Padilla was right to challenge Noem's right-wing lunacy
SACRAMENTO — Sen. Alex Padilla had heard all he could stand from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. For good reason. She was sounding like a military dictator and brushing off California voters.
So the California senator interrupted her. He tried to ask a question — and wound up being shoved out of the room by federal bodyguards, strong-armed to the floor and handcuffed.
This is how the Trump administration intends to 'Make America Great Again'?
The unprecedented act of disrespecting and roughing up a U.S. senator occurred at the Westwood federal building during a Noem news conference Thursday. Padilla, a Democrat, was standing behind reporters when the secretary said federal agents would continue to conduct immigration raids in Los Angeles indefinitely.
'[We'll] continue to sustain and increase our operations in this city,' Noem said.
'We are not going away,' she emphasized. 'We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and this mayor have placed on this country.'
Definitely fighting words.
'Liberate' the city? That's the sort of language used by dictators — fascist, Communist or any Third World despot.
'Socialist' leadership? A pejorative straight out of the right-wing playbook of political talking points.
Was Noem saying the Trump administration's real goal is to overthrow Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass because of their 'burdensome' regimes?
Perhaps the secretary has forgotten what she presumably was taught in civics class.
But Noem, 53, was governor of South Dakota. And before that she was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and a state legislator. So she knows about the election process. And we can only conclude that, at her news conference, she was talking without thinking.
Because in America, the 'liberators' are the voters. Not immigration agents, Cabinet secretaries or even the president.
California citizens reelected Newsom by a 59% landslide vote in 2022. The Democrat will be termed out of office next year — a policy set by voters, not by some federal administration.
Bass also was elected in 2022 by a margin of nearly 10 percentage points. If Angelenos want to liberate themselves from her, they'll have the opportunity when she's up for reelection next year.
Socialist is such a tired characterization of practically any policy the political right doesn't like. You could tag lots of government spending with socialism — including Social Security and Medicare.
Anyway, Padilla listened to Noem's dumb comments about liberating citizens from the governor and mayor, and, he said later in TV interviews, 'it was just too much.'
He broke in with a shouted question.
OK, he shouldn't have done that. There's a protocol at formal news conferences. Only reporters ask questions. Certainly not visiting politicians. And questioners really shouldn't interrupt the person at the lectern, although it happens.
This wasn't a Senate committee hearing in which Padilla could ask anything he wanted — when it was his turn. He wasn't 'doing his job' at Noem's event, as his Democratic colleagues later asserted. He was there as an observer. If he wanted to ask the secretary a question, this wasn't the time or place.
But his emotional reaction to Noem's comments was totally understandable.
Padilla ordinarily is a very polite guy, extraordinary civil — calm, soft-spoken, the opposite of an aggressive loudmouth.
But he is passionate about the cause of immigrant rights and comprehensive reform that would offer a path to citizenship for undocumented people. It's what inspired him to enter politics.
He was motivated by Latino activists' losing fight in 1994 against Proposition 187, which would have denied most public services to immigrants living here illegally if it wasn't tossed out by a judge.
Padilla, 52, is a proud L.A. native, the son of Mexican immigrants. His dad was a short-order cook, and his mom cleaned affluent people's houses. He graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a mechanical engineering degree. But he caught the political bug and was elected to the L.A. City Council at age 26.
Later he was elected to the state Senate and as secretary of state. He ultimately became California's first Latino U.S. senator.
On Thursday, the lawmaker was at the federal building to meet a general. He heard Noem was holding a news conference, asked to attend and was escorted in.
After he was forced to the ground by federal agents who considered him a security threat, Padilla declared repeatedly: 'If that's what they do to a United States senator with a question, imagine what they do to farmworkers, day laborers, cooks and the other nonviolent immigrants they are targeting in California and across the country.'
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung claimed Padilla acted like 'a complete lunatic … by rushing toward Secretary Noem.' Noem said he 'lunged' at her.
Wrong. A video recording disproved that.
Federal bodyguards contended Padilla didn't identify himself. More bull. They just didn't listen.
'Hands off! I am Sen. Alex Padilla,' he's heard saying and repeating several times on the recording.
A federal agent turned to a Padilla staffer recording the sorry incident and said: 'There's no recording allowed out here, per FBI rights.'
Sorry. If it's a right not to be recorded piling on a senator trying to exercise his rights, then it should be repealed.
The Trump administration did another stupid thing. Padilla came out a hero.
