Election Fraud, Liberal California, and Bruce Boyer’s Cartoon Cats: A Comedy of Errors

 

Ventura, CA—Imagine living in a world where you need an ID to do practically everything: buy liquor, fly on a plane, rent a car, or even pick up a package at the post office. Yet somehow, when it comes to voting—the foundation of our democracy—many politicians insist identification is not only unnecessary but actively oppressive. Apparently, it’s too much to ask for even a shred of verification to ensure our elections are secure.

The logic behind this? Democrats have long argued that requiring ID to vote disproportionately affects minorities, particularly Black Americans, claiming voter ID laws are a tool of suppression. Never mind that this argument essentially paints minorities as too incapable of obtaining basic identification—a view that reeks of condescension. To “solve” this non-issue, they pushed through motor voter laws, which allowed anyone with a driver’s license to automatically register to vote.

But wait, there’s more! The motor voter laws opened the floodgates for illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses—and, you guessed it, they’re automatically registered to vote too. The reasoning is simple: politicians assume these new voters, reliant on government assistance, will overwhelmingly support Democrats. Subtle, right?

For those keeping score, this is the same party that venerates President Lyndon B. Johnson, who reportedly quipped, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” after signing the Voting Rights Act. LBJ’s history of racist remarks is well-documented, but no one seems to care because, well, politics. The Voting Rights Act he championed wasn’t just about fairness; it also helped dismantle safeguards like ID requirements that would have deterred fraud. Coincidence? You decide.

Fast-forward to California before the 2020 election, where things got even laxer. Voters could register, receive, and cast ballots without ever proving their identity—or even seeing another human being. Mail-in ballots? Check. Ballot drop boxes? Check. Voting deadlines that stretch out longer than the latest Marvel movie? Check. The system practically begged for fraud, but Californians were assured everything was perfectly fine. Trust the process, they said.

Then comes Bruce Boyer, a cowboy with a sense of humor sharper than a cactus needle. Frustrated by the absurdity of California’s voting laws, Boyer decided to demonstrate just how easy it was to game the system. His weapon of choice? Cartoon cats. Yes, Boyer stands accused of registering four fictional felines to vote, all conveniently listing his home address. Felix the Cat, meet California politics.

After successfully registering his furry friends, Boyer couldn’t resist telling the Ventura County Board of Supervisors about his little experiment. Naturally, this didn’t sit well with the incumbent County Clerk, who promptly involved the District Attorney’s office. Within no time, investigators came knocking, and Boyer found himself slapped with four counts of perjury. For registering cartoon cats.

Here’s the kicker: Boyer never intended for Felix or his pals to actually vote. The whole point was to shine a spotlight on how laughably vulnerable California’s election system had become. But the joke was lost on Ventura County’s Soros-backed District Attorney, who decided Boyer’s stunt was a felony-level offense. You know, because protecting the integrity of imaginary cats is apparently more important than addressing real election vulnerabilities.

So now, we’re left with a question: does Bruce Boyer’s high-profile prank justify branding him a felon for life? Or is this just another example of California’s justice system punishing someone for exposing inconvenient truths? Boyer’s antics may have been unconventional, but his point remains valid—our election system is ripe for abuse, and pretending otherwise only perpetuates the problem.

Stalin once said, “It’s not who votes that counts; it’s who counts the votes.” Perhaps California’s leaders should stop worrying about cartoon cats and start worrying about the real flaws in their system. Until then, we can only wonder how many other “Felixes” are out there, quietly waiting to cast their ballots.

The Ventura County DA should immediately dismiss this case if he had any decency.  But he can be counted on to dig his heels in and punish this conservative would be politician as much as he possibly can. 

When Insurance Karma Gets Deadly: A Sarcastic Take on the New York CEO Shooting

New York, NY — The whole world watched as an irate customer gunned down an insurance company CEO in New York. Sure, murder is a crime (we all agree on that, right?), but let’s not pretend the motivation came out of thin air. Apparently, this customer felt the insurance company had been a tad… let’s say, less than honest.

For those not in the know, there’s a curious little rule in personal injury lawsuits: juries aren’t told that an insurance company will foot the bill. Why? Because everyone knows insurance companies excel at one thing—collecting premiums like clockwork. Paying claims? Eh, not so much.

You’ve seen the commercials. Nice, friendly spokespeople assure us we’re “in good hands.” What they don’t show is the dark side: armies of lawyers and a well-oiled machine designed to delay, deny, and defend against paying out claims. Oh, you’ve got an airtight, 100% bulletproof case? Congrats, they’ll grudgingly pay—because they have to, not because they’re feeling generous.

Now back to the unfortunate CEO. While it’s only a matter of time before the shooter is caught and punished, this incident has sparked a broader conversation. Suddenly, the insurance industry is grappling with a harsh truth: their relentless mistreatment of customers might someday lead to more than court battles and bad Yelp reviews. Social media is ablaze with people saying what they’ve always wanted to: “Insurance companies deserve what they get.” Not exactly the PR spin they were hoping for.

But let’s be realistic here. Are we about to witness a wave of kinder, gentler insurance companies with hearts of gold? Yeah, no. What we’re more likely to see is an uptick in armed security guards and fortress-like insurance buildings. After all, the industry knows its reputation—and it’s not exactly inspiring hugs and goodwill.

So, while murder is never the answer, this event has shone a light on the deep resentment many people feel toward insurance companies. Maybe it’s time for the industry to rethink its priorities. Or maybe they’ll just double down on the security budget and hope for the best.

In any case, one thing’s for sure: those warm and fuzzy insurance commercials are going to feel a whole lot more hollow from now on.

California Officials Embarrassed as Activist Exposes Voting System Vulnerabilities with “Cartoon Cat” Arrest

Ventura, CA—Bruce Boyer, a local businessman, U.S. Army veteran, and staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump, has once again shined a spotlight on California’s questionable voter registration system—this time in an audacious and satirical manner that has California officials scrambling.

Boyer, known for his unrelenting commitment to holding government officials accountable, has long been a thorn in the side of bureaucrats who fail to follow the law. A seasoned activist, Boyer is no stranger to controversy, lawsuits, and civil rights battles. He deliberately places himself in the line of fire to expose governmental failures, and his latest stunt may be his boldest yet.

A Broken System Exposed by a Joke

California’s voter rolls have been a hotbed of controversy, with reports of fictitious voters, deceased individuals, and non-citizens listed as eligible voters. The lack of voter ID requirements in the state has created an integrity crisis that officials seem unwilling to address. Boyer decided to illustrate just how porous the system truly is—with a dose of humor that has left state officials red-faced.

The saga began when Boyer jokingly registered a cartoonish name—a pet cat—to vote, complete with mail-in ballot eligibility. Three additional “cat” registrations followed, all using Boyer’s home address. No fraudulent votes were cast, and Boyer’s intention was clear: to highlight the glaring vulnerabilities in California’s voter registration process. This harmless satire, however, was not taken lightly by the Ventura County District Attorney.

Weaponizing the Legal System

In what many are calling a blatant abuse of power, Ventura County’s ultra-leftist District Attorney has filed four felony charges of perjury against Boyer, transforming a lighthearted critique of systemic flaws into a politically charged legal assault. Observers have pointed out the irony of Boyer being prosecuted for a harmless demonstration while California’s voting rolls remain riddled with unchecked inaccuracies.

Critics have slammed the DA’s actions as a politically motivated attempt to silence a vocal critic of California’s flawed policies. Boyer has run for political office multiple times, including for sheriff and county clerk, but his staunchly conservative views have made him a polarizing figure in left-leaning Ventura County. The charges appear to be a calculated move to undermine an activist who dares to challenge the state’s political machine.

An Embarrassment for California Officials

Boyer’s arrest is a stark reminder of the priorities of California’s leadership. Instead of addressing systemic problems, officials have chosen to target the whistleblower. By prosecuting Boyer for what amounts to a satirical demonstration, the state has inadvertently underscored the very issues he sought to expose.

Rather than focusing on cleaning up the voter rolls, ensuring accurate registration, and implementing safeguards like voter ID, the state is using its resources to prosecute someone who dared to shine a spotlight on their failures. The incident is not just a reflection of California’s broken voting system; it’s an embarrassment for state officials who have chosen to shoot the messenger instead of addressing the message.

A Battle Worth Watching

Boyer is set to face arraignment on these charges, but one thing is certain: he will not back down. Known for his unflinching resolve, Boyer has already turned his arrest into a rallying cry for election integrity and civil rights. This case promises to be as much about exposing California’s systemic failures as it is about defending free speech and the right to protest.

