Connect with us

Politics

A theme in GOP attack ads in California House races: Linking Democrats to pedophiles over support for LGBTQ group

Published

on

A theme in GOP attack ads in California House races: Linking Democrats to pedophiles over support for LGBTQ group

A not-so-subtle theme has emerged in recent Republican attack ads in battleground California congressional races: linking Democrats to pedophiles.

Take, for instance, the 30-second spot from the National Republican Congressional Committee attacking Democrat George Whitesides, the former NASA chief of staff who is challenging GOP Rep. Mike Garcia in the Antelope Valley in one of the nation’s most hotly contested races.

Melancholy piano music plays over images of an upturned bicycle and a set of empty playground swings. The camera cuts to a computer tablet displaying a messaging app.

“I’m literally the next block over. Come chill!” writes a user nicknamed SKTRDUDE293.

“ON MY WAY!!!” responds a girl, who looks about 12, with the user name SWIFFTIEE661.

Advertisement

The tablet is propped up in a cozy-looking bedroom next to a lava lamp, a mascara tube and a framed portrait of the girl and her dog. The camera lingers on the girl’s face before showing her photograph taped to a wall next to pictures of other kids in a dark, dingy-looking room where a laptop — apparently belonging to a child predator — has the same chat open.

“George Whitesides funded a group opposing pedophiles registering as sex offenders,” text on the ad says, referencing Equality California, one of the state’s largest LGBTQ+ civil rights organizations.

Another ad targeting state Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who is running to fill the seat being vacated by Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of Orange County, says that, because of legislation Min supported, “sex predators, including the creeps that victimize children, roam free.” The ad says Min is “endorsed by a group that helps sex offenders” — another reference to Equality California.

Sponsors of the advertisements say the focus on child sex crimes, while uncomfortable, accurately portray Democrats — and those who endorse them — as soft on crime. But critics say the ads are both inaccurate and offensive, based on homophobic and transphobic misconceptions about LGBTQ+ people preying upon children.

“This is the same playbook that right-wing extremists and their allies have used for decades, perpetuating the harmless and baseless stereotype that LGBTQ+ folks are inherently pedophiles,” said Tony Hoang, the executive director of Equality California.

Advertisement

An unprecedented amount of money — with some projections as high as $17 billion — is being spent on political advertising nationwide in this election cycle, said Steve Caplan, an adjunct instructor of public relations and advertising at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

“Crime and immigration typically are issues that have been used on the Republican side to affect elections, particularly in highly competitive districts,” he said.

The ads — which Caplan called an “attempt to shock voters” — indicate that Republicans see these House races as must-win contests, he said, because “media costs in Southern California are hugely expensive.”

California is home to 10 competitive House races that will shape which party controls Congress, making the state a consequential battleground this year.

Whitesides is a first-time candidate with no voting record to scrutinize. So, Republicans have zeroed in on his hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to progressive candidates and causes, including Equality California. The group advocates for legislation advancing LGBTQ+ rights and works to elect candidates who support its mission.

Advertisement

Equality California, along with the L.A. County district attorney’s office, co-sponsored the controversial 2020 California Senate Bill 145, which was intended to end discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in sex crimes involving a minor and a young adult.

The law, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed, allows judges to decide whether an adult convicted of having anal or oral sex with a minor should register as a sex offender in cases in which the minor is 14 or older and the adult is not more than 10 years older than the teenager.

Before SB 145, an adult convicted under those circumstances was automatically added to the state’s sex offender registry, while an adult convicted of vaginal sex with a minor was not.

Proponents said SB 145 would address the disparity in state law that was a remnant of California’s old anti-sodomy laws, many since repealed, and that it would give judges more discretion to determine appropriate punishment when two people close in age — a 17-year-old and a 20-year-old, for example — are in a sexual relationship.

“SB 145 makes sure that everyone is treated equally under the law, nothing more or nothing less,” Hoang said.

Advertisement

The bill faced strong pushback from Republicans in the state Legislature, with some opponents using it to falsely claim that California was legalizing pedophilia. The recent attack ads have latched on to the controversy that roiled the state Capitol four years ago.

Republican Rep. Mike Garcia, left, is being challenged for reelection by Democrat George Whitesides, right, in California’s 27th Congressional District in the Antelope Valley

(AP)

Ben Petersen, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement that Whitesides “might not like voters hearing he bankrolled soft-on-crime groups, but the facts are clear as day. From zero cash bail to lower penalties for criminals including sex offenders, Whitesides’ money backed it all.”

Advertisement

Equality California endorsed a 2020 ballot measure that sought, unsuccessfully, to end the use of cash bail in California.

Whitesides’ campaign manager, Emma Harris, said in a statement that “as a father of two kids, 12 and 14, George puts the safety of his family before all else.”

