On this episode, we discuss the top political stories in California for the year of 2022. We go over as much as possible from the disappearance of the budget surplus to reparations.
Also, did you know there is no official state fruit of California?
Links Mentioned in Show
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/reparations-tally-could-surpass-half-a-million-dollars-but-task-force-also-wants-to-change-california-policies/ar-AA15naun
https://spectator.org/poof-california-surplus-is-gone/
https://thereload.com/california-plans-to-alert-gun-owners-whose-information-it-leaked/
https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/12/30/the-top-5-stories-in-california-politics-in-2022/
https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2022/08/23/slathering-after-the-presidency-newsoms-veto-of-sb-57-was-pure-political-calculation-n616469
https://www.capradio.org/articles/2022/12/30/the-top-5-stories-in-california-politics-in-2022/
*The California Underground Podcast is dedicated to discussing California politics from a place of sanity and rationality.*
Support California Underground on Patreon at www.patreon.com/CaliforniaUnderground
Follow California Underground on Social Media Instagram: www.instagram.com/californiaunderground
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj8SabIcF4AKqEVFsLmo1jA
Substack: https://substack.com/profile/72986149-ca_underground
Shop California Underground Merchandise: https://california-underground.creator-spring.com
Review the Anchor.Fm Privacy Policy: Anchor - The easiest way to make a podcast
00:00:01
What's going on everybody? Thanks for tuning in to another
00:00:03
episode of California underground here with my
00:00:05
co-host, Camille. How are you Camille?
00:00:07
How was your Christmas? Good.
00:00:10
Thank you. Christmas was good.
00:00:12
It was a warm day. It's back to being cold.
00:00:15
Yeah, it was like a stereotypical, will not
00:00:17
stereotypical, but it felt kind of I don't know if I should have
00:00:21
felt bad that we were basking in like 70 degree weather, and the
00:00:26
rest of the country is dealing with, like, below freezing, and,
00:00:29
like, Buffalo has like six feet of snow.
00:00:31
And we're just like, whew, it's hot 675 degrees here.
00:00:34
This is really how to control. Its white would pay $6 a gallon
00:00:38
for gas. Well, that's one of the reasons
00:00:40
we pay $6 a gallon for gas. You know, they say that's the
00:00:43
sunshine tax. Also Camille's also rocking the
00:00:47
California underground t-shirt, so rock and merch.
00:00:51
Always appreciate, I'm rocking my mug.
00:00:53
So I was so glad to see that your navy blue.
00:00:56
Navy Blues, my color. My own it.
00:00:58
Yeah. Yeah.
00:01:00
It's pretty. I just think I added a bunch of
00:01:03
colors to the T-shirt so if you don't like black, which is like
00:01:05
the default for all of them, I think there's a whole bunch of
00:01:07
different colors. There's like white and navy
00:01:10
blue, and I don't have to go check it out, but the point of
00:01:14
tonight's episode is not to talk about Christmas in the warm
00:01:17
weather. We're here to talk about the
00:01:19
tops. Or he's of 2022, regarding
00:01:22
California politics. I think it's a perfect time to
00:01:25
wrap it all up. We're two three days away from
00:01:29
the New Year's. So, here we are.
00:01:32
We want to talk about the biggest stories.
00:01:33
In our opinion, that happened in California and I think there's a
00:01:37
bunch of them. We're going to try and get
00:01:39
through as many as possible. If you are an avid listener, you
00:01:45
may hear me talk about stuff that I've said before I
00:01:48
apologize, but You know, maybe my feelings haven't really
00:01:52
changed now, you get to hear Camille's perspective on a lot
00:01:55
of these stories. So ladies first, what's the
00:01:59
first story you want to talk about in 2022?
00:02:05
Let's talk about Proposition 1. I guess that's just a miracle.
00:02:09
My heart. Okay, what do you want to talk
00:02:13
about? Obviously that came about
00:02:17
because once it came about, but people really showed up because
00:02:21
of the jobs decision with the spring fork and Californians
00:02:27
were going to make sure that we added to our constitution.
00:02:31
Our California Constitution that we added to Article 1.
00:02:34
We have been artha one to make sure that abortion was Human
00:02:38
rights. Yeah, so this was on top of
00:02:45
there. Already are laws in California
00:02:49
that protect this, right? I don't know why I put air
00:02:53
quotes but to protect this, right.
00:02:56
This seems to be something on top of it.
00:02:58
And if you're legally, speaking about what this means, the
00:03:03
California Constitution sub. Supersedes all laws in the state
00:03:07
of California, so no law can go against the California
00:03:11
Constitution. Ian enshrining a right in the
00:03:14
California Constitution means that it's not as easy as if down
00:03:18
the road. A miracle happens and let's say
00:03:21
a different party takes over the legislature and different
00:03:24
projects over the governorship that they can go.
00:03:26
Okay. Well now we're not going to
00:03:27
listen to this law and we're going to overturn it.
00:03:29
You would have to actually get it revoked out of the California
00:03:32
Constitution, which requires a whole proposition and people to
00:03:36
vote on it. It past pretty overwhelmingly,
00:03:40
it wasn't even really a A close race for prop 1 and well, I
00:03:47
think we've talked about this before, that's that's pretty
00:03:54
damn High. It is not a proposition like
00:03:57
that I would venture to say. A lot of people didn't even know
00:04:00
this proposition was happening because I didn't see any
00:04:04
advertising regarding This proposition at all.
00:04:09
I didn't even see. I saw like a couple Pro adds at
00:04:12
the end of the election cycle, but I was surprised that there
00:04:16
wasn't more From different organizations, different
00:04:21
pro-life organizations that actually went out.
00:04:24
And said, let's just get some ads out there to show like what
00:04:28
this is going to be and activate voters.
00:04:30
It was almost like no one talked about.
00:04:32
Like it was a foregone conclusion that was going to
00:04:34
win. So people just didn't even try
00:04:36
to defeat it. Did you get that sense as well?
00:04:41
I heard a lot about it but I'm also a part of a lot of pro-life
00:04:44
groups like I follow a lot of pro-life groups but I don't wear
00:04:48
what I had necessarily here. Advertisements besides I'm not
00:04:52
like you and I are younger. We probably don't have regular
00:04:54
TV with commercials were probably not the Senate regular
00:04:57
radio with commercials. Yeah I'm assuming and so I don't
00:05:01
know where we would be hearing necessarily these ads but I
00:05:05
personally follow a lot of pro life.
00:05:08
Social media accounts. Yeah.
00:05:11
And say my circle is mostly pro-life people or at least very
00:05:16
far right people. Not that I don't have far less
00:05:18
people friends. But so what I'm seeing on social
00:05:21
media. There was a lot of talk about
00:05:23
this against it. Yeah.
00:05:26
And I think there was definitely a group of the electorate that
00:05:30
was activated against it. It's just interesting to me that
00:05:33
there was that didn't translate into yard signs.
00:05:38
It didn't translate into which our good friend.
00:05:42
Cynthia hates yard signs. I'm surprised we didn't see yard
00:05:46
signs. They don't do anything.
00:05:48
Sorry, I interrupted you, I hear I hear yard signs really don't
00:05:52
do anything. That's never they've determined
00:05:55
in polls. Yeah.
00:05:56
Not really swayed by them. Yeah, I don't think they move
00:05:59
the needle at all. Nobody looks at a yard sign.
00:06:02
Just goes, hey, I know that name, I'm going to vote for him.
00:06:06
Yeah, I was just surprised that it didn't, there wasn't more of
00:06:09
a push back on Prop 1, maybe people just figure.
00:06:13
It's not worth the money, but maybe it's kind of depressing
00:06:18
because I think, Sometimes there is such things in politics as a
00:06:27
moral victory. And in the sense that you could
00:06:34
make election a lot closer. And maybe kind of shocked the
00:06:41
established politicians here in California like when Prop 8
00:06:45
didn't pass or was it Prop 8 passed or didn't pass that
00:06:48
around so long time ago. The past, right?
00:06:52
That was the no hate, write it like.
00:06:56
Yeah, it was when gay marriage was first voted on and it didn't
00:06:59
pass and it, shocked everyone. That gay marriage.
00:07:02
Did. I was a long time?
00:07:05
I think I was like, back in college when that happened.
00:07:09
But yeah, I think there's there's some sort of moral
00:07:12
victory of it probably was going to pass anyway, but one thing I
00:07:17
did want to kind of look at and I apologize, I should have Done
00:07:20
this before hopping on the show tonight, but with all the other
00:07:24
stories I want to make sure I knew about.
00:07:26
All of them is kind of just break down how different groups
00:07:30
voted for prop 1. Because I would venture to say
00:07:34
there's probably something you can read in the tea leaves among
00:07:37
different minority, groups regarding prop 1 and whether the
00:07:42
Hispanic Community voted overwhelmingly for it or the
00:07:46
Asian American Community voted overwhelmingly for.
00:07:49
And if not is Is that something that conservatives can kind of
00:07:52
look at? And say, well, this is an issue.
00:07:55
These groups are not 110% behind, maybe it's something we
00:07:59
can use, and I was just surprised that there wasn't more
00:08:02
of a fight to say like, hey, Make it a struggle for prop 12
00:08:07
pass so that they know. Okay, this is the Line in the
00:08:11
Sand of like how far we can go with this and push, but when it
00:08:15
passes with 67% they're like great, we can just go farther
00:08:20
and farther and farther down the road with this.
