California Democrats Vote to Protect Child Predators

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

[00:00:26] What's going on, everybody? Thanks for tuning in to another episode of the California Underground Podcast, the most trusted podcast for all things California politics. I'm your host, Phil. And as always with me, my trusty co-host, the best, the fastest researcher in the West. Camille, how are you doing tonight? I'm good. Thanks. How are you?

[00:00:45] I am good. We have a very, very full episode. In fact, we had to drop one story, so we apologize. If you tuned in just for the story about the federal judge blocking warrantless arrest, I could share that on Instagram or something, but maybe I'll share it in the chat. I'll just go throw it in the chat or something if you want to go check it out.

[00:01:05] But there's so much to talk about tonight that that's why we have to drop it. We obviously have the big story, which is AB 379, which we got updates literally, literally, like hours ago. And I'm like texting Camille, like, can you believe this just happened like hours ago?

[00:01:24] I have my phone all day because I keep getting these like notifications on my phone and it's like, Phil updated the notes, Phil. And I'm like, stop updating the notes, Phil. I can't leave. I have to just keep reading these refreshing X, you know, fiercely throughout the day. This ever evolving story.

[00:01:46] Yeah, it's been a lot. And if those of you who tune in regularly last week, we actually were like, ah, we don't have time to get to AB 379 tonight. So I guess we'll do it next week. And it's a good thing we did because there was so much more that came out between then and now, including heated debates and, you know, lying by Democrats. I know you're shocked.

[00:02:10] But we have we'll get to all that in a little bit. And then we're gonna talk about how Trump wants to reopen Alcatraz. He wants to make Alcatraz great again. I personally had my own ideas of what we could do with Alcatraz. I'm gonna discuss that in a minute. But if you're in the chat, make sure you light up the chat. Let us know what's going on. Let us know your thoughts. We love to hear your comments. That's why we do the show live for everybody who wants to tune in.

[00:02:37] So I wanted to start off talking about this Ted Lieu congressman. If you don't know who Ted Lieu is, he's a congressman. Let me stop you then. Let me stop you because I have a question for you and for the chat. And this has nothing to do with Ted Lieu, but my thoughts kind of went here just because I was looking into the Alcatraz thing a little bit.

[00:02:59] And so and then we actually, you know, saw you over the weekend. We all went out to dinner. And this got me thinking this question is not supposed to be morbid, but it did come from a place like Alcatraz prison. Anyway, if it is your last meal on earth ever, your last meal, what are you eating? What are you choosing to eat? Throw out healthy like you're not trying to eat healthy. This is your last meal ever.

[00:03:26] What are you eating? What are you eating? Ribeye steak? Just that? Ribeye steak with mac and cheese and a big bowl of mint chocolate chip ice cream. All right. So that would be my last meal. Okay. How about you? Have you thought about this? Oh, yes. After I thought about this question, I thought about my answer.

[00:03:54] The world's best charcuterie board with all the cheeses and all the jelly meats and all the fruit and a chocolate milkshake. Oh, there'd be bread too. For sure. Bread. A chocolate milkshake. For sure. Bread. Bread. And a diet Coke. Maybe even a regular Coke. I don't know. Maybe I'd go crazy and do regular. I haven't had regular soda in like five something years, so I don't know. Diet Coke and a chocolate shake. Because I can't do chocolate shakes because they make me throw up.

[00:04:23] And chocolate shakes are like one of my favorite things ever. I would choose them as a dessert every time if I could, but I can't. So therefore, it'd be like, well, it's my last meal. It doesn't matter anyway. Last meal? It doesn't matter. You know, whatever. Let the prison guards figure it out. I didn't see what... Anybody in the chat who wants to let us know your last meal? Jeez. Yeah. Well, you said it's your last meal, so I'm assuming it's the prison guards.

[00:04:51] Yes, but no. You just somehow know tomorrow you won't eat. I don't know. Anyway. Ted Luke. Anyway. Somehow dealing with... I don't even know if they did executions at Alcatraz. I don't think so. I was reading a little bit about it, and we'll get to some of the facts about Alcatraz in a little bit. But before we get there, I do want to talk about...

[00:05:13] So if you haven't seen Trump in his normal trolling way, tweeted out, truth-socialed out, truth-doubt, whatever you call it, a picture of him, an AI picture of him as Pope. Basically, that was it. It was just him as the Pope. There was a joke. Somebody asked him about who he thinks should be the new Pope, which is an odd question to ask a guy who is not Catholic, to be like, who should be the next Pope? This isn't a political thing.

[00:05:43] And he joked, and he was like, I think I should be the next Pope, and I think I'd be a great Pope. I'd be the best Pope, be the very greatest Pope ever, make the Catholic Church great again. And then he said, no, actually, we have this great Cardinal, Timothy Dolan, from New York, who is a great Cardinal. He was like, hey, he should be Pope. He'd be a great Pope. And that was basically it. And so people are freaking out and making a big deal about Trump shared this Catholic image or this image of him as the Pope.

[00:06:14] So obviously, Democrats started wringing their hands going, oh, my gosh, how dare he and how blasphemous and how horrible and sacrilegious. And this is so insulting to Catholics and just absolutely so insulting. You're insulting millions of Catholics around the world and in America and stuff like that. And one of those was California's own Congressman Ted Lieu, who I believe he's from the L.A. area.

[00:06:40] Correct me if I'm wrong, if you are in the chat and you know that where I think he's from. He's from a very liberal area. I can't remember. Well, maybe probably from L.A. because of the pictures we're about to look at. And they're not grotesque pictures. They're not Scott Wiener pictures at the Fremont Street Festival or whatever. But this is what. So he had a big.

[00:07:09] Hissy fit. He goes, as a Catholic, I take great offense to Donald Trump mocking Catholics. I wish Trump would focus on lowering prices. Instead, the American economy had negative GDP growth last quarter. That's what he should be focused on instead of making fun of Catholics. Huh. OK. Interesting. Making fun of Catholics. Again, I just for the record, everybody knows. I mean, I got my rosary bracelet on.

[00:07:39] You could see it. Right. See, see my rosary bracelet I wear every single day. I am a practicing Catholic. I guess you could say I'm pretty devout. Like we go to mass every week and extra masses and we do our readings. Devout Catholic. I will say this right off the bat. I had no problem with what Trump did. I know this is just Trump being Trump and making a joke. I have more of a problem.

[00:08:07] I have more of a problem with Democrats who pretend that they are, quote unquote, devout Catholics and practicing Catholics and that they are such devout. They're at mass all the time. They are such great Catholics. They are offended by all this. But then they turn around and they're the ones signing bills that are. All for supporting the killing of unborn children.

[00:08:35] And if you are truly Catholic, I don't know how you reconcile those two points of view. I don't. So for me, it's interesting that he Democrats like Ted Lieu. I would say Gavin Newsom as well. He's in that bucket. I guess we found out recently. He's like, I'm a devout practicing Catholic. And I was like. Surprise to me. I don't think there's anything. I mean, adultery is definitely one of the mortal sins. So good on that.

[00:09:06] You're going to have to, you know, confess that sin. Nancy Pelosi, also supposedly a practicing devout Catholic. Joe Biden, the most Catholic president we've ever had practicing devout Catholic. But back to Ted Lieu. So he put out this tweet and then obviously the Internet is forever. And people were like, hey, buddy, this you. This is him posing with the L.A. Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, which is a charity group.

[00:09:34] Who dress up like nuns. And parade around in this ridiculous makeup. And they're obviously mocking nuns and priests and all of that. And this was part of the whole. If you don't remember the L.A. Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, this was around like the Dodgers game where they were like they were having Catholic night. And then they brought in that like it was so tone deaf that they they showed up or something. And the Dodgers had to like apologize for it.

[00:10:05] So, again, you want to point fingers, Ted Lieu, about Trump posting an A.I. photo of him as the pope. Yet then you go and do this. And you stand with people who are quite literally making a mockery of the Catholic Church and nuns and priests. So. Hypocrite much? Just a little bit. That's all I have to say about that. Any thoughts on that? Yes. I'm not Catholic.

[00:10:35] I am a Christian, but I'm not Catholic. And that the pride tweet was from 2015. So for anyone who's going to be like, well, that was 10 years ago. He could have changed his ways. Absolutely. But if you search his ex account, you will find that he's been bragging about being baptized when he was in college, which is more than 10 years ago. And so he's been claiming to be a devout practicing Catholic for quite a while now.

[00:11:00] So in 2015, he was claiming he was a devout Catholic when he stood with this group who openly mocks Catholicism. And regarding, I thought it was just distasteful of Trump. But at the same time, I think I would have been less surprised if Trump didn't do that. I mean, this is the Trump we know. Like, he just trolls. It's ridiculous. It's immature. It's annoying. It's all those things. But it is sort of one.

[00:11:29] Like, it's just another thing that, unfortunately, it's like, roll your eyes at and move on. Because, of course, they're going to focus on that part and not that he actually did say, I believe so. And so would make a great pope. In the words of Dave Smith, who we saw over the weekend, Trump is retarded. And I'm probably going to get the podcast canceled for saying that. But that's, I mean, literally, Dave Smith stood up there and was like, Trump was retarded. You don't have to deal with that strike now. Yeah. Thank you for that.

[00:11:59] And so it's just like, Trump's not Catholic. He's not claiming to be Catholic and then going and making a joke. And yeah, it is insensitive. I'm not, you know, the pope has just passed. And that's a big deal. The pope is a big deal for Catholics. I mean, he's a big deal across the world. Like, everybody knows who the pope is, regardless of which religion you practice or no religion at all. And, you know, so the death was a big deal.

[00:12:29] His passing was a very big deal. And Trump is Trump. And the White House should not have put that out. But they did. And here we are. Yeah, it's just it's Trump being Trump. And again, it's to me, it's it's less offensive because he's just kind of having good fun about the whole thing.

[00:12:53] Like the whole election of the new pope, the conclave for anybody wants to know starts tomorrow in Rome. They are going to sit down and figure out who is going to be the next pope. I don't have the odds on favorite. I don't know. I actually haven't looked at there is something in Italian called the Papa Billy, which is the sort of short list, the odds on favor of who's going to be the next pope. I haven't actually checked it out because it all happened so fast. You know, Pope Francis passed away. They had the funeral and all that.

[00:13:21] But I have less of an issue with Trump just kind of having a little fun and kind of teasing than when Democrats do stuff like this, where they are. They're like against clearly against the Catholic faith. And they pretend and they tell everyone, well, I'm a practicing devout Catholic and I'm such an incredible person because, you know, I support these things. And there's an old tweet that I sent you yesterday from Ted Lieu.

[00:13:49] And this was him talking to the U.S. Council for who is this? The U.S. Council. I know this acronym. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. So he said to them, he tweeted, Dear U.S. CCB, I'm Catholic and I support contraception, a women's right to choose treatments for infertility, the right for people to get divorced, the right of same sex marriage. Well. So what is my comments? I'm Catholic, but I'm not.

[00:14:20] I just that's that is it. And I'm not making a judgment of anybody because everyone is like I said, you all have the right to practice your own religions. But there is this weird, bizarre thing where you're like, I'm a devout Christian, Catholic, whatever. Therefore, I follow the Bible, except these parts of the Bible. They're not relevant to me. And like, I don't know if it works like that. And it's not for me to judge, you know, I mean, totally judgmental.

[00:14:49] I'm not a judge anyway. But like whether he makes it into heaven or not, I have my opinions have no bearing on that, you know. But, but yes, it is. And it is more like, oh, I'm so offended that Trump posted this dumb AI image. But yet I'm willing to stand with the sisters of perpetual indulgence who quite literally make their their money and promote their charity based off of the mockery of Catholicism. So.

[00:15:19] Yeah, somebody said in the chat, you didn't do your homework. Trump did not put that out. It's AI. And he said he did not know who did it. And I believe him. Then you. Okay. Well, either way, it came out through the White House or whatever. So it came out from. Yeah, I could have sworn the White House reposted there. It was the White House or somebody. But anyway, it got through a channel. Well, that was Trump affiliated.

[00:15:44] Anyway, the end of that tweet says next time I go to church, I dare you to deny me communion. Just for clarification, those things that he listed are basically all. I'm pretty sure all mortal sins. Is that a post from. POTUS slash White House on Instagram collaborated and posted it. And I'm not I'm not claiming he made it just and I'm not like trying to say the person in the chat is wrong.

[00:16:13] I'm just saying they definitely did on the official verified accounts on Instagram did post that photo. Right. It wasn't like it was it was fan made and somebody maybe it was family. It wasn't like it just kind of made its way around. That's not really the point. The point is I am finding it ironic and hypocritical that these Democrats who say they are practicing Catholic. And then you have Ted Lieu, who is quite literally listing what are five moral sins of the church.

[00:16:43] And he says next time I dare you to deny me communion. Well. When you commit a moral sin, you have to absolve for you have to confess and you can't take communion. So bottom line, don't pretend you're a devout Catholic and don't pretend you're a devout anything and then go against that religion. I this is where I stand on. This is I'm not trying to be a social conservative.

[00:17:10] I'm not trying to tell people they have to be Catholic and Catholics the right way. I'm not trying to go all Matt Walsh on everybody and be like, this is the one true way. Everybody has to be Catholic. If you want to be Catholic, America is a beautiful place where you can practice freedom of religion. You can be Catholic. You choose to be Catholic. When you choose to be Catholic, you choose to follow a certain set of guidelines and rules of the Catholic Church. That's what I'm saying. Right.

[00:17:38] So you can't have your cake and eat it, too, and be like, well, I'm Catholic. I'm a devout Catholic and I support these things. I believe everyone should do it and support all these things and then turn around and know you have to you have to give me communion. It doesn't work like that. Sorry. Right. You can have your set of beliefs. You can have your set of beliefs. You can believe your religion X, Y and Z. You could not be religious and believe X, Y and Z. I don't really care. It's America. It's a free country.

[00:18:07] But stop pretending you're a devout Catholic because you're clearly not. So, you know, what he could have done, too, is because he's an elected official, he could have said, like, I'm personally devout Catholic. I personally, you know, adhere to these rules, but I understand that I represent a district that is not Catholic, that everyone isn't. And therefore, politically speaking, I stand behind these things in regards to politics. In my own personal life, these are the rules that I follow. Yeah.

[00:18:37] Yeah. And I rarely ever really talk about my religious journey or my religious faith just because, again, I believe it's a personal, private thing. You go on it yourself. It's not me, not for me to kind of try and impose it on everybody else. It's a free country. You do whatever you want. So I get offended when you stand on this pillar for political points of I'm a devout practicing Catholic and this is abhorrent. And blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[00:19:07] But I also support contraception and same sex marriage and people get over it and like all this stuff. And it's like, yeah, I don't I think you've missed the boat on being a Catholic. So any other thoughts on Ted Lieu being a hypocrite? Nope. OK. All right. Next topic. Trump. Another Trump story to Trump stories in a row.

[00:19:31] So President Trump announced just the other day that he wants to reopen Alcatraz because he thinks that the worst of the worst should go to Alcatraz. And we're going to talk a little bit about the history first. We're going to watch a little video of a local news clip about it. Yeah, let's just watch the video clip first and then we'll talk about it. So this is from Bay Area News. I forget. Channel seven, I believe.

[00:19:58] So apologies if I get this completely wrong, which one it is. So here's a quick little video. Good evening, everyone. I'm Mike Niebeck. And I'm Claudine Wong. President Trump making waves this afternoon in the Bay Area and across the nation with a post on Truth Social. Just in the past hour or so, the president announced that he is directing his government to reopen and expand Alcatraz. Here's a live look at that former island prison.

[00:20:25] Now, the president said the prison will hold America's most ruthless and violent offenders and that it's time to lock up the most dangerous criminals and keep them far away from anyone they could harm. A spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons said in a statement that the agency will comply with all presidential orders, but gave no details on how that could be accomplished. Now, in his message, the president said he is, quote,

[00:20:49] directing the Bureau of Prisons together with the Department of Justice, FBI and Homeland Security to reopen a substantially enlarge and rebuild Alcatraz. As he added, the reopening of Alcatraz will serve as a symbol of law, order and justice. Governor Newsom's office quick to respond with just one line. Looks like it's distraction day again in Washington, D.C. Alcatraz closed back in March of 1963. The primary reason?

[00:21:18] High operating costs and significant structural issues caused by the harsh environment out on the Bay. Alcatraz has been run by the National Park Service since the 70s and is designated as a historic landmark. We are going to continue to cover this breaking story and we'll have more for you tonight on the 10 o'clock news. All right. All right. So that was the local news take on Trump wanting to reopen Alcatraz.

[00:21:46] Would you like to hear some fun facts about Alcatraz? Some fun historical facts? You better make a fun. Yes. Yes. Yes, I would. I will try to make them as fun as possible. Alcatraz, the island, was discovered in 1775 by Spanish explorer Juan Majuel de Ayala, who named it Ayla de los Alcatraz, which translates to Island of the Pelicans.

[00:22:14] It was shortened and Americanized over time, which is how it became known as Alcatraz. It was used as a military fort from 1850 to 1933, during which military prisoners were housed on the island, according to the Bureau of Prisons. In 1933, the Department of Justice took over Alcatraz to open a maximum security prison for some of the nation's most dangerous criminals. After 29 years of operation, Alcatraz was closed in 1963.

[00:22:41] It sat abandoned until 1969, when a group of Native American activists occupied the island and remained there for the next two years. So those are some fun facts about it. It was I always felt like it was in operation for a lot longer than 29 years. I feel like it was way older. But, you know, 1933 is still pretty old for Alcatraz. Alcatraz. So it was a the reason that they had Alcatraz or why they opened it.

[00:23:11] It was because of the fact, as it was alluded to in the video, it was a way to punish the worst of the worst criminals. Basically, we're going to put them on this island. Nobody can get off of. And you're going to have to stare back at San Francisco. And we're basically putting you on this island to get you away from society. Most famously, we all know Al Capone went to Alcatraz.

[00:23:39] So that's probably the biggest name, you know, is Al Capone went to Alcatraz. You can still tour Alcatraz. You can still go and actually walk through Alcatraz. It's one of the most popular like national park destinations. It's own. It's actually operated by the national parks. So you can go check it out. Very historic. But it is old. It is very, very old. Have I been?

[00:24:06] No, it's actually one of the things I did want to do when I lived up north was go to Alcatraz. But maybe next time. I just feel like every time I go up to San Francisco, I don't know. I might not be old. It might be under construction the next time I go up there. They may just level the whole place. Can I draw some fun facts real fast? Go right ahead. Okay. So I think you kind of covered most of what I had added to the notes.

[00:24:33] But prisons in general are in the U.S. They are overcrowded. We do need more prison space. Alcatraz has existing structures. But as they said in the video, it was very expensive to maintain. It's surrounded by sea air. I think everyone knows the salty air corrodes buildings quite quickly. It's expensive to upkeep even just the exteriors of buildings like that. And then if you ever go and look at recent photos, like if you want to book a tour and

[00:25:02] you're looking at their photos on their website, you're going to see that there's a lot of algae on the inside and stuff. And so I do feel like the maintenance to even bring this up to code, up to decent living conditions, and even for those who would need to work there, there's probably a lot of mold and stuff. It could be a very expensive project.

[00:25:24] And regarding that, the BOP is underfunded, the Bureau of Prisons. And it's a department within the U.S. Department of Justice, but it is already underfunded. So there's money that we would need to come up with. And as Phil mentioned, it's right now the National Park Service is operating it. And it's a huge tourist attraction. And it brings in about $60 million a year.

[00:25:53] And that's not tons of money, but it is money that for all these agencies that are underfunded, which the National Park Service is also underfunded, that will be a big cut plus expenses for other agencies. And so there's some pros and cons there. And there's no fresh water. They had to, at the time, bring in like a million gallons of water weekly.

[00:26:20] I don't know that we have that water in California. I mean, we dump that. But I'm not sure that we actually have that water available or maybe right now because we had some rainy seasons recently. But down the line, that water could be very hard to come by. And you really can't have an operating prison with including prisoners and workers under such conditions, obviously.

[00:26:46] And then any fresh food needs to be brought in via a boat, which has expenses. I'm sure a helicopter could do it too, but that would be really expensive. So there's additional costs. It's not like the prison down the street. I don't have a prison down the street, but it's not a prison that you just drive up to and drop off a big old Costco order. It's a little more complicated than that.

[00:27:11] And so just a few pros and cons of this situation. Yeah. That's not my opinion. At the time of... Just to clarify. Not fun facts. I think they're all fun facts for all those who are listening because I learned some fun facts. That's the nice thing about this podcast. I look into stuff and I learn stuff. So always good to keep learning. That's what they taught me on Reading Rainbow back in the day. At the time of its closure, Alcatraz needed restoration and maintenance work that would

[00:27:41] have cost about $3 to $5 million, excluding its daily ops. So in 1963, it would have cost $3 to $5 million to fix it up. There's another article I was reading. And I think we basically covered it, that it's really expensive to operate it. Now, mind you, this was 1963. There was a lot of different things. Technology was way different. Um, so could there be a better cost, costly way to do it? I'm sure.

[00:28:11] I'm sure that's why Trump has directed the Bureau of Prisons to do so and to look into fixing it. Uh, maybe it can be done. Maybe they figured out. I mean, if they can do it in 1963 and they did it for 29 years dating back to the thirties, I don't see why we couldn't figure it out now how to do this stuff. It will be a cost. I must, I imagine they have to completely tear the whole thing down and start all over. It seems like it.

[00:28:36] I can't imagine that they are going to go back to, they're not just going to slap a fresh coat of paint on Alcatraz and like fix some things and be like, all right, there you go. It's all ready to go because human rights people. I think the human standards I'm sure have been raised since then, regardless of how awful these people may be. I, I think that back in the thirties, forties, fifties, we probably treated them a lot worse than we would today.

