Democracy Dies in Sacramento

[00:00:06] If you're a California conservative, a libertarian, a moderate Democrat, believe in common sense, or just the sane person, this is the political podcast for you. It's the California Underground Podcast.

[00:00:27] What's going on, everybody? Thanks for tuning into another episode of the California Underground Podcast, the most trusted podcast on all things California politics. I am your host, Phil. And as always with me, my trustee co host, the best, the fastest researcher in the West. Camille, how are you doing today? I'm good. Thanks. How are you? Good. It is almost Easter. It's a week away from Palm Sunday. I can't believe it's already Palm Sunday. Wait, is it really? Is it the 18th? Is that?

[00:00:56] Yep. It will be a week until Palm Sunday. I know I'm not supposed to complain about this, but I'm looking forward to not having to abstain from meat on Fridays anymore. And I have a big announcement that I'm sure all my listeners are on the edge of their seats. We are.

[00:01:17] I have a big announcement that I'm sure I'm not going to be able to abstain from the carnivore diet.

[00:01:45] I'm sure you're on the ground. The gyms weren't open. You couldn't go anywhere. I mean, we were on the beach. Yeah. At that point, my wife and I at that time, well, girlfriend at that time, we walked down to the beach and it was about a mile each way. So that was like our exercise every day was walking to the beach, but you couldn't walk on the beach. Now you could look at the beach and stare at the beach. And it was so funny because everybody was doing it and we're all kind of looking at each other like this is so stupid.

[00:02:13] And there were police cars making sure you couldn't walk on the beach. But so anyway, that was my long segue until starting carnivore diet. And maybe I'll maybe I'll document my journey through carnivore. So looking forward to people appreciate that because more and more people are turning to carnivore or animal based diets. And so and apparently being healthy is like a right wing thing anyway.

[00:02:42] Yeah, I guess it's in my joining the Maha movement. Make America healthy again. I don't know. Just want to do it. I looked at it. I love steak and eggs and butter. So why not make that happen? So that's what I'm going to go with. I know yesterday we had a conversation about how I like so rarely eat eggs and yet I have access to them every day. You have access to all eggs. Yeah. So I had I had some fresh eggs today.

[00:03:09] Awesome. Yeah, it's always a guessing game when I go to the grocery store, whether they have eggs or not. Although it seems like it's getting better. Like it does seem like they're more available and they're plentiful. But they're still Trader Joe's is still implementing the one per household per carton sort of thing. I think it's because they're keeping their prices low. And yeah, they don't want people like wiping them out because they're their eggs are like $4, $3.49, $4 a dozen, which is pretty cheap.

[00:03:39] But anyway, not the point of tonight's episode to go on about carnivore diet and the price of eggs and whether Trader Joe's has eggs or not. I really did in California. So, you know. But yeah, just trying to, you know, get a little healthier, especially right before that summertime.

[00:03:54] So tonight episode is going to be a deep dive into the corruption that a super majority behests when you when you run everything in the state. There's not much you can do to push back on corruption and people getting their way. So if you're into that sort of thing, we're going to be talking about that a little bit later on.

[00:04:19] That's going to be like our main story talking about how California Democrats, because at this point it is only California Democrats are passing laws or trying to pass laws that protect and insulate themselves and benefit only themselves. We're also going to talk about the trans bill that was going to ban trans athletes in female sports that came up in the California legislature. Obviously, it didn't make it out of committee hearing. Not surprising there, but we'll watch a little video about that and comment about that.

[00:04:46] And one of the I guess you could say front runners of the California gubernatorial race, even though Xavier Bracera just jumped in. And we're going to talk about that on Tuesday night more about him, Katie Porter taking to social media sans whiteboard and regaling us with her thoughts on national politics.

[00:05:09] So we're going to start with that this week and listen to what she has to say and give our thoughts about this. And, you know, it's Katie Porter, so she's cringe. So we'll go ahead and do the stinger. You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? I think we need to get some Katie Porter sound bites as well for cringe moment of the week. Maybe we need to like diversify. Like make me angry every week.

[00:05:37] Well, that's good. Maybe it's good to like get the anger flowing. It makes for, you know, a passionate podcast. So or unhinged craziness. No, but as I mentioned, do you write before we hopped on? I don't I don't know what it is about her, Katie, that causes such an adverse reaction to me that I like I get triggered. I do. Yeah, there's something about like, well, we'll watch the video and we'll discuss because I saw this video. I was like, oh, all right. So we're already starting with this.

[00:06:06] Remember, she has formally announced she's running for governor of California. And I want to emphasize she's running for governor of California. That's a state in the United States. So let's watch what she says. Last week, Donald Trump attacked California over and over and over again. Why is Donald Trump lobbying these attacks?

[00:06:27] Because he doesn't want to look in the mirror at his own self-created problems for this country, like tariffs that are driving up costs for every American, slowing down our economy and risking higher unemployment. He doesn't want to deal with the national security crisis that his irresponsible nominees, his irresponsible cabinet officials have created with their use of signal and mishandling of classified information.

[00:06:53] And he doesn't want to deal with the anger across this country about how an unelected person is making massive spending cuts to the parts of the government that Americans depend on, including things like financial aid for students to go to college and the social security phone line so people can get the benefits they earn. And Donald Trump doesn't want to deal with the government that they're trying to do. Donald Trump doesn't want to look at any of that. So he's trying to point the finger elsewhere, but we need to point it right back at him.

[00:07:24] Okay. Right back at him. Her opening salvo. She announced what a couple weeks ago, we discussed it. Yeah. Already going after Donald Trump, because there's no issues in California that we need to worry about. Let's just go after Donald Trump and national politics and not talk about.

[00:07:48] I don't know all the issues that are happening here in California from homelessness to crime to unaffordability to the housing crisis to wildfires to insurance crisis. And that's probably just a couple right off the top of my head. But yeah, let's talk about Donald Trump and Elon Musk. What were your thoughts of this video? Because I know you have passionate thoughts about this video. Okay. Well, I would try to remain calm. Okay. So yes, she's ready for governor of California.

[00:08:17] That to me felt like a congressional ad. Which she now she is for Congress. I think she was two or three terms in Orange County, the 47th district. Perhaps her mindset is still there. I don't know. Then, of course, we saw her run for first US Senate against Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey and others.

[00:08:46] And she lost big time with that. And now she's jumping back into California governor. Um, she did not name, like you said, she did not name one California issue. Everything she named is not something that she can control or fix or have any say over as governor of California.

[00:09:10] And I just, I want to emphasize that and I'm not talking condescendingly to anybody, but I think that there are a lot of people that don't actually understand all these offices. And every talking point that she just had, and she has many such videos on her, um, on X that I went through and everything she talks about is not related to California. Yes. Those things affect Californians. Yes. Cause you know, we're all part of the United States. Absolutely.

[00:09:40] But she hasn't, she's not addressing anything. Like you said, just reiterate you, as you said, um, you know, California has. Homelessness issues. We have a housing crisis. We have wildfires that are going wild. Um, we have billions and billions in budget deficits. Um, we were kind of talking earlier this week, uh, another like friendly, I've had windows and doors open. So, you know, I get flies, um, mosquitoes, whatever.

[00:10:10] Whoa. A lot of cities in California are facing huge, huge deficits, huge deficits. Like we're talking in the hundreds of millions, some, it's a very transparent fast billions asked for billions. Um, nothing. Katie, Katie's like talking about none of these. And I don't know if she's running, like if she's actually going to maybe if Kamala Harris enters the race, she backs out and then runs for Congress again. I don't know.

[00:10:40] But none of this is California specific. And so I just, I'm like, does she not understand? Or is there a play here going on? It was interesting that she had only mentioned California once in that entire video. And the rest of it was all about Donald Trump and Elon Musk. And of course they were just broad kind of strokes about what Doge is doing and Elon Musk and cutting all these essential things.

[00:11:08] We're not going to get into that, but it's always these kind of top line arguments about Trump and this unelected bureaucrat. And, you know, which is one of the laziest arguments. Presidents have had appointed people in his cabinet that are unelected. Um, I mean, technically you don't elect the cabinet of the president of the United States. Um, but they get there and they get there through probably the Senate, but there are other people who get appointed to positions.

[00:11:34] Regardless, it's kind of like a dumb argument to be like, oh, we don't like unelected people making cuts to government. Um, you're a fan of big agencies. You're a fan of the big three letter agencies. You're a fan of the administrative state, the fourth branch of government, as I like to call it. You're a fan of all these unelected bureaucrats deciding so many things about our lives. One guy comes in and says, hey, maybe we should stop the fraud and waste and abuse here in the federal government. And all of a sudden everyone loses their mind.

[00:12:02] But yeah, to your point, it's, it's, she hasn't talked about anything related to California. And it's just her going, well, you know what you, we have to stand up to Donald Trump. Oh, okay. So is this what, is this what 2026 is going to be about? Like, is this going to be every Democrats like platform is like, I'm going to be the governor who stands up to Donald Trump. And it's like, who cares? We have so many problems here in California that like, I don't care about Donald Trump anymore.

[00:12:31] Like his policies don't really affect California in a big macro scale or in a micro scale either. Like, tell us how you're going to fix stuff. Um, and I saw this video and I was like, we have to talk about it because if this is her opening or one of her opening videos that she's recording, uh, and putting out there on her Twitter of like, I'm going to stand up to Donald Trump. And it's like, cool.

[00:12:58] Thanks for addressing any of the issues we might have here in California. Glad to know you, you're just focused on the Donald Trump. We hate Donald Trump vote. So any other thoughts? Yes, I have two thoughts on it actually. So what we don't elect a new governor for California until the end of 2026, which will come quickly. Yes, but they're going to be sworn in, in 27. Donald Trump will already be like halfway through his final term at that point.

[00:13:27] So everything like she's doing this to stand with Trump. So what then is her plan for the next two years? Like we want a four, maybe eight year plan from our next governor, you know, of again, how they're going to fix California, not social security. Um, what was my second point? I had a second point. Oh, maybe she's being strategic. Okay. Okay. Because people tend to not pay attention and you get in your quick little talking points, your sound bites and stuff.

[00:13:56] We know that when we do topics on like hating on Gavin Newsom, that's when we tend to get more attention focused on the podcast or, uh, you know, on Instagram. And we're not doing that intentionally, but Gavin Newsom rage does tend to be popular. And so it's, it's possible that she knows that Elon Musk and Trump rage will get the clicks and the views and that will get her name out there. And so it could just be a strategic move right now.

[00:14:25] And maybe eventually we will hear from her actually about California, but for now I think she's trying to, because knowing that Kamala Harris may or may not jump into this race in the next few months, she is maybe trying to get as much attention onto herself as she can before that happens. And maybe people will be excited for her, you know, so it could be a strategic move. It could be that she's dumb. Um, she's smart on paper.

[00:14:49] I'm going to tell you, she has a very impressive resume, but I constantly confused on anyone who actually thinks she's intelligent or has good talk, like has actual good points because it's like, yes, she has this impressive resume, but when it comes to what she's actually done. Oh my gosh. She has that impressive whiteboard that she loves as her gimmick. That whiteboard. I didn't bring mine today. I can't wait for her first state of the state address where she brings out a whiteboard and goes, okay, this is why California's broke.

[00:15:19] And here's an equal sign. And it, and it says Donald Trump under it. Wow. Okay. So that's why with the swastika on it. Yeah. Yeah. You know, as we discussed, leftists love their swastikas. Um, well, yeah, I, I could, I actually agree with that. That's actually a good point of like, in this social media world driven by algorithms and views and clicks and stuff like that. I'm sure Trump hate for the left is very clickable. It's very sellable.

[00:15:49] It definitely goes viral. Um, but you know, again, you're running for governor of California. Like, tell us something you're going to do about California. So. Right. Um, it'll be interesting because there will be several more. I believe there'll probably be several more high profile Democrats that are going to enter the race, whether it's Kamala Harris or not. I think they said summertime, she's going to make her decision. She's got to make her decision by summertime. Yeah.

[00:16:16] Um, I just want to remind everyone of what Katie Porter said that her, what was it? Her like 10 or 11 year old daughter came home crying that she was going to lose all her rights. When Donald Trump got a, like, she was terrified. She would feel to have an abortion someday or something. Oh yeah. Oh, that was like, I don't even think that story is true, but.

[00:16:36] It's like all those things you see on Tik Tok where people are like, and they started making fun of it where it's like my five year old came home and was like, daddy, why is Donald Trump enacting the aliens and exclusion act from 1806 and blah, blah, blah, blah. And don't you think it's unconstitutional? And this is my five year old and they get it. And it's like, no, no, no. I'll just take half the words. No, your five year old didn't come home and say that your five year old home came home and said, I ate a bug or something like that.

[00:17:06] Anyway. Um, all right. First. Healthy and that they should always eat bugs. In California. Maybe. Yeah. They're teaching you. It's time to eat the bugs, put down that steak in the animal, uh, meat and start eating all the bugs. Um, all right. First story we want to get into. So this past week there was a hearing.

[00:17:29] So going back to our school of rock days, a bill gets introduced in the legislature in one of the chambers, Senate or assembly. We have two, we have the Senate and the assembly. And this was introduced in the assembly by Bill Assaylee, who is actually moved on to the U S attorney of Los Angeles. So congratulations to Bill Assaylee on that. Um, this was introduced to ban trans athletes from engaging in female sports.

[00:17:58] When you introduce a bill, it doesn't go right to the floor and they all vote on it. It has to go to a committee hearing and then the committee decides in that tiny little committee, whether it's going to proceed or not to maybe the next committee or to a floor vote or anything like that. There's a long process. Okay. Schoolhouse rock moment out of the way. There was a committee hearing about it. And obviously being the very contentious bill that it is, especially here in California.

[00:18:24] Um, I will say this before I lose my thought on this particular point. I applaud California Republicans for introducing these high profile, high stakes bills in California, probably knowing full well that they're going to get shot down, but it makes national news.

[00:18:48] And it's been a, a good strategy thus far of this younger Republican caucus up in Sacramento, where they figured out, like, let's just introduce bills that to the rest of the nation. And seem very common sense that people would agree with make California Democrats vote it down and then it makes it to national news. And then we can go back to the voters and go, well, we tried. And look, this is how unreasonable your California Democrats are. So, uh, any thoughts before we hop into the video?

[00:19:17] Uh, no, hopping. All right, hopping. All right, let's roll. Well, after hours of passionate debate, two GOP backed bills banning transgender athletes from playing on girls sports teams, shut down in Sacramento. As capital correspondent, a time to all this reports, they were sadly rejected down party lines. Men are not women. A man who claims he is a woman is still not a woman.

[00:19:46] Transgender kids, kids that are the most vulnerable kids in our school system. And we have a responsibility to look out for all of those kids. You're listening to just a portion of the passionate debate that took place at this three hour hearing on the issue of transgender athletes. Madam secretary, please call the roll. Inside the state capital, the assembly arts, entertainment, sports and tourism committee took up two bills seeking to prohibit transgender athletes, specifically those who transitioned from male to female, from competing in girls and women's sports.

[00:20:15] The first bill, AB 89 by Republican Rancho Santa Margarita assembly member Kate Sanchez, applies specifically to high school athletes. AB 89 is about protecting women. Full stop and that's it. It is about stepping off of the sideline and onto the court or onto the field for our daughters, our sisters, our granddaughters and the future of women's sports. The second bill, AB 844 by Republican Corona assembly member Bill Asaley, applies to athletes from elementary school to the collegiate level.

[00:20:44] To protect sex based sports, to protect girls so they can have, again, their own teams so they can compete and be champions. Both bills attracting this huge crowd stretching out the committee room door. Opponents and supporters of all ages and backgrounds showing up. I'm a seventh grade athlete and I support this bill. I'm a voter and trans person and I strongly oppose this bill. I strongly support passage of this bill. Thank you. Uh, I'm just going to take a guess.

[00:21:12] The person behind that lady talking next in line, I think they're going to oppose that bill. With the face shield and the mask on. I have a feeling they're going to oppose this bill. Thank you. Fairness, dignity and safety for girls. I strongly oppose this hateful legislation. All of it coming just three weeks after Governor Gavin Newsom on his podcast shared where he stands on transgender athletes in girls and women's sports. Would you say no men and female sports?

[00:21:41] Well, I think it's an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness. So it's deeply unfair. But here, Newsom's fellow Democrats offered a different message. But safeguarding new sports isn't achieved by demonizing one of the smallest parts of the population. When there are currently more kids with measles in Texas than there are transgender athletes in the NCAA, that's the epidemic we should all be worried about. And finally, I can't emphasize this point enough.

[00:22:09] I'm not going to support a bill that takes rights away from a protected class of people. This is really reminiscent to me of what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. We are moving towards autocracy in this country. Republicans taking issue with that final remark. For standing up for common sense, we were called Nazis. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

[00:22:38] In the end though, the bills died by a party line vote. That bill fails on a 2-7 vote. At the State Capitol, Leighton Wallace, KTLA 5 News. All right. There was another video I think I was watching where Jeff Gonzalez, been on the show before, made a point of order, especially after Rick Zabury's comment about how this is kind of exactly like Nazi Germany. If you pass this bill. Exactly.

[00:23:06] He wanted to make sure it was a point of order to stay on topic. Like we're good. I'm urging my colleague to stay on topic. And he said, well, I am staying on topic. This is just like Nazi Germany. I'm not sure how banning trans genders in women's sports and protecting female athletes is quite literally just like the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

[00:23:27] But, you know, I'd love to hear Rick Zabur's detailed analysis of how that's exactly the same Nazi Germany and banning trans genders in female sports. Mind you, Rick Zabur is also the same guy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar trying to take our right away to defend ourselves in our home with our firearms and exercise our Second Amendment, which he said was misconstrued because of disinformation and lies and all that stuff. And he was going to go back and fix it and amend it. But we caught you.

[00:23:55] We knew what you were doing, Rick Zabur, of West Hollywood. So any initial thoughts on that video about the trans issue? I think what really bothered me is the comment about not taking away rights from a protected class. And I just where's the protection for women and girls?

[00:24:18] And I mean, a whole a whole part of why we argue about men, males being in women's sports is that they they are stronger than us physically. They are. And I'm not going to pretend like, OK, yes, people could be like, well, my daughter can bench like I have. So I have three daughters and it's kind of funny between my my my three sisters and I, we have 15 kids. There's a lot of cousins. They're close in age and they're very competitive with each other.

[00:24:47] And it's like a well-known fact that my daughter, my 16 year old daughter, Addison, is like stronger than all the boys her age and around her age, all the boy cousins. Like it's like a competition of like they're always like, I need to work out more because I need to bench more than she can. And like it's it's funny. She she is super strong. So, yeah, OK, you can say, well, that girl is stronger on all these boys. That's the exception. It's not it's not the general.

[00:25:16] I'm tiny, like a male could like break my bones like I'm I'm I'm too tiny. I'm not about me, but I'm let's say that I was doing like wrestling like I get snapped in half. I'm not even kidding. I could get taken down so easily in any contact sport. And my my other two girls are also tiny and that's just how we're built.

[00:25:42] And if they were playing contact sports against a male, surely they would be taken down. And then we know that men are they are superior in in physical stuff anyway. They can be better at tennis, no contact that stuff like that. And it's just women's sports came about so they can have their own sports. And I just where is the protection for these girls and women?

[00:26:07] Where is the they don't have to change in a locker room with boys, males like I just. It's especially me being female and me like I said, I have three sisters. So I grew up in a household of girls. Now I have three girls of my own. I also have a son. They're different.

[00:26:27] And when we first moved into our house that we're currently at, we actually had three bedrooms and we were we were converting like a huge attic into an attic space. Now, my son was 10 at the time. And for a bit of time, him and one of my daughters had to share room, but he was only 10. And we were like, we have to get on this because these girls, the girls and him are they're going to grow up like we can't have teenagers, you know, even preteens sharing a bedroom. That's just inappropriate.

[00:26:55] No, there's nothing weird or nefarious going on in my household, but you don't put girls in that situation. You don't put boys in that situation. Like if you can avoid the situation. I don't want anyone going up to me and being like, well, what about single moms that live in a one bedroom apartment? Like, okay. That's not what I'm talking about here. No, but it's just you don't do that. You don't do that at all. That's that's sick and slimy.

[00:27:19] And I would like to point out that Pew Research came out with a survey or a poll just recently last. What's that? Who did this? Pew Research. Okay. They came out with a poll in February. I want to say last month. It's not February anymore. It's April.

[00:27:42] A Pew Research survey finds that a majority of US adults favor or strongly favor laws and policies that require trans athletes to compete on teams match their sex assigned at birth. 66% and 56% want to ban health care professionals from providing care related to gender transition for minors. So this is an odd losing topic for Democrats generally.

[00:28:06] And I think we saw that with 2024 where for some reason we shoved that into the national spotlight and the Democrats became the party that one of their new pillars that held up the whole party was transgenderism. And you're talking about a very, very slim majority of the population. Now, biologically, this is my stance.

[00:28:27] Biologically, you can never get a surgery or take hormones that will change your genetic makeup to be from a male to a female or vice versa. There you can dress up like one. You can pretend you are one.

[00:28:48] Biologically, if we are going to follow the science, there is no way that you can do so unless we've thrown out all of the preconceived notions of gender and biology. That's just the fact. If we're if you guys are the party of science, then you are not following the science because that's what the science is. Furthermore, on the political level, I'm not sure where Democrats are going with this because this is not akin to.

[00:29:17] I feel like this is not a can. Maybe they think it is. Maybe this is where they think it's going that they think it's akin to a lot of the civil rights that maybe gay Americans were trying to fight for back in the late 70s and 80s. I feel like that's not going as well as they think it is. And it just seems like a majority of Americans are like, look, we got bigger fish to fry. We don't want this like we're not on board with this. But Democrats push it anyway.

[00:29:46] I'd be interested to see what the polling is of Californians. Californians might be a little bit more interesting depending on the sort of sample size and makeup of the poll that you take. But when most of Americans, 66 percent are in favor or not in favor, I would say in favor of banning trans athletes to compete on teams that match their sex. Where are you going with this and why are you so ardently?

[00:30:14] Why are you so early on this side? What is the point of this? And that's really what I grapple with is where are Democrats going? Are they going to perpetually just from now until forever be the party of victimhood like they're just going to have to find a new victim and slowly but surely they run out of victims. And I think I heard a quote somewhere where someone says, when you make your whole party about victims sooner or later, you run out of people to blame.

[00:30:43] And I think that's where Democrats are right now is they're running out of people to blame, because if you make everyone a victim, you start to run out of people to blame. And basically, the only people left at this point that they can blame are white, straight males like that's it. Like those are the only people they can blame anymore, because you're not going to make white, straight males victims anymore. White males. What's that? It's a weird looking white, weird looking white males. Yeah. You know, as someone pointed out, I was a weird looking white male on this show.

[00:31:14] I'm not I'm just not sure politically where this is. Is this just a red herring where they're going? You know, look over here. Look at this social issue. Don't look at the fact that we, you know, lost two billion dollars in Los Angeles for homeless suspending. Just just on homeless suspending two billion dollars. We've lost almost suspended. I don't know. But if that's where Democrats are and that's their whole thing, even people like Bill Maher coming out after this point going like, look, you got to get off this transgender thing. Like people just don't care. They don't support it. Like we got bigger fish to fry.

[00:31:43] And I know Bill Maher is like, it's funny how Bill Maher was. I he's been basically the same Democrat his whole life. It's just the party has shifted so much. Right. That he he's like out of lockstep with the current Democratic Party. I'm not sure where they're going with this. What do you think? Where do you think they're going with this? Yeah, that's a good question. I haven't really thought about that before. Like you just brought up the gay marriage thing to your point.

[00:32:10] It's it's a completely different issue, even though they're trying to kind of align it with like, look, they didn't have rights and, you know, we need to fight for the rights. But gay marriage is between two adults, you know, the sports thing to consensual adults.

[00:32:30] Girl sports, it's between girls who are likely opposed to fighting against or with, you know, boy slash male slash man. And that's not consensual. It's totally different topic, totally different issue. You know what you adults decide to do in their personal life is so different.

[00:32:54] And and as I've said before, like a trans person who wants to actually like transition. Going back to the whole like we should not be transitioning children, you know, let their let their brains in their bodies develop before. Before and then when they're actually an adult and can make this decision for themselves a little bit older. I mean, we've kind of compared it to like LASIK surgery.

[00:33:19] I had LASIK at 21 years old and that was the age they recommended at the time, which was 20 something years ago. And I think now they say 25 or 26 because your eyes aren't fully developed. And so they like it's not a law, but that's what they recommend. They're like, hey, if you're going to get this done, wait till you're like 25, 26 years old, because then we can really go in and, you know, do what's best for your eyes. And so this is like just the case with transgender.

[00:33:46] I am not trying to wipe transgender people off the map. I am not saying that they are not people and that they are not human and that they like, yes, they're among us in society. Absolutely. But we should not be hurting other people just to give them some superior edge, superiority protection, whatever. Like that's that's weird. That's what I don't get here is that we're saying they have their rights and they need to be protected. And we're going to like there are priority versus hey, what about the girls? What about the young women?

[00:34:16] Like that's where it gets weird to me. No, the consent, the I think the consent point is great because when someone on a female athlete in high school or elementary school signs up to be a part of a team, whatever team that is, volleyball, swimming, whatever. They consent because they are aware that the parameters are I'm going to be on a team with other girls.

[00:34:40] And then you break that parameter and that assumption of you are consenting to a certain parameter of what it's going to be. And then you introduce a factor that they were not expecting and they did not agree to. Right. It'd be like if you went into I'm trying to think of this might be a bad example, but imagine if you just like walked into a fast food place and you were like, you know, you walked into in and out and you're like, I'm going to walk into in and out because I want a burger.

[00:35:10] And I consent to the fact that I'm going to pay a certain amount of money for a burger, fries and a shake. And you walk in and you go to the cashier and the cashier is like, OK, I'll be great. And then they reach across and punch you in the face and you go, well, I didn't consent to being punched in the face. And it's like, well, that's my right because I'm a certain way. And I feel like I should be able to punch you in the face. Maybe it's not a perfect example, but the idea is you did not consent to be a part of a transaction or something where you get punched in the face.

[00:35:39] And a lot of times these female athletes are getting hurt, like physically hurt because let's you brought it up before. There is a difference in biology and male strength compared to female strength. And when a trans woman goes up to spike a ball with their strength and hits a female girl, a female athlete in the face, these girls are suffering from like dislocated eye sockets, concussions.

[00:36:08] They're getting like their nose broken, like and this is OK. So we're sacrificing the rights and safety of one student to make another student feel better about themselves. And that's where I think people look at this and go, this is where we draw the line because you're no longer just being yourself. We're fine with you. You want to be yourself. You want to do what you want to do and change your name and do this lifestyle. That's you. But now you're harming other people.

[00:36:38] And then it goes even farther of there's an issue of when they're in the locker room and people on the left will always say, oh, you're making a big deal out of this. I'm like, I don't care if it is. It seems like a big deal if a genetic man is exposing himself. Two girls in a locker room. And these girls did not consent to being exposed to by a biological man who is in the middle of transitioning.

[00:37:06] So, yes, to your point, for some reason we have or the Democrats have. We haven't done it. I mean, we don't we're not pushing these policies, but the Democrats have elevated this theory that if one transgender wants to participate in high school sports or elementary school sports, their one right trumps the 25 or so other people on that team.

[00:37:35] And that's basically what they're saying is we don't care about all these other people, what they think. It's just this one person. And I guess I'm still coming back to the point of like, where are you going with this? You've protected that one person. And you've potentially I mean, this is just politically. I'm trying to figure out why they're doing this. You've you've protected that one person.

[00:38:00] But politically, you've probably alienated not only those kids in that locker room who, you know, voting age is 18. So if they're in high school, they're not far off from making this an important issue in their life when they go to the voting booth. But the parents as well, like their families. So now you're ostracizing or alienating those potential voters. And possibly voters that are connected to them.

[00:38:29] So I'm just not sure where they're going with this. I know there's the you know, the what what do I like to call them now? There's the limousine liberals and the cul-de-sac commies. I don't think I've ever heard that. I heard that. I want to give credit where it was. I think it was somewhere else. I heard it. I like the cul-de-sac commies because it's more general. Nobody drives around in limousines anyway. But cul-de-sac commies makes more sense.

[00:38:54] You know, the the affluent, you know, liberal white woman living in the cul-de-sac who feels like she has to have a cause or something like maybe they're fine with it and they support it and they love it. But I don't know. Well, politically, I just don't know where they're going with this. So kudos to the California Republicans for pressing the issue. Their strategy definitely seems to be put your money where your mouth is and let's get it on the rolls. Let's get your name down there and let's hear your thoughts.

[00:39:24] Now, people like Rick Zabur, he'll never be voted out in West Hollywood. But idiotic comments like that may change how people feel in different districts. Literally Hitler. Literally Hitler. Yeah. Hitler. Like middle school and high school girls are going through the biggest body transitions of their lives. But literally Hitler for not allowing boys in the locker rooms with them, you know? Yeah.

[00:39:51] It's that's that was part of the bill was we. Literally Hitler kept males and females separate. In the concentration camps, they were quite literally separated. So I saw something this week that was pretty sending me a point about like the whole literally Hitler thing. Like you got to give up in the literally Hitler thing because it gets to a point where it gets so absurd of like, I'm like, okay, you know, Hitler loved. Yeah. And I was Sunday morning strolls. Do you love Sunday morning strolls? I've heard. You're literally Hitler.

[00:40:21] Literally Hitler. Do you like do you like a little sweet treat after dinner? Oh, so did Hitler. Hitler loved sweet treats. You know what that means? It gets to a point where it just gets ridiculous. You can't compare everything to Nazi Germany and Hitler. Okay. Let's just stop. Literally Hitler. Literally Hitler. All right. Any other thoughts on on this bill? I mean, it's dead. So there's not really anywhere else. Yeah, unfortunately.

[00:40:50] But like you said, kudos to the Republicans for, you know, continuously bringing attention to these issues, especially in California where we do kind of just let anything fly. Like it's just. This is an issue that might be ripe for and it'd be interesting to follow as a proposition.

[00:41:14] It'd be interesting if someone out there decided, well, I'm sure it'll collect a whole bunch of signatures or pretend he's going to collect a whole bunch of signatures. They'll never get on the ballot, but he'll raise a lot of money talking about how he's going to do it. But no, I think it would be an interesting issue to raise up to Californians and then see how Californians vote and then send Democrats into a tizzy if Californians actually support banning trans athletes from female sports or, you know, whatever.

[00:41:44] I keep saying female sports because it only seems to go one way. Yeah, it is majority for sure. I mean, I'm sure there. Yeah, I'm sure I'm going to be like, oh, there's examples of female. I feel like it's always going one way. It's always males going into female sports because they get the better advantage going into the female sports. And it's never the other way around. So, all right. Next topic. Like I said at the top of the show.

[00:42:13] If you love getting angry about how the California Democratic supermajority is doing everything in their power to benefit themselves, hide from public view and basically use California as their own piggy bank to enrich themselves and gain more power. However, you're going to love this segment because I read this article and, you know, we read a lot of news. We have a shared show notes that like I'll throw stuff in and be like, oh, this is material for another episode.

[00:42:42] Let me get back to it. And I was like, oh, let's cover this this article. And I was doing more research on it. This is from Cal matters, one of our favorite sources. The more I read about it, I was literally in my office by myself or in the studio here by myself going, what the F? Like, you got to be kidding me. Like these this story got more and more wild as we as I cross reference what was going on here. So let me pull it up really quick.

[00:43:12] I have a thousand tabs open. This is one of those days where I have a thousand tabs open. So bear with me as I bop back and forth. It's always such a relief after the podcast when we can go back and close all the tabs. Like it's like because all our tabs are like just like the screen is like filled with and then it's like. You just see the logos. That's how bad it is. You just see like. Like it's like. So so for some reason, I keep mine open for a while.

[00:43:40] I don't know if it's for like later video editing or something like that. But although Google Chrome has come out with a new feature, which is kind of really nice is that you can do tab groups now. So you can group things into tabs and like. Oh, I think I haven't used it. OK. It's good. So you can just be like, oh, this is stuff I'm not going to use on the podcast. So just close that, you know, those 15 tabs that I also feel like I like text you everything that I ever like every link ever.

[00:44:09] So I'm like, I can just go back to my history. It's one of those things where it's like, I maybe he's not going to read it now, but I'm just going to send it so that later on. I can go back to finding. OK, so this is from Cal Matters. It is entitled Democracy in the Dark, how California lawmakers are trying to shield themselves from public view.

[00:44:32] At town halls across the nation, including California residents, have confronted their members of Congress face to face to voice their fears and frustrations over Trump administration policies from cuts to overseas aid to Medicare. Meanwhile, lawmakers in the state legislature have introduced about a dozen proposals that would make it harder to confront your local officials at public meetings and would shield more information from the public eye, according to an analysis of Cal Matters digital democracy database.

[00:45:00] The bills follow a streak of California officials attempt to shroud themselves in secrecy. Senator Roger Nielo, a Republican from Roseville, has contended that interacting with constituents in person makes a difference. There's nothing more thrilling for a local elected official than having constituents exercise their right to yell and scream at you, he said in 2023, opposing a proposal that allows neighborhood councils in Los Angeles to meet remotely until 2026.

[00:45:29] Since the pandemic, California has relaxed its once strict rules that require officials to be physically present at public meetings. Instead, they've carved out more exceptions so that advisory board members can meet remotely and public officials can avoid disclosing their whereabouts when they appear virtually.

[00:45:46] Supporters of these efforts say they modernize the state's opening open meeting rules, arguing that allowing members more remote access boosts public participation, cuts costs, protects officials in privacy and grants more flexibility in emergencies. Quote, public officials must be accountable. They should be required to attend in person, ensuring that the public can see them, speak to them directly, hold them responsible for decisions that impact their communities.

[00:46:11] Dora Rose, deputy director of the League of Women Voters of California, told legislators at a recent hearing. Dora Rose, deputy director of the League of Women Voters of California, which is a recent hearing, said in person, the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the state agency policing ethics and campaign violation, finance violation is sponsoring AB 755 to give officials more time to disclose funds they raise for other groups.

[00:46:39] Those funds are called behested payments, typically donations to a nonprofit or government agency that come at a politician's behest. Critics say the donations allow special interests to curry favor with politicians. Since 2011, state officials have reported raising more than $505 million in behested payments, with Newsom single handedly raising more than $200 million from corporations in 2020. Okay.

[00:47:08] So for people who are kind of like, wait, what is this? It's like, if I'm describing it, it's basically, let's take Gavin Newsom because he's very good at this. A politician goes to a corporation and says, you should donate to this government agency or this nonprofit. I'm not sure why you'd want to, who's donating to a government agency?

[00:47:37] That doesn't really make any sense. Isn't that what taxes are for? Why are you? That was unclear to me as well. Like, why are we strong arming corporations to give over money to government agencies? It seems if it seems unsightly and sketchy. It's because it is. It is very odd that we have this on the books where politicians can go to corporations and go, hey, nudge, nudge.

[00:48:04] Why don't you donate to this corporation over here? And, you know, I think it'd be really good if you donate to this corporation. Like, okay. And if the governor of California, like Gavin Newsom, is coming to your office going or calling you up and going, hey, you should donate to this government agency or this corporation. Why would you not do that? Because if you're a corporation, don't you want to get in good with the governor of the state?

[00:48:29] And if they're personally calling you, I'm not really sure what the purpose of this is, if I'm being completely honest. Like, somehow get somebody to donate to this corporation and this corporation somehow donates to something that then donates back to the politicians. And so they're keeping money for their causes. I don't know. That's me speculating. But there just has to be something like that going on, which I guess we'd call money laundering.

[00:48:58] Yeah, I'm sure. I have a feeling in our 300 episodes, we've probably discussed this, but for some reason it's escaping me. I'm pretty sure there was like some issues of like Newsom donate or asked for $200 million from different corporations. And they went to nonprofits or government agencies that had like a direct. Was this the whole thing with him going to Cabo? Was that the whole thing? Remember when he went to Cabo during COVID? It was a great walking trip, but then that one? Right. Yeah, yeah.

[00:49:28] It was like $5,000 for whale watching or I don't know. It wasn't whale watching and then it wasn't government funded, but then it was a nonprofit. And like the story kept changing and nobody really knows what happened. Yeah. And it just went away in our news cycle. That usually happens. If you just last long enough, if you just tread water long enough, sooner or later the story goes away. Absolutely. The news cycle, just something else comes up. It just turns over.

[00:49:56] That's what was with the female sports issue. You're like, what is their point here politically? Maybe because they all want us to talk about that. And I'm not even, I'm becoming that person, but I'm not that person that's like, but what's the real story? This is the distraction, but I swear I'm becoming that person now. Maybe that was a distraction. And they're like, because they don't want us to look at the other stuff. Which would be odd because it'd be like saying the California Republicans started this distraction. Yeah.

[00:50:25] Cue the X-Files theme. But if the Democrats can oppose it so strongly, then I don't know. Yeah. Maybe generally like the whole transgender issue is so you get focused on that. Well, I mean, that's a big argument about politics now anyways. Yeah. They make you scream and yell at each other about cultural points while they go, you know, raid the treasury and send money over to the Philippines. Like I would love to believe that politics is black and white, but it's not. It's just.

[00:50:53] It's no, I, you know, I'd like, I'd love politics to go back to, uh, you know, Hey, this road needs some fixing. Can we vote on that? Okay. Great meeting everybody. Thanks. And that's it. Like, that's the end of, that's all we need to really care about. Um, we don't need to have all these cultural issues in all of our politics.

[00:51:12] Uh, the legislation introduced by assembly member, Mike Fong, a Democrat from Alhambra would give lawmakers up to roughly 120 days to disclose the payments, making it harder for voters to know who is influencing their lawmakers in real time. Commission spokesperson, Sherry Yang told Cal matters. The current filing period is too short and extending it improves efficiency. All right.

[00:51:34] Well, I have an issue with that because I don't care if it's hard that you have to report this within 30 days. If you're asking corporations to donate money to certain places to curry political favor, I want to know about that as soon as possible. I don't, I think 120 days is way too long. What's that? Four months. Yeah.

[00:52:01] And if you do that in an election cycle, it's like, well, cool. Like, no, like we just said, new cycles turn over quickly unless we know about it right away. People could be elected by the time this stuff comes out. They could do stuff literally, I don't know, three months and two weeks before they have to file this and then they get elected and then it comes out afterwards. And you're like, oh, I wish I'd known this right before the election. That would have been helpful. Yeah.

[00:52:27] It feels like that could get really messy too with lawsuits because it's like, well, this only just happened to last week or the week before we didn't have all the information. And now we're finding out I wouldn't have voted that way or whatever. And it just kind of feels like then it's going to be like, we're going to be going around accusing all of our politicians of getting in under shady terms. And like, it just feels like, like politics is messy and it's just as another layer of mess in my opinion.

[00:52:54] But before you go too far, I want to go back to when you first started reading this article and the remote stuff. Yeah. Okay. On the one hand, I do see how meeting in person and you, you know, allowing the public to show up and the public can be very distracting. Absolutely. Absolutely. However, the public has a right to this and these people's salaries are paid by the public. Like, I think you always have to keep that in mind that, Hey, we pay your salaries. We can get rid of you.

[00:53:23] I under recall, not like in the trunk, but not, you know, like, we always have to add that legal disclaimer. Cause you never know who's out there and be like, Whoa. Things. And so I just. Camille from California underground advocates violence against elected officials. I just mean, we can recall you. We can choose to not reelect you. Those, those sorts of things like or salary is paid for by us. And we voted you in.

[00:53:51] We have the power to remove you. Um, and my demon cat. So they, okay. So I do understand the argument though, of like the public showing up and being very distracting and then things can't necessarily get done. But I forget who was on. We had a guest on who was in the assembly, I believe. And he mentioned to us that they have state issued cars. Cause you know, they're from all over California. Then they have to go to Sacramento and they have to get around and they all have.

[00:54:19] And he said something like it's too at a Camry, but. And I don't know what all the ins and outs of that are like, are they responsible for paying for the insurance on it? I doubt it. I'm sure that's California doing that. Um, maybe gas, maybe they're responsible for the gas or, uh, I don't know if it's an electric vehicle. Um, that'd be funny if it's not, but. If they're not going to be meeting in person, we need to start, uh, lowering their salary and pulling back on some of these state funded things such as a car.

[00:54:48] Like if you can't go in and work in person, then, okay, we need to, you know, like you don't have as many, um, advantages. That's not the word benefits. You don't get as many benefits. Second of all, um, if you can't handle the pushback, you don't belong in office.

[00:55:09] And that's something that I like to repeatedly point out because as someone who has had actual candidates and politicians cry over like things. I mean, I'm just going to say Kimberly Klasick freaked out because I knew used her name in a reel last week. Kimberly Klasick is all the way in Maryland and has run for Congress like two or three times. And anything that I say has no bearing on her election. I cannot vote for her. Like I've never tried to sway her election, but because I used her name in a reel that went viral, she.

[00:55:38] She literally went and posted on my page demanding. I give her my address so that we can meet up. And, uh, I mean, she was like, Oh, in the comments, everyone telling her just how ghetto that was. But it's like, if you cannot handle people pushing back on you, confronting you, calling you out, then you have, you have no business being in political office. None at all, because you are there for the people and the people are going to push you to do things for them.

[00:56:06] They're going to get angry when you do things that they don't agree with. Like, that's how this goes. And so if you, if you seriously are just like, Oh, you work remote because people like, Oh, like, no, then go get a different job. Mm hmm. Yeah. If you can't, I mean, it's the stupid saying if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. But, uh, part of the purpose of being a public servant is you have to face the public.

[00:56:34] Um, if, if there was a lot of videos, especially down here in San Diego for the County supervisor meetings where they get, they get pretty rowdy and I think they should get rowdy. And I honestly think they should, because like, I understand there's a point of decorum and this and that, and they use the decorum and the bailiffs and the sheriffs and the sergeant at arms to drag people out. But you know what?

[00:56:58] I think, I think public officials should face the voters and, you know, get a little concerned about like, these people are angry at me, you know? And again, we're not advocating like they should be scared because like their safety or livelihood disclaimer. We're talking about like, if, if, you know, someone of a corporation got called into a shareholders meeting or a board of directors meeting, like, okay, you have to answer to the shareholders in government.

[00:57:27] You have to answer to the voters and you can be scared that like, people are not happy with what you're doing. And that may result in you losing your job. So I think there is benefit to public officials being a little bit scared of the people. And they have to face them like, okay, you got to go to these public meetings and listen to people yell at you.

[00:57:49] That's, you know, that was the big cultural shift in 1776 was this idea of we can yell at our government now, as opposed to before. Whereas if you yelled at the government, they like hung you in the square, put you in the stocks or something. Yeah. I mean, this is classic example of where, Hey, no taxation without representation. Yeah. Literally the basis of our country was we should have a voice in government. And if you don't let us talk to you, then how are we going to have a voice in government?

[00:58:19] And my concern is when you squelch people's speech, people don't stop talking about stuff. They find other dark corners of the world to go talk about this stuff. And that's how you get radicalized people. And that's always my concern is like people don't seem to realize that tamping down speech about anything. I mean, any topic only creates people to go to dark corners, usually of the internet or something and get more radicalized on an issue.

[00:58:49] And then you have a bigger problem on your hands. And again, I'm not threatening people saying you got to watch out for radicals. I'm saying this is the truth about what happens in our world. Yeah. And for those of us who want to confront government, absolutely. There's a way to be passionate and angry and all the things without going overboard, being violent, making threats, that sort of thing. It's like, you know, make your voice heard. Absolutely. Yeah. You know, be an adult. Make your voice heard. Talk about the issue.

[00:59:19] Don't scream at them that you're going to run over them with your car or something. That's not proper. There's that guy who was always at the San Diego County Board of Supervisors meeting. He became like pseudo internet famous with the long hair who was always like screaming at all these meetings. They put like metal music under him. I heard he's a really nice guy, actually, through. I think a lot of these people that, of course, they get the attention. They get what's shown all over social media. And of course, it's like the greasy wheel. The squeaky wheel gets the grease sort of situation.

[00:59:49] A greasy wheel doesn't squeak at all. No, the greasy wheel. But then when you actually are around them in person and meet them in person outside of those kind of events, you're like, wait, you're normal. Why do you go in and act so crazy? So, I mean, we see that on both sides. This first bill, this was one of those bills that literally while I was researching this morning by myself here in the studio,

[01:00:17] I literally said to myself, well, my dog was sitting here as well. So maybe I wasn't by myself. What the F? The article goes on. Also seeking to relax the state campaign's ethics rules is SB 300 by Senator Steve Padilla, a Chula Vista Democrat. Public officials wouldn't have to recuse themselves if they are making policies that would boost the membership of organizations they're part of,

[01:00:46] such as unions or chambers of commerce. So when I was reading this, I thought to myself, okay, I got to cross-reference who this guy is. So let me pull this up real quick. Steve Padilla. And we're going to check with our number one, one of our top favorite sites. Let me see if I can pull this up. And you can go, anybody can go.

[01:01:16] It's followthemoney.org. You don't need a subscription or anything like that. So I was like, huh, that's interesting. I mean, we already know unions are very popular in California and they have a lot of control and a lot of say. And I thought to myself, why would he be so concerned about boosting membership for unions? And you go to follow the money and oh, look at that. Oh, his top 10 donors.

[01:01:45] State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, Domestic Workers Local 3930, California Teachers Association, SEIU, California State Council, California State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Council of Laborers, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Consumer Attorneys of California, California Dental Association, and California Medical Association. The top 10 biggest donors to this guy are all unions. I'm sure you're shocked.

[01:02:15] Surprise. Surprise. He introduced a bill where now as a elected member of our legislature, they would be able to make policies so that they can increase the membership of unions. Forget chambers of commerce. They don't have as much control as unions, but unions who run the state. If you want any more concrete evidence that the unions are in complete control of California,

[01:02:44] this might be it. This might be it. They're trying to pass this so that, sure, now the legislature can increase our union role and we'll make more money. So, do you have any thoughts on this particular bill? Surprise, surprise. What was that? Surprise, surprise. Surprise, surprise. Unions control and destroy America. No.

[01:03:14] They had a use. They had a use. That's one of my very far right beliefs for a long time. And obviously California. They really do have way too much control over politics. Unions, you start following the money and you realize that unions are pretty much in almost everything. Everything that is not good.

[01:03:40] And, you know, you read American history and back in the day, unions were necessary for a time for certain things. Absolutely. But now they're trying to unionize everything. And it's fast food officially unionized. And now they have that minimum wage that keeps increasing. And like now we're seeing that food places are closing. It's been about a year now. It has been a year. Unions did that.

[01:04:04] But they're the reason that your fast food in California is now much higher and why you have less employees. And so it takes longer for you to get your food and your favorite fast food joint around the corner closed because unions pushing their policies onto you. I think they're still trying to unionize Starbucks, which Starbucks has not given in yet.

[01:04:28] But, yeah, whenever you see any of these people introduce these bills that you kind of look at sideways and go, hmm, that's interesting. I mean, I know you're bought and paid for by unions, but why would you? Oh, all your top donors are unions. Got it. Got to keep that money coming in. Got to keep that money coming in. Not the people. Not the people. Not the people of California. You got to make sure those unions are taken care of.

[01:04:55] And they'll respond, well, unions are the people of California. Really? I don't know a lot of people. I don't know anybody who's actually in a union. But I wonder how many people are actually a part of a union. I actually know a lot of people who are a part of a union just because there's so many jobs that require you to be in the union.

[01:05:19] And I know that they've since passed laws that you can kind of like some specific unions you don't have to donate dues to. Like you're part of their pay. I don't know because I don't know enough about unions after I just told you their story in America. I don't know enough about them. But I do know a lot of people in them.