“It comes as no surprise that Congressman Mike Garcia and his far-right friends are lying once again — because he knows he’s losing this race,” Harris said, adding that “unfortunately for the GOP, these baseless attacks on Democrats up and down the state won’t work, and voters will see right through these lies.”

Whitesides’ new ad emphasizes his support from parents and families, with one woman embracing two children and saying, “The lies they’re telling about George are disgusting.” The ad closes with Whitesides standing beside his daughter.

In a statement, Garcia noted that his campaign “has no control over third party commercials, but voters are now finding out the real George Whitesides.”

Advertisement

“He doesn’t have a long history in our district,” Garcia wrote, “so follow who he supports to know who he really is.” Among those Whitesides has supported, he added, are “radical groups that put our kids in danger.”

Whitesides’ support for Equality California also was highlighted in a new ad by the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that supports Republicans running for the House and has reserved $27 million for TV and digital ads in the L.A. area this fall.

The new anti-Whitesides TV spot features a woman who says: “I just learned today that he’s a major donor of a group that sponsored legislation to lower penalties for pedophiles.”

Courtney Parella, a spokeswoman for the super PAC, said in a statement that the ad is fair game.

“These California liberals may be upset they got caught funding extreme political groups and backing radical policies, but the fact remains — these measures weakened penalties for sex offenders, put minors at risk, and made it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs,” she said.

Advertisement

The Congressional Leadership Fund also paid for the anti-Min ad that blasts his endorsement by Equality California. Min is running a tight race in the 47th Congressional District against Republican Scott Baugh, a Huntington Beach attorney who served in the California Assembly from 1995 to 2000.

The ad criticizes Min for voting in favor of the controversial California Senate Bill 357, which rescinded misdemeanor laws against loitering in public for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. Advocates argued that it would stop law enforcement use of state loitering rules to disproportionately target Black, Latino and transgender Californians, while opponents said the bill would remove a crucial tool to stop sex trafficking, especially of children.

In the attack ad, a deep-voiced man, using a play on Min’s name, says: “Predators get minimal treatment. Abusive partners? They get the min. Child sex offenders? They get the min, too.”

Democratic state Sen. Dave Min and Republican Scott Baugh

Democratic state Sen. Dave Min, left, and Republican Scott Baugh, right, are running for California’s 47th Congressional District in Orange County

(Rich Pedroncelli / AP, Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Min said in a statement that he was endorsed by police officers and deputy sheriffs and is “proud of my strong record on public safety as a State Senator, including authoring more than a dozen bills to protect survivors of sexual assault and abuse.”

He said Republicans were “lying about my legislative record, which is one of the toughest on crime in the State Senate” and that the advertisement was “especially odious in that it uses my endorsement from Equality California … to propagate the bigoted and hateful myth that gay people are child predators and groomers.”

Jon Fleischman, a spokesman for Baugh’s campaign, declined to comment on the ad, noting that “we do not control outside group spending.”

In Riverside County, an attack ad against Democrat Will Rollins says he is “backed by radicals who gave billions in taxpayer-funded stimulus checks to convicted felons including terrorists and pedophiles.” It, too, includes images of an empty swing set.

Rollins, a former federal prosecutor, is trying to unseat Republican Rep. Ken Calvert in another extremely competitive race.

Advertisement

The ad is a reference to Democrats in Congress who voted for pandemic-era relief bills that resulted in stimulus checks being sent to prisoners. (Republicans supported such bills, too, but later tried to stop payments to inmates against Democratic opposition.)

The “radicals” referenced in the ad are Congressional Democrats who endorsed Rollins, said a spokesperson for the Americans 4 Security PAC, which paid for the spot and is largely funded by the oil and gas industry.

Coby Eiss, Rollins’ campaign manager, accused “Republican super PACs in Washington” of lying about Rollins’ stance on criminal justice.

“As a federal prosecutor, Will had a 99% conviction rate and worked hand-in-hand with law enforcement on a daily basis,” Eiss said in a statement.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

Published

on

Video: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

transcript

transcript

Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon

Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.

“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”

Advertisement
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.

By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff

June 4, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Democrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission

Published

on

Democrats split over Tlaib’s Lebanon measure as Republicans seize on Hezbollah omission

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday. 

The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.

A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country. 

Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.

Advertisement

The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)

REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.

House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”

Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure. 

Advertisement

Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”

“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.

Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah. 

“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)

Advertisement

RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH

The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.

“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.

A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.

The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.

Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.

Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

Published

on

Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s .8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.

Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.

It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.

The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.

The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.

Advertisement

The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.

The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.

Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.

On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.

“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.

Advertisement

The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.

In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.

The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.

But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”

After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.

Advertisement

The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.

“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.

The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.

Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Advertisement

Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”

Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”

Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”

Advertisement

“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending