynt) October 15, 2017

He lays out the offer in a full-page ad in the Sunday edition of The Washington Post.

During last year’s presidential campaign, Flynt dangled $1 million to anyone who could turn over video or audio capturing Trump behaving in an illegal or sexually demeaning manner. That followed the release of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” video in which Trump bragged of imposing himself on women.


In Sunday’s ad, Flynt asks for any “smoking gun” that is fit to publish and drives Trump from office. The White House didn’t comment.

A full page advertisement in the Washington Post warned that the 2016 election was “illegitimate in many ways.”

“Trump has proven he’s dangerously unfit to exercise the extreme power accrued by our ‘unitary executive,'” the ad read.

“Impeachment would be a messy, contentious affair, but the alternative — three more years of destabilizing dysfunction — is worse.”

Flynt cited the firing of former FBI director James Comey, the potential nuclear war with North Korea, the Paris Accord and Trump’s “racial dog-whistling” after the Charlottesville Nazi rally as reasons for his impeachment.

The porn magnate has previously offered money for information on Mitt Romney’s tax returns and Republican Congressman Bob Livingston’s extramarital affair, which led to his resignation in 1998.




prop 47

Three years ago, there were some changes made to lessen California’s overpopulation in jails and prisons.

Voters approved Proposition 47, which would loosen law enforcement standards on crime. At the time, it was believed that taking these measures wouldn’t have much impact on crime.

Now, three years later, local law enforcement officials are pointing to that 2014 proposition approval as the reason for the drastic increase in crime in California.

Fox 11 Los Angeles reports that while arrests are down 30 percent since the new law, violent crime is up 40 percent in Los Angeles since Prop 47 went into effect, with many felony crimes downgraded to misdemeanors. That’s pretty significant.

Estimates show that, specifically, the Inland Empire region in California went from 9th in the nation in vehicle thefts to 5th in just a year, from 2015 to 2016.

Riverside police Sgt. Sean Brown noted: “The punishment is very minimal. If nobody goes to jail for committing a crime, what’s to prevent them from committing more crimes?”

Additionally, Ontario police Sgt. Jeff Higbee noted that the laws mean there is “little to no jail time associated with a single theft.”

California Assemblyman Matt Harper further explained that the rise in crime was correlated to the proposition, telling Fox News: “California is certainly having a significant problem with the increase of crime in our state.”

Harper added, “The only thing that’s really showing a difference in terms of how we approach crime and criminals is this change in our law allowing people to be able to go out on the streets, which previously they would have stayed in prison and not be committing crimes. To play these nonviolent offender games [is] a recipe for disaster.”

Those commenting on Fox 11 Los Angeles’ Facebook post about the story had a lot to say, as you’d expect, with comments such as: “You don’t say. Hmmmm I wonder who could have predicted that releasing a bunch of criminals would cause the crime levels to raise…let me think.”

Another person added: “Voters got what they wanted. Didn’t have to be a rocket scientist to see how this was going to play out.”

One commenter just wants things to return to the way they used to be, writing: “Can the douchebags up in Sacramento just admit this was a stupid experiment that proved to be a failure and just go back to business as usual. Putting bad guys where they belong and far away from our families.”

This person didn’t pull any punches, noting: “This state deserves EXACLY what YOU voted for! It’s always ok until something happens to you or someone in you family by one of the dirtbags YOU helped out!” Another person responded: “And to top it all off, it’s still one of the most expensive states to live in. Californians are literally paying a premium to live in those conditions! Maybe smog kills brain cells?”

Along the same lines, this person noted: “Here in California law makers screw us over like crazy. There are props/laws that somehow manage to pass that we as citizens are COMPLETELY against and when we try to fight it it’s as of the most important stuff is put at the bottom of the list.”






California’s sheriffs are calling on the GOP-controlled Congress to intervene and pass a federal law to change the state’s sanctuary state status, warning the law that ties their hands too tightly will only increase the chances of another high-profile tragedy.

The sanctuary state law, which Gov. Jerry Brown (D.) signed Thursday but doesn’t go into effect until January, is the most far-reaching of its kind in the country and places sharp limits on how local law enforcement agencies can communicate with federal immigration authorities.

It would also make it a crime to enforce federal immigration laws on the premises of all schools, hospitals, libraries, and courthouses in state, which is home to an estimated two million immigrants.

Making the entire state a sanctuary for illegal immigrants is California’s latest salvo in its war with President Donald Trump over immigration policy, but law enforcement officials say it’s the state’s citizens who will pay the price with higher crime rates and avoidable tragedies.