[00:29:02] And so there there's, I'm sure there's many standards that would need to be brought up to today's code. That's a long time ago, 1963. So I imagine the, the code of conduct regarding prisoners and sort of the humanitarian rights has come a long way since then. Um, I had my own idea for Alcatraz and this was based off of the spending in LA and the homeless spending, how they couldn't find any of it.

[00:29:28] I thought Alcatraz should be where they send politicians who have been found guilty of embezzling our tax dollars. I don't know. I think it should be on display for everybody. Hey, you commit crimes and embezzle taxes and you waste taxpayer money or you use it for your own personal profit. We're going to send you to Alcatraz, have fun. And then people can look across the bay and look at Alcatraz and say, that's where we send all the politicians who rip us off and think they can get away with it.

[00:29:57] So, so if you can't see it six days a week, because it's always overcast and cloudy, but you know, you can imagine, you can set up an observatory point or something. People can look. I think that that would be a way to actually fund things. Totally, totally inappropriate, totally wrong. Um, but yes, add some webcams to like common areas and people can like YouTube stream it

[00:30:24] and they can run ads and they will, I'm telling you millions, millions will view this and they will have all kinds of ad revenue. Yeah. I don't think, you know, I like his idea. I just don't think it's, you know, go in a little bit of a different direction. Use it for corrupt politicians who steal our tax dollars. I didn't do any sort of research to find out if there's an alternative, similar place that could house prisoners. Like I have no idea.

[00:30:51] Like, you know, I imagine that Trump has people that have looked into this and perhaps they came down to this is the best option. So. Yeah. And maybe cause it's been batted around forever. Um, he just decided I'm going to, I'm going to bring it up and talk about it. All right. Big topic for tonight that we're going to move on to a B three, seven, nine. If you've been paying attention to California news right now is all people are talking about.

[00:31:21] It is really the biggest story coming out of Sacramento literally in the past. I feel like week, like we wanted to talk about it last week, you know, go away, go in the way back machine to seven days ago. We were doing this podcast same time and we go, we're going to talk about this bill called a B three, seven, nine. We had a couple notes on it fast forward a week later. And now all of a sudden our show notes are so long. They are so complicated.

[00:31:51] We tried to cram in as much as possible. We have a lot to get to, which is why we're probably dedicating the most time to this specific topic of what's happening with a B three, seven, nine. So I'm going to give a little rundown of how we got to here. Then we'll like go from how we got to here like this past week. And we'll go from there and discuss, we have videos, we have stuff about the debates and people's takes on it.

[00:32:20] Scott Wiener threw in a horrible take, not shocked there. Um, so back in February, uh, second, 2025, AB three, seven, nine is introduced in the California assembly by Maggie Krell. Uh, remember that name? She's going to be very important. Uh, she was critical and taking down back page, which was like a Craigslist for prostitution and drugs. Uh, we go on to early 2025.

[00:32:48] The bill is referred to the assembly committee on public safety for review March 27th, 2025 AB three, seven, nine is amended in the assembly, which changes clarifying its focus on prostitution related crimes. This amended bill includes provisions to, I should have probably backed up for all those people who don't know what AB three, seven, nine is and are like, well, what the heck are you talking about?

[00:33:09] Uh, AB three, seven, nine is basically a bill that they want to make it a felony for anyone who purchases minors for sex. Let's just start there. They want to make it tougher. They want to punish people who purchase minors. So everybody under 18 for sex.

[00:33:34] Uh, let's see the, so this is March 27th, 2025, make it a misdemeanor to loiter in a public place with the intent to purchase commercial sex, increase penalties for solicitation of minors under 18 years of age, uh, require first or second time offenders committing prostitution with intent to receive compensation be offered a diversion program, establish a survivor support fund funded by $1,000 fine on the offenders.

[00:33:58] Um, and then it's referred back to the committee on public safety, April 28th, 2025, uh, the assembly public safety committee chaired by assembly member Nick Schultz confirmed that AB three, seven, nine will move forward. But with a significant amendment, the provision to make purchasing 16 and 17 year olds for sex, a felony is removed.

[00:34:20] This becomes the big sticking point, uh, that they now say 16 and 17 won't be an automatic felony. It will be what they call a wobbler, which is, it could be the D it's at the district attorney's discretion, whether it could be a felony or a misdemeanor. Obviously most people think it should just be an automatic felony. Uh, he said to a prior agreement, Senate bill 1414.

[00:34:46] If you remember that was Shannon Grove Senate bill, that was the one that also got a lot of attention that limited felony charges to cases involving minors under 16. Okay. Assembly member Krell expressing disappointment, vowing to reintroduce the felony provision in future sessions. Uh, April 29th, they hold a hearing on AB 379. They vote unanimously to amend the bill and pass it as amended refer referring to the committee

[00:35:14] appropriations public debate intensifies. Uh, so April 30th, the amended bill is officially reported out of the committee. Then we get to May 1st, which is as of last week scheduled for a second reading in the assembly. Uh, this is when it really comes up. Like, is the amendment going to pass? Is it not? May 2nd criticism of the bill's amendment continues with assembly Republicans, advocacy groups like

[00:35:40] the California family council claiming Democrats prior to prioritize predators over victims. Uh, and then it goes on and on and yeah, so that's how we got here. So it made its way. Can you, you know, chairman. Crell on that specific committee said we want to get rid of it because of X, Y, and Z.

[00:36:03] Um, I think we have a video of him explaining why, and let's take a look at that video, explain why they want to take out that provision. Right now, if a John were to go and try to purchase a 16 or 17 year old on that blade and law enforcement were to intervene because of a judge's order right now in Sacramento, um, law enforcement

[00:36:29] would not be able to put that person in jail because it's not the solid felony that law enforcement has been asking it to be. So I just want to make sure like you're, you're okay with 16 and 17 year olds continuing to be purchased on this blade for the next year or until you have to dissect this issue in the fall. And these John's getting let go and just issued with citations. Well, I don't agree with the premise of the question, but what I would say is I'm not okay with any child anywhere being exploited, but the solution that we craft, the solution that we pass needs to make sense. It needs to be equitable.

[00:36:58] It needs to be comprehensive. So that was his take on it. Rationalizing why. And if you're sitting here going, I'm just going to just chime in right now. Cause we've got a lot more to cover. If you're sitting here going, why is this a debate? Why is this a debate that 16 and 17 shouldn't be an automatic felony, but anything under 16 should be an automatic felony.

[00:37:27] When you're sitting here going, you're sitting at home, watching this going, shouldn't all minors fall under that? Like, shouldn't we be against purchasing any minors for sex? Like, shouldn't that be the goal? Why 16 and 17? You have any thoughts? What's going on, everybody? I want to take a quick minute and talk about today's sponsor for our show. Stopbox.

[00:37:52] If you're not familiar with Stopbox, it is a firearm retention device, no electronics, no biometrics, nothing like that, that can get in the way. If there's an oncoming threat and you need quick and easy access to your firearm, it is literally just this finger combination on the top. You push it in. Boom. Hear that nice little click. And it is wide open for you, for your firearm. It can fit compact, subcompact, even full-size pistols, which is nice. They have added this new magazine, extra magazine holder, also very nice.

[00:38:22] My wife and I both have our own Stopbox because we both know that when there's an oncoming threat in seconds count, you don't want to be fumbling around with electronics or keys or biometrics or anything like that. So now listeners of this show can enjoy 10% off their order at Stopbox if they go to stopbox.com forward slash California underground. They'll get that discount, support the show. You can support Stopbox and this is proudly made in the good old U.S. of A.

[00:38:50] So go to stopbox.com forward slash California underground for your discount. And let's get back to the show. Well, yeah, I have 16 and 17-year-old daughters. And purchasing any trafficked human of any age should be a felony because there certainly shouldn't, trafficking shouldn't, it's illegal. It's a form of slavery. It's disgusting. I mean, it's rape.

[00:39:17] But so purchasing anybody, but now trying to exempt 16 and 17-year-olds. The reason why this is such a big deal as a minor is because in the state of California, anyone under the age of 18 cannot solicit sex anyway. And so to say 16 and 17-year-olds should be exempt from this is, I don't know. I watched all these videos and saw a bunch of these debates and I can't figure out the logic

[00:39:46] here for why they should be exempt. I see no logical reason whatsoever. None. I mean, people tried to argue. Let me pull this up. I don't actually want to show it, but I can read it. They tried. I mean, they say things. I just... Senator Scott Weiner, not to be outdone, had to chime in with his take.

[00:40:13] Sending an 18-year-old high school senior to state prison for offering his 17-year-old classmate $20 to fool around isn't smart criminal justice policy, yet that's what some people are effectively advocating in this misleading debate. I don't think that's what people are concerned about is high schoolers 18 and 17.

[00:40:36] I'm not going to say that's not happening, but I would like to talk to some people that went to school with Scott Weiner and... Who are purchasing people for sex, I guess. Who are, yeah, like 18 and 17 offering money to fool around. And if that is a problem, then that's a problem. It should be dealt with. That should not... There needs to be...

[00:41:07] As you guys know, my kids are homeschooled. If you've been listening, you know my homeschool. They've never been in like a regular brick and mortar school setting. If I were to have found out that that was happening, if my child was... Whether my child was 18-year-old or 17-year-old in that situation, there would be some serious, serious discussions with my own kids, but there would be some very serious discussions with other parents as well. Lots.

[00:41:32] Lots and lots of conversations would have to be had with lots of parents and my children. So, I don't think that that's a normal thing. If it's happening and becoming normalized, we've got some seriously big issues and those need to be addressed altogether separately. That should have no bearing whatsoever still on AB379. Yeah. That was my opinion. I don't know. Paying someone off $20 in high school.

[00:42:01] I mean, it still sounds gross. It's so gross. Like, I'm not going to have to leave it to Scott Wiener to like... Do you know of that happening in your high school? Like, do you have any memories of that not fooling around, but being offered payment to fool around? Like, do you... He's always... He always falls on the side of justifying or rationalizing this away. Like, I shared a video. This was on something else.

[00:42:30] It was a different bill regarding Senator Wiener. Um, off topic of AB379. His whole thing is he hides behind this whole like, well, it's going to, you know, disproportionately affect the LGBT community. And it was like a bill regarding like having sex in your car. Like, that would raise the penalties. And he goes, well, you know, it'll affect like... It'll affect the LGBT community more.

[00:42:56] And my whole thing was, well, why is it you, Scott Wiener, always assume that everything related to lewd, illicit sexual acts is always completed by the LGBT community? At a certain point, wouldn't you be offended that someone who says they represent you continually thinks you're some sort of like sexual deviant that has to be protected? Right. I don't know. Um, that would be a bit offensive.

[00:43:23] Like, because of my lifestyle, therefore I, I'm open to all these things. I do these things like that. No, that's weird. No. Yeah. And it's always, it's kind of like the same argument when people say like, oh, this will disproportionately, you know, a crime justice, a crime, like criminal justice bill or something will disproportionately hurt this minority. It's like, well, why are you always going after, why do you always think this minority is committing these crimes?

[00:43:48] Like that sounds offensive, but, um, anyway, so we're now all the way up to speed. Here we are. So first week of may AB three, seven, nine's coming to the floor of the assembly for a vote about whether they should exclude 16 or seven, this amendment, whether they should exclude 16 or 17 year olds or not. And obviously it got a lot of press beforehand and it got very heated.

[00:44:17] We have a video. It's a little long. So if you want to pause anywhere in between, you want to make a point, just let me know. Um, so I want to show you a highlight of how heated it got on the assembly floor up in Sacramento. So simple thing before us. Do 16 and 17 year olds deserve the same protection as all other minors when it comes to child

[00:44:45] prostitution, when it comes to John's purchasing them for sex on the street. Gallagher, please stop pointing your finger at members. Do they deserve the same protections or not? We have said yes. And last year when 16 and 17 year olds were removed out of 14, 14, many of us said that's ridiculous. It's wrong. Every rational insane person in California said that's wrong.

[00:45:13] There should be no distinction and make no mistake about it. These amendments before us continue the distinction. It will be a different standard for 16 and 17 year olds as it is for other minors. That's wrong. If you think that's wrong, you should vote no on these amendments. If you're fine continuing that distinction between 16 and 17 year olds, which is crazy. It's crazy. Why?

[00:45:41] You give somebody on this floor, give me an example. Give me one good reason why we should treat them differently. You can't. You cannot justify it. So that's what we're voting on today. Make no mistake about it. If you want to continue that distinction, which is wrong, then you vote yes on these amendments. It should be a felony. Every time and any time somebody wants to purchase a child for sex.

[00:46:10] We need to say loud and clear that if you're under 18, a child, a minor. I just want to pause. This is the author, the original author of the bill, Maggie Crow, who was a former prosecutor to help bring down like pages, like back page and stuff like that. Part of her job as a district attorney was breaking human trafficking and prosecuting those who

[00:46:36] traffic, you know, human trafficking and sex trafficking. So for those on audio or those who are watching. Copy it from 288.3, which my colleague from Burbank referred to earlier. It says a minor. It's anything under 18. That the person who's buying that person should be charged with a felony. It's plain and simple. Sex without consent. That's rape.

[00:47:03] This bill doesn't accomplish what we're trying to do, which is to make it a felony for purchasing a 16 or 17 year old. Whether or not it's on the bill. What I do care about is whether California protects minors who are being sold for sex. The trafficking victims protection act has a really important recognition in it. And that is that there's no such thing as a child prostitute.

[00:47:28] In other words, any person under the age of 18, any minor who is bought for sex is considered a victim. Now that's codified in California law under 236.1 sub G, which refers to the trafficking victims protection act. This is a really important legal framework that survivors have been fighting for. Literally for decades. This all started because of the language that was removed from the original bill. Can we go back to that original bill?

[00:47:59] I am totally against the amendments because if the amendments work, then why not go back to the original bill? We are trying to protect 16 and 17 year olds. As a mother of one daughter, a grandmother of five grandchildren, I am so against this. If you have kids, if you have grandkids, I don't understand how you can be for this. We have to vote no on this amendment and go back to the original bill with that language,

[00:48:28] with the original author. That if you're 17 years old on a street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that's rape. That should be treated as a felony. Language that I'm reading based on what was just given to me is it is the intent of the legislature to adopt the strongest laws to protect 16 and 17 year old victims. What does that mean? We have to wait for informational hearings in the fall.

[00:48:54] How many 16 and 17 year olds are going to go through the trauma of this before we do something? We don't just intend to do something. We actually do something. How many of us are going to wake up and realize we make promises to voters that we intend to do things and we don't follow through. We don't have to wait to the fall with our intent. We can make action today, right now. What has happened with the degradation of laws recently is that prostitution is growing again

[00:49:24] off of Watt Avenue. The Red Lion Inn is something, if you're from North Highlands, it was a legend in our community. Why? Because we knew the manager there would cut deals with people who would bring them in. Across the street from that McDonald's that I worked in was the last porn theater in the state of California that they would take them in there and they would participate. It is our turn.

[00:49:53] It is our chance to choose the kids of California to save them. Because somehow it was spun as anti-LGBT to try to enforce laws against sex trafficking. Why are we amending this law or this bill that's been introduced? It should be passed by this body in its entirety? Or we've reached a new low as a legislature in California?

[00:50:21] If you care about minors, if you care about 16 and 17 year olds, like you say you do, 30 seconds, then that's what you would do today. Vote no on these amendments and let's restore the bill to its original language. That's what needs to be done. And if you're not willing to do that, don't tell me that you're standing up for minors. You're not. You were fine to leave the amendments out. You were fine to continue to ignore them. You were fine to have more informational hearings. We don't need more information. This body needs a moral compass.

[00:50:49] They need to stand up for it today. Burke will open the roll. All those. All right. So that was six minutes of heated debate on the floor of the assembly. That was James Gallagher at the end talking about moral compass. It's a great point. We don't need informational. It's a pretty straightforward call. Do you want to protect minors or do you not?

[00:51:16] And making it so it's a wobbler offense as opposed to an automatic felony is not protecting minors. I was looking up some numbers while that video was playing. And I asked Grok how many arrests were there due to human trafficking or sex trafficking. And they said 547 statewide arrests.

[00:51:44] And a lot of them, shocking, came from San Diego County. 12 arrests in December of 2024 conducted by the San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force. This was interesting. Comic-Con human trafficking sting. This was last year. 14 arrests, all for solicitation conducted by the San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force. One of them was a 16-year-old was recovered from that arrest ring. Operation Better Pathways.

[00:52:11] 48 arrests in San Diego and National City. 39 arrests for misdemeanor crimes, primarily prostitution related. Why that's a misdemeanor? Okay. Nine arrests for serious crimes, including human trafficking of a minor and assault with a deadly weapon. Historical context. Operation Reclaim and Rebuild, January 2024. Yeah. So, just to give you an idea.

[00:52:38] Even last year, there were some people who were getting off with misdemeanors on this stuff, which is disgusting. So, to me, this is... I honestly don't know how low California Democrats have to go before people get absolutely disgusted with their stances on stuff and go, you can't defend it anymore.

[00:53:05] You just literally can't defend what California Democrats are saying anymore. When this... The question is, do you want to protect minors who are being bought for the purpose of sex? And you go, well, let's hold on. We need some studies. We need to do this. We need to have a whole thing. We need to waste taxpayer dollars on studies and consultants and blah, blah, blah.

[00:53:32] And the whole state is going, what are you thinking? What... You don't want to protect my... Even Gavin Newsom stepped in. Obviously, because he wants to protect his 2028 presidential run. But Gavin Newsom stepped in and goes, well, guys, what are we doing here? What are we doing? You can't agree on protecting minors. You got Senator Scott Wiener out there making excuses about some high school kids fooling around at high school under the bleachers or something.

[00:54:00] Like, it's to a point where I don't know how much lower California Democrats have to go before people should go. Like, this is disgusting. And that video was pretty much all Republicans, right? Like, that was all Republicans who were standing up and fighting against this bill trying to protect it. It was, you know... I think we had a lot of... On the show. We've had several of them on the show. Yeah. You know, Joe Patterson.

[00:54:30] We have a James Gallagher. We've had Diane Dixon. Like, a lot of these people who've been on the show were up there fighting. Um, so... It's... I don't know. It... It baffles me. I'm almost at a loss for words because I just don't know how much lower they can go. And I guess they just think they are so impenetrable and invincible that it's not going to make a difference. Even though if you look at this past election, they flipped a couple more assembly seats. So, they're not impenetrable.

[00:55:00] And they're... Are already like... They're already using this for the next round of elections, which is already next year. There are seats up for... For Target that they can try and swoop up. And I guarantee you this will probably be... Well, actually, I know this will be a big issue because we'll get to that in a second. Do you have any thoughts about the heated debate on the assembly floor? I'm going to go off on a little bit of a tangent here. This is not... This is not a rant. Um, I'm sorry. I just thought of this. But I'm going to go back to this weekend.

[00:55:30] We were down at San Diego with you and your wife and others. Um, the reel that I made, the video that I took... I'm getting to a point, okay? So, I took a video. We were walking from our dinner location to our show location, short walk. And your wife actually was the one... I didn't even pay... Like, we were running late for the show. So, I was focused on, like, not tripping on the sidewalk, okay? So, I'm just going along. And your wife nudges me in points up ahead to where there was that naked elderly man.

[00:55:59] Well, he had on a shirt and his pants were, like, at his ankles. And he was bending over, like, moaning in pain or something, obviously confused. And I stopped and took a video. And I said, I'm going to tag me or tag Gloria in this. And a couple of comments that I got on the video were, what disappointed this? Why didn't you stop and help them? And I completely understand that question. I 100% understand that question. So often, I watch a video like that. And I'm like, why would you stop and film this? And why aren't you helping him? Like, that's so cruel.

[00:56:28] And so, valid question. He was one of many homeless people. I'm assuming he's homeless. That I saw that night. I'm not trying to, like, shit on your city. That's not, like, what I'm doing here. But just, we know that downtown San Diego has become kind of, like, a row of tagging. Or it's not doing anything. So, as I'm watching this video, here's what I'm thinking. Because this is the video we just watched here.

[00:56:54] A lot of people, like, we're going to probably create a reel out of this and share it on Instagram. And we're going to get the usual comments of Democrats hover into California. This is why I moved. And you voted for this. You get what you deserve. Like, we're going to get those comments. We know that. And I understand those comments as well. I do. But I just realized how overwhelming this is for people.

[00:57:21] And I'm not saying that anybody's lazy. But I think it really does become, as a Californian, we are exhausted and we are overwhelmed. Because we are up against this supermajority every single day. This isn't, like, ever so often an issue pops up and, like, oh, we got it. We got it on this. It's, like, there is something every day that we should be calling about. And I think that it's easy to check out. And I'm not implying that all of you guys watching are checked out.

[00:57:51] But I think it's so much easier to be, like, this is overwhelming. This is exhausting. I don't know what to do anymore. And therefore, I'm just, I'm checked out. Because this is definitely one of those situations where we do need to be calling our state legislators and pushing.

[00:58:08] Because I do believe, I do believe the majority of Californians, not the elected officials, but the majority of Californians, are totally on board with passing this bill without the new amendments. Passing this bill, including 16 and 17-year-olds. I'm pretty sure that if we were able to poll the majority of Californians, they would say, that's insane. Why are these amendments? Of course I want 16 and 17-year-olds protected under this. But what I am saying is I get why.

[00:58:38] Well, I don't get why because there's no logic here. But it's easy for Democrats, the extreme liberals, to push this sort of thing is because the rest of us are flat out. We get exhausted. We get overwhelmed. And we kind of don't even know what to, like, what's the next step here for us? And so I'm sorry. I'm, like, going on this little tangent. We, a bill like this, protecting the children, we're going to have to just make the phone calls. You guys, we're going to have to, we're going to get hung up on.

[00:59:05] We're going to have to, the emails to all, like, all the Democrats. We're just, we have to push it and we're going to have to stay on top of anything else and saying that they continue to try to pass because this is, this is weird. Now I know there's some new updates. We'll get to those. There's new updates. We'll definitely get to those. But just saying anything like this that ever comes out, we unfortunately have to get fired up.

[00:59:31] And I understand some people, again, I'm not saying this condescendingly or judgmental or implying that anybody's lazy. I don't mean that. I know for me, like, when we had a week off the podcast a couple weeks ago, I just stuck my head in the sand and ignored all politics. Like, I was really just, like, trashed reality TV and celebrity gossip magazines and chocolate. And that was, like, for two weeks, I was, like, I'm good. I'm good not hearing any more because it's disgusting. It's sickening. And, like I said, it's overwhelming. It's exhausting.

[00:59:58] And it's, like, especially, like, for us parents who have these children who were thinking, oh, my gosh, our state legislators don't even want to protect them anymore. Like, where do we go? What do we do? And we want our hand held through the process and all that. So I'm sorry. That is my very much my little tangent of not accusing anyone of being lazy or not being condescending. I am saying, unfortunately, we have to keep fighting. We just – and our fights are voting and emails and phone calls and, you know, alerting other people.

[01:00:27] Like, hey, you need to know what's going on. Please make this phone call. So. And public pressure does work. And we're going to get to why in a second. Public pressure does work. If you notice that whenever something really controversial comes up in the California legislature, if there's enough of an uproar, people will push back.

[01:00:53] And, for example, what was the most recent one was that Rick Sabur of L.A. or West Hollywood had said he was introducing this bill that would make it basically a crime for you to protect your property if someone breaks into your home. So as opposed to the castle doctrine or stand your ground, it's basically you got to run out of your house.

[01:01:21] Enough pressure came down that people – that he acquiesced and he gave up. So we'll get to the punchline here in a second. Although I was looking at X, your favorite politician with a whiteboard had to have something to say about this. This just came up a second ago. So this is not on the show notes. But if you want to take notes on your whiteboard, go right ahead. I won't fault you for that.

[01:01:47] But this is Katie Porter putting her two cents in because if she is running for governor of California, I bet she has something to say about what the legislature is doing. I hope she has something to say. I would hope so. That's not just all about Trump because that seems to be her whole campaign strategy so far as I'm just going to bash on Trump. You were governor. What would your stance be? Well, I think this is really straightforward. Children should never be purchased, used, or abused for sex trafficking. Period. Full stop. I'm the mom of three teenagers.

[01:02:17] A 19-year-old, a 16-year-old, and a 13-year-old. And I don't think there's anyone in this – or certainly anyone who should be in leadership in California at the top levels of our state who should think otherwise. How exactly this bill moves through the legislative process, I think this has been a little bit of a hot mess, frankly. And so I think it's important for us who are running for office, who are in leadership to be unequivocal with voters. Children should be protected from sex trafficking in California full stop.

[01:02:45] And that includes 16- and 17-year-olds. California is often very quick to put requirements on 16- and 17-year-olds. Think about our graduated driving license requirements. And so if my son can't drive past 11 p.m., he sure as hell shouldn't be able to be bought and sold for sex. That's disgusting. And so I think – I trust the legislature, including the Democrats in the legislature, to get this over the finish line in a clean way. I think what we saw was a little bit of a procedural mess.

[01:03:12] I'm looking forward to seeing it cleaned up and being able to see a bill signed in law. And I think the assembly member who's led on this bill comes at this with some real expertise. And so listening to her is really important, letting her use her expertise in the legislature. When I went to Congress, I had expertise in consumer protection. And so making sure that we're using the talents that we do have in Sacramento to their full effect. I'm sorry. That's literally the first time that I've actually seen that because it just came up.

[01:03:43] I agree with what she said. I agree with what she said. But the end was political gobbledygook because she says, well, I trust Democrats in the legislature to get this bill over the hump and pass a clean bill. She did minimize the a little bit of a hot mess. No, it was it was it was it was it's self-inflicted podcast canceled by my language, by the way. I'm sorry.

[01:04:11] I'm sure there's worse out there, but we're fine. Your party is the one who F this all up. You don't get to say, well, I think it's you know, it's going to be up to Democrats to clean this up. Like as if there was a mess and she's like, well, the California Democrats are going to get this over the hill and get a clean bill there. I trust them. She was with the ones who created this. There was like a little broom and some crumbs. And she's like, this is what I mean. Here's my visual. This is what I mean. This is the bill.

[01:04:40] We're going to sweep the bill and clean. We're going to clean it up. But it's just you can at a certain point, if you want to be tough, you can say, hey, you know, my party missed the boat on this one. But if I'm governor, call him out. Be like, I'm different all the time. And then people are like, how dare you? But no, no. How dare they? No correction. Regardless of party lines. No correction.

[01:05:08] The way at the end she made it sound like, well, you know, we're going to clean up this mess. The mess you created. So, next point I want to talk about. If Democrats, again, Katie Porter might be a good segue into this. Trying to minimize how, what the Democrats have done and how much they've screwed this up. To go on the offense, California Democrats released these ads.

[01:05:36] Josh Hoover voted against stronger laws protecting 16 and 17 year old victims of sex trafficking. Assembly Hoover protects his political party, not our kids. And then it goes on to say James Gallagher voted against stronger laws. Didn't Josh? No, it's not Hoover. Hoover didn't just have a baby. Fong did. He's congressman. So, they decided.

[01:06:07] They decided they had a meeting. The Calvary Democratic Party said, look guys, this is really bad press for us. What should we do? I know. We'll say they voted against protecting 16 and 17 year olds. We'll change the narrative. Okay. But can the Republicans sue? I mean, that's like defamation. That's flat out lying. But of course, they are. That's pretty. Yeah.

[01:06:36] I mean, they're basically saying that they voted in favor of pedophiles. Which is not true. When Republicans and some Democrats were for the 16, 17 year old automatic felony. It's a very good question. I don't know if you can sue because it's part of the legislative process. But it's amazing that they had the gall to go, we're just going to say, nah, we're just going to say the Republicans were voting against them.

[01:07:04] I guess people will believe that. And for those who are listening or didn't notice, that ad clearly said, paid for by the California Democratic Party. So, just. Yeah, it didn't say like, it didn't say like some other pack or something. It was literally the California Democratic Party paid for these ads to gaslight people

[01:07:34] into believing that it was the Republicans who were voting against protecting 16 and 17 year olds. So, not to be outdone. California Republican Party was quick on their heels. They have released their own ad. A Democratic Assembly member, Mark Gonzalez. And the rest of the Democrats in the State Assembly. Blocked a law that would have protected us. I'm 17. I'm 17. I'm 16.

[01:08:03] Every day, I worry about being targeted, being unsafe. In California, soliciting a teenager for sex isn't always a felony. That's not right. They not like us. They don't know what it's like to feel this fear. Our safety isn't minor. This crime should never be just a misdemeanor. It isn't a minor crime. It's a violation of our childhood. Call your Democratic Assembly member today. Tell them to protect us. Because trying to buy a child should break the law, not bend it.