The must-read: 'Protest is patriotic.' 'No Kings' demonstrations across L.A. against ICE sweeps, Trump presidency The TK: Will mom get detained? Is dad going to work? Answering kids' big questions amid ICE raids The L.A. Times Special: Voices from the raids: How families are coping with the sudden apprehension of loved ones
Until next week,George Skelton
—Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's support keeps growing while Democrats howl at the moon
California Sen. Alex Padilla recently crashed a press conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He deliberately wore no identification. He gave no advance warning that he would disrupt her briefing. Instead, Padilla barged forward to the podium, shouting about the deportation of illegal aliens. Advertisement Immediately, Padilla got his media-moment wish — once Secret Service agents, who had no idea who he was, forcibly removed him. Alex Padilla unsuccessfully attempted to push past law enforcement to reach Noem's lectern. AP Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) recently attempted a pseudo-filibuster, speaking nonstop for 25 hours straight — not to delay legislation, but to fixate on President Donald Trump. Advertisement South Carolina Democratic state Rep. Julie von Haefen posted on social media an image of a bloody guillotine. It bore the title 'In these difficult times, some cuts may be necessary' and was juxtaposed with an image of a hanging, beheaded Trump, who, a year ago, was the target of two failed assassination attempts. The more Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom scream at Trump for nationalizing the California Guard to stop LA's nightly violent anti-ICE protests, the more the two appear on the side of those who riot, destroy property and attack police. Yet who really wants to side with illegal aliens who spit on and burn American flags while waving Mexican flags? Former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, along with other prominent Democrats, mocked the recent Washington, DC, military parade commemorating the 250th anniversary of the army, comparing it unfavorably with their own concurrent 'No Kings' anti-Trump protests. Advertisement Those demonstrations — subsidized by left-wing billionaire donors — were utterly incoherent. No other president has faced more lower federal court injunctions blocking executive orders than Trump. People march down Fifth Avenue at the No Kings protest against Trump on June 14, 2025 in New York. Zuma / Indeed, dozens of cherry-picked, left-wing district judges — the real unchecked 'kings' — now routinely block almost every one of Trump's executive orders. Advertisement Why are opposition Democrats not offering alternative agendas and compromises? Could they partner with Trump to allow green cards to illegal aliens who have no criminal records, have not been on public assistance, are now employed and have resided in the United States for over five years? Could Democrats meet with the president to express bipartisan support for democratic Israel in its existential war with theocratic Iran? Instead, why do Democrats throw two-year-old temper tantrums to howl nihilistically at everything Trump says and does? One, exasperated Democrats lack all levers of political power — the Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. So, they take to the media and the streets. Two, Democrats are permanently frustrated that the more they scream and stomp, the more polls show radical declines in public support for their party. Three, their nemesis, 79-year-old Trump, seems impervious to Democratic lawfare, threats and smears. Advertisement Despite the hysterical attacks, he is still polling now about where prior presidents like George Bush and Barack Obama were at similar junctures in their second terms. The more Trump is smeared as a fascist or dictator, the more polls — like the latest liberal Economist/YouGov survey — show him gaining public support for securing the border and deportation. And the more the Left damns Trump as a racist, the more he wins unprecedented black and Hispanic support. Advertisement In recent Rasmussen tracking polls, Trump garnered 54% approval from black voters and 53% from Hispanics. Four, Trump proves a hard-to-hit, moving target for the frustrated left. He cannot quite be pigeonholed as a predictable right-wing bogeyman. Unlike the Left, when Trump weighs in on the Ukraine war, he first begins by deploring the tragic waste of over a million lives. No one is more pro-Israel. Yet he has offered a losing Iran a chance to negotiate its way out of total and humiliating defeat. Advertisement Trump talks nonstop about protecting the middle class. Unions like him; Wall Street mostly despises him. Trump wants to deport as many illegal alien criminals as possible. But he is willing to consider green cards for unlawful aliens who are working, crime-free and with long residence in the US. The Trump counterrevolution barrels ahead. The people cheer. And Democrats keep barking at the moon. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018 . She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
House Democrat: Strike on Iran ‘not necessarily the death blow' to nuclear program
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, suggested the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities are 'not necessarily the death blow' that President Trump claimed when he announced the military action Saturday evening. In an interview on MSNBC, Smith questioned Trump's assessment that the three Iranian nuclear sites were 'totally obliterated' by the strikes and raised the possibility that the U.S. is unaware of more sites. 'President Trump, in his typical fashion, you know, claims facts not in evidence, saying we totally obliterated their whole program,' Smith said. 'Nobody knows that right now. Maybe. Maybe not. We do not know how many of these centrifuges were destroyed.' He also said the U.S. 'can't be 100 percent sure that we knew about all of Iran's centrifuges,' noting the U.S. didn't know about Iran's Fordow nuclear site — one of the three that the U.S. bombed on Saturday — for a decade before it was discovered. And Smith questioned 'how quickly' Iran could reconstitute its nuclear program, adding, 'It sadly does not take that long to build centrifuges once you know how.' 'So it's not necessarily the death blow to Iran's nuclear program. We're still going to have to negotiate with them at some point,' he said. 'So, you know, this assumption that their nuclear program is gone and they'll never be able to build it is simply wrong at this point.' The announcement of U.S. action against Iran came two days after the White House said Trump would decide whether to get involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel 'in the next two weeks' to give a window for negotiations. White House sources indicated the U.S. had given Israel a heads up before it struck the Iranian sites and that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke after the strikes. The strikes marked a significant entrance by the U.S. into a conflict between Israel and Iran that had been underway for more than a week. They also indicated a shift by Trump, who said he was seeking a diplomatic solution with Iran and sent U.S. officials to make a deal with Tehran on its nuclear program. Smith released a statement on Saturday condemning 'in the strongest terms' Trump's decision to order U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, criticizing the president for acting without congressional approval and without specifying 'clear objectives for these actions.' 'There are no guarantees that it will eliminate the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon or how long it might set their program back,' Smith said in the statement. He said negotiating a nuclear deal is 'the way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and to protect American service members.' 'The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous and that threatens the safety and security of the United States, Israel, and ultimately the world,' Smith added in the statement.