National Sheriffs’ Association Executive Director and CEO Jonathan Thompson said Thursday that sheriffs across the country are deeply “saddened and disappointed” that the governor signed this “reckless” bill into law.

“It is unfortunate that California’s law enforcement has become pawns in this political game, but they will continue to do their jobs diligently to protect their communities,” he said

“We also implore leaders in Washington to take action and pass sensible legislation that would prevent careless legislation from hamstringing law enforcement and would give them the tools to combat dangerous policies like this.”

Most of the state’s sheriffs argue that the law limits their ability to remove dangerous, repeat offenders from their communities.

They remain concerned despite late changes that Gov. Brown helped negotiate that would grant police the ability to inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials of violent felon’s police have taken into custody.

Sheriffs said the law would prevent police from notifying ICE of self-admitted members of MS-13 or other gangs if they were arrested for misdemeanor crimes such as assault and battery, possession of narcotics, being under the influence of narcotics, or driving without a license.

“If a gang member is arrested or charged with misdemeanor or a felony that is not covered by the law, we would be precluded from contacting ICE,” California State Sherrifs’ Associate President Bill Brown told the Washington Free Beacon.

“My concern is that, statewide, we’re going to have this issue—that you end up with a known gang member in custody for a particular crime that is not covered and we wouldn’t be able to make that notification.”

Police also worry that the law is too light on illegal immigrants who have been arrested for drunk driving. Police can only call federal immigration authorities if they arrest an illegal immigrant with a violent felony on his or her record. In California, a person must be convicted four times in a decade for it to be considered a felony, law enforcement sources said.


They have repeatedly predicted that the law will open the door to another high-profile tragedy similar to Kathryn “Kate” Steinle’s death in 2015 at the hand of an illegal immigrant who had been deported a total of five times.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is trying to stop other cities and states from following California’s lead.

“The State of California has now codified a commitment to returning criminal aliens back onto our streets, which undermines public safety, national security, and law enforcement,” said Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley.


ACLU filing lawsuit over Trump administration’s birth control rule change


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the Trump administration Friday over new rules the Department of Health and Human Services announced that ease the Affordable Care Act requirement that employers and insurers provide contraception coverage.

The ACLU’s announcement came less than two hours after HHS announced it is issuing a rule based on new Justice Department guidance that employers and insurers can object to covering contraceptives based on religious beliefs and moral convictions. The lawsuit is being filed on behalf of ACLU members and Service Employee International Union-United Health Care Workers West (SEIU-UHW) who believe they are at risk of losing their contraception coverage because of where they work or go to school, according to the ACLU. The ACLU argues HHS’ interim final rule violates the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

“The Trump administration is forcing women to pay for their boss’s religious beliefs,” ACLU senior staff attorney Brigitte Amiri said in a statement. “We’re filing this lawsuit because the federal government cannot authorize discrimination against women in the name of religion or otherwise.”

The HHS exemption will include all entities already exempt from the birth control mandate, as well as any nonprofit group that has a religious or moral objection to covering contraception of any form. For-profit organizations that aren’t publicly traded can also be exempt for religious reasons. Insurance companies with a religious affiliation are also exempt from the birth control mandate.

“No American should be forced to violate his or her own conscience in order to abide by the laws and regulations governing our healthcare system,” Caitlin Oakley, HHS press secretary, said in a statement after the rule was announced. “Today’s actions affirm the Trump administration’s commitment to upholding the freedoms afforded all Americans under our Constitution.”

HHS issued the new guidance after multiple failed attempts from Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare, which almost certainly would have nixed the contraception coverage requirement. But, with repeal efforts on hold indefinitely, the Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land, leaving the Republican administration to find other ways to achieve its health care agenda.



jerry brown

Gov. Jerry Brown placed new limitations on state and local law enforcement’s ability to help the federal government enforce immigration violations by signing California’s controversial “sanctuary state” bill into law on Thursday.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León introduced Senate Bill 54 weeks after the 2016 election to stifle President Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to ramp up deportations and prevent the federal government from using California police officers to accomplish his goal.

SB 54 was among nearly a dozen immigration-related bills that Brown signed on Thursday. SEE BILL HERE

Others prohibit landlords from reporting their undocumented renters, bar employers from authorizing workplace raids by federal immigration enforcement officials, and allow students whose parents are deported to continue attending California schools.

The measure, a hallmark of the state’s so-called “resistance” to the White House, became a deeply controversial topic and prompted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to campaign against it alongside the California State Sheriffs’ Association.