[01:05:39] And then, like, you know, in California, the teachers union that Rebecca Friedrichs fought for and exposed, you know, that you don't actually have to give your teacher dues to these teacher unions. So teachers can opt out. There's that option. But I'm not sure about, you know, so like our sanitation workers, our trash men, they're in a union. Most grocery store workers of large chains, they're unionized.

[01:06:06] Anything to do with a factory in California that has heavy machinery that, you know, you can be injured by, I think that's required unions. So you might actually know. A lot of, like, the bigger plumbing companies, they're in unions. Yeah. I had to. We still don't have an official word on what the verb of this is, but I grokked it.

[01:06:34] As of 2023, California had 2.5 million union members. That's a lot. It's definitely a lot considering our elections are what? How many people voted in the last election? That was my exact thoughts went there. How many people actually vote? It's kind of whatever. But, like, I think in the last, like, in 2022, for the state, I want to say it was, was it 7 million? No, that's how many votes that Gavin got. And then, like, Dolly got, like, 5, 6 million. We just talked about that.

[01:07:04] It got, like, over 4 million. Out of the entire population, that's 6.4% of Californians are in a union. Which, that's everybody. It is a lot. Yeah. All right. Next bill, continuing on with the article that, let's pull this back up.

[01:07:32] AB 359 by San Bernardino Democrat James Ramos would allow the state campaign finance commission to stop reporting on its enforcement of local ethics rules. Again, it's one of these things where you look at and you go, huh. Why would you want us to, why would you want us to not know? Towards Kamal Harris's cloud, I'm hoping it has the answer.

[01:08:00] Why would you not want our ethics board to tell the people what ethics violations you've had? Oh, because you were hit with an ethics violation complaint over your advocacy of the United States Forest Service land trade with San Manuel. Surprise, surprise. Surprise, surprise.

[01:08:22] Assemblyman James Ramos is the target of an ethics complaint after he used his authority as a California state legislature to push the United States Forest Service to take action that a number of San Bernardino County residents, including a cross-section of Ramos' own constituents, believe will benefit him financially. Absolutely. Um, here we go. Uh, I'm not going to get into the details, but it has something to do with the swap of like tribe that would take over the land.

[01:08:50] By taking control of the land and question the tribe, which is considered a sovereign nation that is not subject to overriding U.S. law. California law and California water law could dam or otherwise divert water with a future value running into the hundreds of millions of dollars and use it for its own purposes.

[01:09:08] While simultaneously denying those downstream users in the watershed access to that water, Ramos is a member of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and was formally, before he embarked on his political career, first as a member of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisor and now as an assemblyman, the San Manuel Tribal Leader. Oh, okay.

[01:09:34] Now, I don't think that it's illegal for him to be on these things while also being in the assembly, but shouldn't it be illegal? Like, like, shouldn't we make that like, hey, if you're going to go be this public servant, you kind of need to step down from these other things that could be, you know, possible, which again, we have the form 700 because you're supposed to show like, you know, possible, like, hey, I'm involved in this.

[01:10:01] So this could be, you know, this, this could look bad. I'm trying to thought, but it's almost like at this point, like if you're going to sign up, not that you sign up, but you know what I mean? If you sign up to be in office, then those things should maybe you don't get to do those other things for those years. Like it's kind of one or the other. Because I mean, I'm a fan of anybody who's listening to the show.

[01:10:28] Obviously, I'm a fan of lowering all restrictions and regulations on citizens. I'm a fan of adding as many regulations and restrictions on our public officials as possible. Right. Which is also like why we had a constitution.

[01:10:44] Yeah, you shouldn't be the fact that it gets this far, you can financially benefit from stuff that you're, you're involved in through your connections has gotten way too far. It means you're not a public servant anymore. It means you're serving yourself. Or you just shouldn't be allowed to advocate on behalf of those extra things within the assembly.

[01:11:09] I mean, sure, the way it works, you could have a, you know, your friend in the assembly advocate for it. But you yourself maybe shouldn't be allowed to. I know in my profession that if there is a whiff of conflict, a judge will recuse themselves from the case. Just like a small, just like the smallest thing in the world. Judge will be like, nope, can't hear this case, got to recuse myself and they get a whole new judge. Good. But that's how it should be. And it should be the same way for our public officials.

[01:11:39] They should be recusing themselves from anything they could get a financial interest out of. Right. And the fact that this guy is trying to pass a law that would get rid of violations like the one he got caught for. And the reporting on that should worry a lot of Californians about. I don't hear Katie Porter talking about these issues.

[01:12:05] Hey, Katie Porter, how do you feel about rampant corruption in our legislature? Do you care to comment about that and how you're going to stop this Democratic supermajority? Yeah. I really want to highlight that I am not opposed to people making money. But let's say that you are, you know, you're in the Assembly or Senate and you write a book. And you have every right to make, you know, infinite dollars off of that book.

[01:12:32] But if you somehow try to pass a bill that like it's required reading in state schools. And that's a problem. Buy the book. That's weird. Yeah. That's an issue. I have a big issue with that. But, you know, a lot of these bills, it took me. And for all the listeners out there who think we have some special power or something, it's not that hard. You know, you look at this stuff. You Google their name.

[01:13:00] I literally just Googled Jorge Ramos ethics violation. It was the first thing that came up. I was like, oh, shocker. That's why. People into unions. OK, got it. Going on with the article under Democratic Assembly member of Avalino Valencia's proposed AB 1029.

[01:13:28] Elected officials would have to report if they own cryptocurrency. OK, but, you know, again, we're allowing people to get away with ethics violations. I would have to read more on that one because that's weird. Yeah, that's a personal private thing. Like, I guess. Again, I just think you have a right to make money. If you go into the assembly owning 10 rental properties, like that's. That's your right.

[01:13:56] You know, if you somehow get the government to pay for them. If you pass a bill that makes it even more profitable to own those, that may be an issue. But I think that that could be fettered out. But that I'm not sure that's like that's like a crumb of accountability compared to the two bills we just discussed where they're trying to hide ethics violations and also benefit their union donors. Like those are huge things.

[01:14:21] And they're trying to focus on this tiny little speck of like, oh, well, we'll focus on the people who own cryptocurrency. Yeah. And it kind of goes back to so that we've discussed so many times about there's there's too many bills. And now they're writing bills to protect themselves. That's not for the people. Because this is like literally not for like, what are you even doing? Right. And how how did those two bills? Yeah, you nailed it. What are those two bills have to do with helping the people of California?

[01:14:50] You were elected to help the people of California. Those two bills are quite clearly to help elected officials, not the people of California. In fact, it hurts the people of California because makes you less accountable. Right. DeMaio. You know, one of our favorite Republicans in the assembly. One of our favorite politicians in California is reintroducing an idea to create an independent office to help people fight public records denials.

[01:15:18] Newsom vetoed a similar bill in 2023 saying it was unnecessary and costly. Yeah. Yeah. Because if you have a public records request denied, you have to sue over it and that can get a little pricey. Then where I haven't read into this one. What are we thinking on this? We don't like Carl DeMaio, but that doesn't mean everything he does is horrible. So. Right. There's a lot of stuff he's done here in San Diego and is still doing.

[01:15:47] And we might get into that next week. Stuff that he has been doing that has hurt the San Diego Republican Party. That's my opinion. If I get a letter from a certain attorney saying that's defamation, I'll tell you what you can do with that letter. But anyway. Yeah. He's done a lot of stuff to hurt. I mean, an independent office to help people fight. The details of it are like, okay, who appoints these people?

[01:16:14] So if it's the Democratic legislature, who cares? Like you haven't done anything. Right. Who are these people who get on there and how do they get on there? That's what I always go back to. It's like, okay, yes, we want transparency. We want honesty and all that. But we don't. We also want smaller government. And we don't want these constant new agencies just for. Like that makes larger government, you know. And like you said, who's going to elect these positions? Who's appointing these positions?

[01:16:43] So who do we trust? Like it's supposed to be independent. But is anything within the government really independent? No. And that's where I do get. It's like, okay, I like the idea. Yes. But do I really want the outcome? Right. He also introduced a bill to the legislature that would prohibit state lawmakers from entering into most non-disclosure agreements related to their decision making. Agree. This was actually Joe Patterson introduced.