[01:08:34] So, that's how the California Republican Party is fighting back. They have... They're now targeting eight Assembly members with this ad. So, they're going to run this in their district. So, they're like, hey, you want to play this game? Great. We're going to play this game. We're going to tell people what the true facts are. So, I'm trying to figure out where to go from here. So, we have this back and forth. We have the debate.

[01:09:04] Obviously, throwing lies. Well, the Democrats are throwing lies to try and cover their butts. Republicans counter with some good ads to run in Assembly districts. Which, again, elections are next year. So, a lot of this stuff is coming right back up. So, it could be very, very relevant for next year. But the punchline is, as of a couple hours ago, it was all changed.

[01:09:33] So, all this debate... We just went through all that. We just went through all that. Well, I think it's important. I think it's important that people understand how we got here. So, even though the end result ended up being that they were going to... You know, this whole 16 and 17-year-old thing. And then it ends up exactly where I guess they wanted it. There is a caveat that I think it's like three years now. It's like 16 and 17 are automatic felonies.

[01:10:03] If they're older than three years... Okay. Not sure that's a great stipulation. But that's where we ended up. And Maggie Krell, who was taken off as author of the bill as of last week... How do you even do that? Literally, how do you... Okay. Sorry. We're already over time. I won't try to answer that... Get that answered. But that is like so bizarre to me that they can remove the author. It sounds petty, doesn't it? It's like...

[01:10:32] It's like we don't like your bill. So, we're going to take you off. And we're going to just completely gut and amend your bill. You did all the work. You did all the legwork. But... Good note. So, moral of the story. For all those who are watching or listening. At the end of the day, pressure worked. Public pressure worked. Media pressure worked. People calling and tweeting and bringing this up on social media all worked.

[01:11:02] And now the bill is going to move forward with the automatic felony for 16 and 17 year olds. And Maggie Krell gets put back on. I believe the voting is tomorrow morning. I believe so. Yeah. It's quick. So, it's already... Like, they're already jumping it. But this is what happened with SB 1414. Keep that in mind. Right. They initially did not pass it out of committee. And then it got national attention. Gavin Newsom got involved. So, they only bent when there was national pressure or public pressure.

[01:11:34] So, it's like if they didn't get caught or no one was paying attention, they would have been fine with doing this and doing the way they wanted to. Which is even more disturbing. It's because they got caught. It's like that always thing. Like, people apologize. Like, celebrities or something. And I was like, oh, I'm so sorry. Now, you're sorry you got caught or something like that. But the moral of the story is whether they were going to change out of goodness of our hearts or because we caught them, what you said was absolutely correct. Just a couple minutes ago.

[01:12:04] You have to keep the pressure on a lot of these political officials and public officials. You have to keep the pressure on because if they know you're watching and now in a day and age of social media and how fast news can spread, it can. We are the checks and balances on a lot of these bad, horrific, disgusting policies here in California. We really are.

[01:12:28] Like, the small minority of Republicans who are fighting like hell up there in Sacramento are doing their best. But it's really up to the people who are out here with our social media and we can call and we can write letters and we can organize. That's how you keep. That's honestly how you keep a lot of these crazy Democrats in check is you just got to shine a spotlight on them and sunshine and all that.

[01:12:52] And just it will, as you can see, they caved within a week, which is insane to me. Less than a week, actually, because the the reading was like less than a week ago and the pressure was so bad that they eventually were like, oh, no, we're going to stick by it. And then they caved with in less than a week. So. But still keep an eye on this because.

[01:13:18] Tomorrow or Thursday, whatever, they actually do the vote on it, it still has to go through the Senate. True. And hopefully the Senate's watching and no funny games, no funny business. And they just they better they better just pass it. But, well, you know, Scott Wiener's over there. So. Wiener's over there with his. Scott Wiener's over there. We want to arrest 18 year olds who are offering 17 year olds 20 bucks to fool around. To fool around at high school. Inflation.

[01:13:49] That's what Scott Wiener's worried about. Sick joke. All right. I think we fully covered AB 379. Obviously, if there's any updates, we'll give it to you. But this is basically the full story of AB 379, how it got here, what happened, the back and forth. I don't know. How do you think we did? Do you think we covered everything? I hope we covered everything. And I just I mean, the reason, again, that why we covered everything of instead of just bringing you this update of like, hey, this is where it's at.

[01:14:19] Because we needed to show the public pressure. And remember, these people are up. All assembly members are up every two years, every single one of them. Some are going to turn out. Now, some, you know, we'll have some new candidates. But every single one of these people will be running again. Well, again, unless they're turned out. 2026. Some of them running for higher offices. Oh, and that was back to my point about the video in San Diego. You know, Mayor Todd Gloria, I don't know when he turns out, but he's more than likely going to run for a higher office.

[01:14:49] This is this is a man who can't get his his budget in order. And it's not about budgets. Obviously, this podcast is not about budgets. But there is a budget for homelessness. St. You San Diego's pay taxes for. And there are people hired to do this work. And they're not doing it. It's not getting done. And, you know, that is under Mayor Todd Gloria. So to go back to if these people are not doing their job or they're doing a really sick job of it or they've proven themselves to be really sick people.

[01:15:19] Don't elect them again. Look at your alternatives. Don't elect these people. Every two years, we get the opportunity to kick them out. It's going to fly by. We're already. Well, we're only like six months into the two year term. But, you know, in about a year, 13 months, we're voting in the we've got the primaries. We literally get to start removing these people. Pay attention. Jot down names. See who's in your district.

[01:15:49] Yeah. And watch them. You know, keep it. Keep it. Keep a list because you can go back and look. How did they vote on this first amendment? How did they vote on this past amendment that they were passing? You know, there you can go see it. I'm sure it's posted everywhere. You can say, did my assembly member vote in favor of these amendments to exclude 16 or 17 year olds? Or did they stand up to protect minors? And that's important. And that information is going to be out there all the way through 2026.

[01:16:19] So it's almost like they're trying to dismantle Prop 36, which passed. It's it's like they, you know, there's Prop 36 is supposed to be harder on crimes, harsher punishments and really crack down on criminal activity. And it's like it feels like the left legislator wants to then be like, OK, well, since we lost there, let's turn around and start making things.

[01:16:43] I mean, it's already a misdemeanor, but it just feels like they're like, well, let's make these these crimes less penalties for crimes. And therefore, we don't actually have to uphold Prop 36. That's kind of how it feels to me. Yeah. You would think after a resounding win on Prop 36, where 70 percent in every single county voted in favor of Prop 36,

[01:17:05] you think Democrats would probably not take an anti-public safety, anti-law enforcement, anti-criminal justice stance. But yeah, you would think that, hey, Californians actually care about crime. They actually want safety. They care about enforcing the law and public safety. Crazy. Crazy. But again, that I think that goes back to how they think they're invincible and impenetrable. So with that said, we need to go a little bit over, but this was a lot of information.

[01:17:33] So with that said, how do I forget? Almost how we where are we? What's going on here? Where am I? As we end every episode, make sure you like, share, subscribe, review helps with the algorithm, helps people find us. And the best way to support this show that is 100 percent free is you can share it with somebody else. So please do. If somebody has questions about AB 379, you can say, hey, go check out this podcast. They did a whole breakdown of it.

[01:18:03] So with that, we will see you on the next one. Later. Thank you for listening to another episode of California Underground. 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. Bye.