After publicly questioning the legislation, Brown intervened and demanded a 12-fold increase in the types of prior convictions that exclude immigrants from most protections under the bill – from 65 different serious and violent felonies to over 800 crimes, including some misdemeanors. Brown’s amendments also gave federal immigration agents access to interview immigrants in jails and exempted the California Department of Corrections from the measure, among other major changes.

In a signing statement, Brown noted the changes he demanded. “These are uncertain times for undocumented citizens and their families, and this bill strikes a balance that will protect public safety, while bringing a measure of comfort to those families who are now living in fear every day,” Brown said.

Before the amendments were revealed to the public, some advocates for the undocumented community complained that the changes drastically weakened the bill. In the end, the groups applauded the measure as a positive step forward.

De León defended the final version of the bill, saying it still accomplished his initial objective to prevent California resources and police from being “commandeered” for Trump’s policies.

“California’s local law enforcement cannot be commandeered and used by the Trump Administration to tear families apart, undermine our safety, and wreak havoc on our economy,” de Leon said at a news conference in Los Angeles, where activists behind him chanted “Sí, se puede.”

De León denounced Trump and criticized his policies as “racist and xenophobic.”

“I know Trump supporters don’t get this from their news outlets or blogs, but immigrants commit far fewer crimes than U.S.-born citizens. That is a fact, not fake news,” he said.

tom ammiano

Former Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco politician who carried an anti-deportation California law known as the Trust Act, said advocates got “sucker punched” and acquiesced to make the best of it without breaking bridges with Brown and de León.

“It’s not what it was promised to be,” Ammiano said. “That happens in Sacramento, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK. It has Jerry Brown’s hesitant fingers on it and the pro tem’s office attempting to live with it. We all know that there are carve outs in it that should not be acceptable.”

Ammiano said the bill doesn’t go far enough to protect vulnerable immigrants from Trump.

“What do you need?” Ammiano said. “He pardoned (former Arizona Sheriff Joe) Arpaio. He rescinded DACA. What does it take from the governor and pro tem to know this is super inefficient and it’s betraying a lot of people?”

As a result of the amendments, the California Police Chiefs Association went from opposing the bill to neutral. The sheriffs’ organization remained against SB 54 and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had publicly urged Brown to veto it.

Here’s some of the things local and state law enforcement cannot do under the bill:

▪ Inquire about an individual’s immigration status.

▪ Detain someone on a hold request for the federal government, unless there’s a felony warrant or the person has been convicted of one of the more than 800 crimes.

▪ Arrest someone for a civil immigration warrant alone.

▪ Be deputized as immigration agents.

▪ Participate in border patrol activities.

▪ Participate in joint task forces with the federal government if the primary purpose is immigration enforcement.

▪ Notify the federal government of someone’s release or transfer someone to federal custody, unless there’s a federal warrant or the person has been convicted of one of the more than 800 crimes listed in a revised Trust Act.





California lawmaker wants to ban gas car sales after 2040


France and the United Kingdom are doing it. So is India. And now one lawmaker would like California to follow their lead in phasing out gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

When the Legislature returns in January, Assemblyman Phil Ting plans to introduce a bill that would ban the sale of new cars fueled by internal-combustion engines after 2040. The San Francisco Democrat said it’s essential to get California drivers into an electric fleet if the state is going to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, since the transportation sector accounts for more than a third of all emissions.

“The market is moving this way. The entire world is moving this way,” Ting said. “At some point you need to set a goal and put a line in the sand.”

California already committed five years ago to putting 1.5 million “zero-emission vehicles,” such as electric cars and plug-in hybrids, on the road by 2025. By that time, the state wants these cleaner models to account for 15 percent of all new car sales.

But progress has been modest so far, as consumers wait for prices to drop and battery ranges to improve, or opt for large trucks and SUVs that are not available among electric offerings. Slightly more than 300,000 zero-emission vehicles have now been sold in California, and they accounted for just under 5 percent of new car sales in the state in the first half of the year.

Ting is among the policymakers pushing to increase incentives for drivers to ditch their gas guzzlers. He is also working on legislation that would overhaul California’s electric car rebate program by making more money available for rebates, then ratcheting down the value of those discounts as the state hits sales targets.

“California is used to being first. But we’re trying to catch up to this,” Ting said.

France and the United Kingdom both announced this summer that they would ban the sale of new gas and diesel cars after 2040. India is aiming to get there by 2030. And China said this month that it would stop the production and sale of vehicles powered solely by fossil fuels in the coming years.


The technology has been there for some time now, we have been too slow to put in place.