California officials may have hoped to make an example of Bruce Boyer, but instead, they’ve managed to make an example of themselves. The world is now watching, and the question remains: will the state finally address its broken systems, or will it continue to persecute those who expose the truth?

UPDATE: an audacious prosecutor demanded that Boyer be held on $100,000 bail.  The judge found absolutely no basis for that outrageous bail demand and allowed Boyer to be released on his own recognizance. This case is so ridiculous. I won’t be surprised to see various cats roaming the neighborhoods wearing ankle monitors.

Do You Want a Guide to Making Medical Miracles?

Imagine standing in the midst of chaos, a life hanging by a thread, and knowing you’re the only thing between survival and death. That’s the reality of trauma care. It’s not pretty, it’s not clean, and it sure as hell isn’t something you can prepare for by buying a plastic first-aid kit from the local Walmart. This is about real life-and-death situations—where having the right knowledge and tools is the difference between saving someone and watching them slip away.

For over five decades, I’ve carried with me a battered, dog-eared copy of the Corpsman’s Medical Manual—a relic from my time as a Medical Corpsman (MOS-91B), now renamed 68W. For those unfamiliar, MOS stands for Military Occupational Specialty, and in this case, it meant I was trained to be the first and last hope for wounded soldiers on the battlefield. That manual has been my bible, a grim reminder of the stakes of trauma care.

The Tools of Survival

In the trunk of my car lies a trauma kit, a compact arsenal designed for the unthinkable. I’ve only used it twice, but both times it made the difference between hope and despair. Let me make this clear: carrying a trauma kit isn’t about being a Good Samaritan or playing hero. It’s about being ready to save yourself or someone you love in the aftermath of a disaster. Car accidents. Violent attacks. Natural catastrophes. These are not “if” scenarios—they’re “when.”

And when they happen, you won’t have time to wish you were ready. You either are, or you’re too late.

Recently, a gracious client unexpectedly doubled my fee for a small job, gifting me a $1,000 Amazon card. I couldn’t pay my rent with it, but I could invest in something far more critical: tools that save lives. I bought the latest Combat Medic Manual and a pair of LEATHERMAN Raptor Rescue 6-in-1 Heavy-Duty Emergency/Trauma Shears. These aren’t gimmicks. These are the kind of tools that slice through chaos like a scalpel through flesh.

Why Your “First Aid Kit” is a Lie

Most “first-aid kits” are a joke. They’re feel-good bandaid boxes filled with fluff like gauze pads and adhesive strips. When a loved one is bleeding out in front of you, those kits won’t do a damn thing. Real trauma care is messy, bloody, and raw. You need tools and knowledge that go far beyond the consumer-grade nonsense marketed as “emergency supplies.”

Read the Combat Medic Manual. Let it unsettle you. Let it open your eyes to what trauma really looks like. Once you do, you’ll understand what to put in your kit—your kit, tailored to the risks you face. Sure, you can buy pre-assembled trauma kits online, but the best one is the one you build yourself.

Be Prepared for the Worst

If you’re serious about being prepared—whether it’s for hurricanes, earthquakes, or violent attacks—you need to treat this as life-or-death preparation, because it is. Trauma doesn’t care if you’re squeamish or unprepared. It doesn’t care if you’ve lived a quiet, comfortable life. It will come, and when it does, you’ll either rise to the occasion or be consumed by it.

My time as an Army Medical Corpsman was the most meaningful period of my life. I regret not pursuing it further, not becoming a physician and dedicating my life to this work. But I can tell you this: no matter who you are, you can make a difference. You can perform miracles if you’re prepared.

This isn’t about heroics or dramatics. It’s about life. Real, visceral, fragile life. The kind that can slip away in seconds if you aren’t ready. So, ask yourself: are you ready to save someone when the moment demands it? Are you ready to save yourself?

If not, start now. Read. Learn. Prepare. And never, ever take the power of trauma care lightly. Because when the time comes, it’s not about being a miracle worker—it’s about being the only one who can keep someone alive long enough to see the next sunrise.

If you’re in DC, you can hear the shredders grinding away the evidence as fast as they can

The shredders in Washington, DC, are working overtime, running hot with the evidence these corrupt Democrats are desperately trying to destroy. They’re scrambling 24/7 to cover their tracks—erasing proof of their corruption, treason, extortion, bribery, money laundering, election rigging, and God knows what else.