[01:17:13] There should not be any non-disclosure agreements that have to do with people. Anything to do with the governor or government. Yeah. That's very straightforward. There was a video. So in keeping with the whole idea of transparency, I got to pull up this video. The speaker of the assembly, Robert Rivas. He has not spoken to Capitol Press Corps in nearly three months.

[01:17:42] So for all the people who scream about transparency and democracy, democracy is dying in the darkness here in California because they're not talking to us and they're trying to make it harder for us to even figure out what's going on. So this is a video from Daniela Pardo. Mr. Speaker, we have questions.

[01:18:12] The classic speaker. I'm on the phone. I'm sorry. You talked to me. I'm sorry. I'm on the. I don't want people to fall. Let's not run, please. Ashley Zavala right at the front.

[01:18:29] We worry about the Trump administration every day.

[01:19:03] Mr. Speaker, do you agree with the governor's comments? Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we haven't spoken to you since January 9th. They got the door closed all of them. Yeah. No response from Speaker Rivas. But he had to check for a phone call. The fake phone call, which he took for like 10 seconds. It was so blatant of like, I'm going to pull the whole. I'm sorry. I'm on a phone call right now, even though you could see my home screen.

[01:19:33] Yes. Hello. I'm just trying to distract from the fact that the press is trying to ask me questions and be accountable for my job. Okay. I don't. First off, applaud people like Danielle Pardo and Ashley Zavala, who are there actually pushing back on these politicians, because I think we need people need to see this more and more and more like how much Sacramento because they are drunk on power with their super majority. They just they just don't care.

[01:20:02] They feel like they don't have to speak for the people. So kudos to them. Daniel Pardo. I'm going to give her a follow right now just for watching that video. Not talking to him. And then the only thing he said is obviously we're always worried about the Trump administration. And again, here we go back to blaming Trump about everything. You had brought this up like right before the show that he has a brother and his brother

[01:20:31] is somewhere in this long line of tabs that I got Rick Rivas, who is the I guess he's the power behind him. He's the power behind the throne. And yeah, he so he works on the American Beverage Association and I pulled this up again. Follow the money. Go right ahead. You guys can all look follow the money.org. Great site.

[01:21:00] They had donated something like $40 million to different people. This is as a contributor, $40 million quickly. And I might be incorrect because because literally only just found. Well, actually, I was like, I think I was reading this in bed at like midnight last night and then close the tab and forgot about it and had to refine it. But it kind of sounds like he's he's got a little bit of lobbying going on and that he

[01:21:30] was able to donate to a lot of assembly members that would basically vote for his brother, the now speaker of the house. Like it feels like there was a bit of bribery going on. Yeah, his brother confirmed a speaker. I would say that he's very powerful. He's got this American Beverage Association. He's also on the govern. What was the other thing I found? Govern California.

[01:22:00] It's on the Postal Commission. Oh, wow. The Coastal. Govern for California. $3 million. We only just started talking about this at like, like 20, 30 minutes before we hopped on. And so this is definitely something that we're going to have to follow up on. And when I say I was paraphrasing that article, I want to say that that was what the article was saying. That wasn't like me saying that because again, I don't want to get sued for these things. Those are, those are just some of the rumors, allegations that they're saying regarding the money.

[01:22:28] But I really do have to follow up on this and I have notes too. Like it's like, this could be an entire episode of what we're kind of diving into, but we only really started diving into it shortly before we hopped on here. So, so we only have partial information here. Uh, Lorena Gonzalez is one of the people who benefited from the American beverage association. A lot of people from California. But she's the head of what union?

[01:22:56] She's the, isn't she the head of the national or statewide? Yeah. Something like that. Like she's like the big, the big honcho about all that. Um, so this guy who's being propped up by his brother doesn't want to answer the press. They want to make it harder to appear in public. They want to make it harder for the officials to appear in public.

[01:23:23] And while you're not paying attention, you know, they're trying to get this stuff done in the best. Well, not the best of times, but in times where we can still figure out what's going on, they're trying to pass these laws that benefit them, whether they can increase union membership or avoid ethics violations. Imagine as they continue to do this and get farther and farther away from public access. And pretty soon it'll be, we, you know, we can't have journalists asking us questions.

[01:23:50] We will have designated times and stuff like that and designated areas. And you can't be in the state building and stuff like that. Um, I've never actually visited Sacramento, but it does kind of look beautiful. The Capitol building. I'd like to go up there one day. I've only been in there when I was like 10. I have been out there and my actually we were in Sacramento and I was at like whatever hotel, uh, my room overlooked it. I had a beautiful view of it a little bit. And I, but I have not been inside of it since it was like 10.

[01:24:20] I want to go. I think I want to go visit it one day. It looks beautiful. I won't let you like go now, go tomorrow. Yeah. Hurry up. Hurry up because they might not allow the public to even be in the Capitol pretty soon because they don't want you to see what they're passing. Uh, so again, it's this idea of. Accuse people of what you are guilty of doing and that seems to be a California Democrats

[01:24:45] right now is talking about how Trump and the oligarchy are trying to destroy democracy and everything we stand for in Washington, but they're also gutting California here in Sacramento and they're making it harder and harder for the people to figure out what's going on. And they're not being accountable. The speaker of the assembly, the literal leader of the assembly doesn't want to talk to the press court and he hasn't talked to them in three months.

[01:25:11] So I guess there's nothing that he wants to talk to the press about in the past three months at all. So nothing important, no wildfires, nothing like that. Um, I guess homelessness, homeless spending budget. What does he have to say? You know, I mean, from the outside looking in, if you didn't pay attention to politics, I guess things are just going peachy keen here in California because, uh, you got the governor's got time to kick back and do podcasts. You know, he's just hanging out doing podcasts now.

[01:25:40] And the legislature has nothing to talk about because everything's been solved. Well, the speaker of the assembly is like, I got nothing to report because everything is just doing so well here in California. Uh, any final thoughts on the democracy dying in the darkness here in Sacramento? No, I know. Uh, we kind of discussed before we hopped on that we've got, well, you know, in the coming months,

[01:26:05] we'll be talking about, uh, James or, or Jorge Ramos, which some of district 45, San Bernardino County. Um, there'll be more coming out about him. That's interesting. And then of course we need to dive a little more into speaker Rivas. Yeah. So if anyone has any hot tips they want to send or, you know, our, our DMS are open. You can comment.

[01:26:30] You can, uh, I can't, I feel like I can never say literally or hear someone say literally without adding Hitler to it. I just feel like everything is really, is literally, literally Hitler now. And I, I mean, you would say it. I kind of wanted to be like Hitler. Literally. I literally thought about Hitler. Can't even watch parks and rec anymore. And hear Chris Traeger say literally, uh, you can also email to California underground at proton mail.com. That's always easy.

[01:26:57] Cause if you have a whole bunch of things, it's easier than a DM. Cause sometimes like you send links and then you got to get the link out of Instagram into your web browser. Cause it's, anyway, it's easier if you have a whole bunch of stuff. So on that topic really fast. Um, I do look at my DMS. I know he does. And we get emails. We obviously, we cannot comment on everything. We cannot podcast on everything. Uh, there's so much we have to pick and choose.

[01:27:22] Sometimes we just don't know enough about a topic that we don't feel comfortable talking about it because we have no right to be talking about something we know nothing about. So, but please keep sending us stuff. We do appreciate it. Yeah. Yeah. There's, I think it was a last week. We literally had something because someone sent me the video of Rob Lowe and Adam Scott, and we did a whole segment about why Hollywood is dying. So yeah, your stuff does get heard and we do talk about it. So, all right. With that said, uh, that is tonight's show.

[01:27:51] We'll see you again on Tuesday for the live show. Uh, we're going to be talking about Xavier. But Sarah is jumping into the race and, um, we're going to talk about who's behind California gas prices and why they're so expensive. And spoiler alert. It's not corporate greed. So with that said, make sure you like, share, comment, review, all that stuff, uh, helps with the algorithm, helps more people find us.

[01:28:18] And if you want to support the show that is 100% free is you can share it with somebody else. So with that, we'll see it on the next one. Later. Thank you for listening to another episode of California underground.

[01:28:41] If you like what you heard, remember to subscribe, like, and review it and follow California underground on social media for updates as to when new episodes are available. We'll see you next time. Bye. Bye.