They know what’s coming. The hammer is about to drop, and they’ll have to face tough, unrelenting patriots in the FBI and DOJ who won’t let these crimes slide. Justice is inevitable. Too bad GITMO doesn’t have enough cells for this pack of rats—they’ve more than earned their trip to the darkest corner of a federal prison.

The California Private Investigator licensing examination is a real rabbit hole!

In 1995, actor Kelsey Grammer found himself embroiled in serious and public allegations stemming from claims of inappropriate conduct with his daughter’s 15-year-old babysitter during a 1993 trip to New Jersey. The case was presented to a Somerset County grand jury, which ultimately declined to indict Grammer due to insufficient evidence and the delayed reporting of the incident. A parallel investigation occurred in Yavapai County, Arizona, but the prosecutor, recognizing the matter as an extortion attempt, chose not to present the case to a grand jury.

I was retained to investigate on Grammer’s behalf, working alongside his legal team, led by renowned Miami attorney Roy Black. Joining me was a recently retired special agent in charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles office. Out of respect, I won’t name him here, but our collaboration was both productive and enlightening.

While I managed the Arizona side of the investigation, my FBI colleague handled matters in New Jersey. At one point, he handed me his business card, which identified him as a “Retired FBI Agent” and “Investigative Consultant.” Curious about the latter title, I asked what it entailed. His response? “You don’t want to know.” Naturally, my curiosity grew. He eventually admitted that his use of “Investigative Consultant” stemmed from his struggles to pass the California Private Investigator licensing exam—he had failed it twice.

My Experience with the California PI Exam

A few years later, I decided to pursue my own California Private Investigator license. Remembering my esteemed colleague’s struggles, I prepared myself for potential failure. The exam, as I discovered, was challenging—but not because the questions were difficult. Instead, they were poorly worded, ambiguous, and sometimes outright nonsensical.

One multiple-choice question asked: Where are old newspaper articles kept? The options were:

1. Archives

2. The morgue

3. Public library

All three answers were technically correct, yet the test required only one “right” answer. This typified the exam’s frustrating nature. Despite these obstacles, I passed on my first attempt—though the process left much to be desired.

When my results were instantly graded, I was informed that I had passed. Curious about my performance, I asked for my score and the specific questions I missed. They refused to disclose either, leaving me to wonder if I had aced the test or merely scraped by. Shortly thereafter, my license arrived in the mail, accompanied by a gun permit.

Reflections on the PI Licensing Process

The FBI agent I worked with was also a licensed attorney and had risen to lead one of the largest FBI field offices in the country. His struggles with the exam underscored the test’s flawed design. Over time, I discovered that many highly qualified homicide detectives—veterans of major police departments—also carried “Investigative Consultant” business cards. They, too, had been unable to navigate California’s convoluted licensing process.

In California, there are just over 4,000 licensed private investigators. Most are employees who are not required to take the licensing exam. The test is reserved for “Qualified Managers,” those who own and operate investigative agencies. While the intention behind the exam is to ensure competency, its execution often deters even the most capable professionals.

A Call for Improvement

My experience with the California Private Investigator licensing exam revealed a system in need of reform. A test designed to evaluate investigative skills should be clear, fair, and relevant—not a frustrating exercise in deciphering ambiguous questions. Despite its flaws, I am proud to hold my license and continue serving clients with integrity and professionalism. Still, for the sake of future applicants, I hope the system evolves into something more reflective of the expertise it seeks to certify.

The face of censorship on Facebook has shifted, at least in my experience.

 

Once, I frequently found myself exiled for 30-day stints—banished to “Facebook jail” for using strong words or phrases deemed inappropriate. It was a grim routine, serving a life sentence on the installment plan. During these stretches, I couldn’t wish friends a happy birthday, comment on posts, or even click “like.” It was an odd sort of social solitary confinement.

Those who know me understand that I am an unapologetic conservative with libertarian leanings. This alone was enough to rattle Facebook’s censors. Yet, something changed. I haven’t seen the inside of Facebook jail in over a year. Oddly, this coincided with Twitter’s transformation into X under its new ownership. I want to be clear: I haven’t altered the tone or nature of my posts. I still say what I believe, whether the censors like it or not.

Perhaps Facebook realized that silencing too many of its users hurts its bottom line. When large numbers of members are locked out, traffic dwindles, and advertisers lose their precious audience. Could this shift be a business decision rather than a moral epiphany? I wonder if others have noticed the same pattern. If you have, share your thoughts in the comments below.