00:08:22
And that's what I think is scary, is that, you know, you
00:08:25
may have not beat this right now but you could have sent a
00:08:30
stronger message to politicians that.
00:08:33
Yeah, this barely past you kind of push the envelope here so
00:08:37
probably don't push it that much more.
00:08:40
It's true, two things on that. One kind of disappointed that
00:08:44
you didn't ask me to look up all that information regarding which
00:08:49
eyes. Okay good.
00:08:51
Thank you apology accepted second.
00:08:53
Maybe we should real quick recap.
00:08:55
Exactly what proposition one did.
00:08:56
Just for those who are listening and are still confused, or don't
00:08:59
know. Yeah, prop 1A very basically
00:09:05
predict protects the right to Reproductive choices.
00:09:12
It doesn't say abortion in it but it's kind of enshrined of
00:09:16
like, you can choose how whether you want to take a child to
00:09:21
term, or if you want to get an abortion, it's very, very
00:09:24
broadly written and I think they did that on purpose.
00:09:28
So, that laws written that would conform to proper one.
00:09:34
That's not part of the California Constitution, they
00:09:36
wouldn't be in violation of it. So illegal reading of it, If you
00:09:40
wrote a law that says, oh we can, you can have an abortion up
00:09:44
until an hour after you give birth.
00:09:47
They may look and go well you know it's pretty broad the
00:09:50
California constitutional right. So therefore it's a valid law
00:09:53
and we're not going to strike it down so that's what prop one
00:09:57
basically did. It was, it was definitely
00:10:01
pro-abortion in terms of protecting that abortion, right?
00:10:05
It was definitely a political move by California.
00:10:08
Democrats. After the Dobbs decision, which
00:10:11
was probably the biggest political story I would argue in
00:10:15
2022. Was that row was overturned and
00:10:20
I think California was just kind of plant and its flag in virtue
00:10:24
signal. World of like we're going to get
00:10:26
this out. It was a constitutional
00:10:28
amendment proposed by the Senate of the California legislature.
00:10:32
And yeah, I mean, it passed overwhelmingly.
00:10:35
So it does protect that right to an abortion.
00:10:38
Even though it doesn't say abortion and I keep using air
00:10:41
quotes. I don't know why.
00:10:44
And actually, just the abortion in the wording, do it.
00:10:46
Essay portion article on at the California Constitution Section.
00:10:49
1, it was added a section 1.1, not going to read the whole
00:10:53
thing, but the state shall not deny or interfere with an
00:10:55
individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate
00:10:57
decisions which includes their fundamental right to choose to
00:11:00
have an abortion and they're vulnerable in a right to choose
00:11:03
or refuse contraceptives and that it goes on, okay.
00:11:10
But regarding this because it specifically does say which it
00:11:15
freedom in their most intimate decisions which includes so
00:11:19
reproductive Freedom. Hmm.
00:11:24
They California put out that website.
00:11:27
What is it like abortion dot ca.gov or something like that?
00:11:32
Where you can go to find where to get an abortion, and that
00:11:38
have you seen not on that website?
00:11:41
They have a like a resource link and they actually want people to
00:11:48
report Pregnancy Crisis centers for Miss information because
00:11:55
Pregnancy Crisis centers. Don't generally offer abortion.
00:11:58
Therefore, they are not pro-choice clinics.
00:12:03
And are you pulling up? I'm pulling it up right now.
00:12:08
So, they actually have like a PDF if you go to support.
00:12:16
I think it is. It's support and then maybe it's
00:12:22
maybe it's under getting up now, I forget, whatever it doesn't
00:12:24
matter. Anyway, they have this
00:12:27
different. This is a PDF that this is a
00:12:30
know, the differences between crisis pregnancy centers versus
00:12:33
reproductive health, care facilities.
00:12:35
And then they want people, there's like a form that you can
00:12:38
click to reports crisis, pregnancy centers, mind you We
00:12:46
stick taller State's art, it taxes State funds are funding
00:12:51
abortions, but we are not funding crisis, pregnancy
00:12:55
centers. And so I don't see how this
00:12:58
protects your most independent your most intimate decisions for
00:13:04
Reproductive Rights. Like this, you said this is very
00:13:10
Pro abortion, this is not pro-choice.
00:13:14
Like we really went to were without saying it.
00:13:18
We're an abortion State. We are not a pro-choice State.
00:13:22
We are not friends towards choice of keeping the baby.
00:13:26
Now we're not friendly towards the choice of.
00:13:30
Do you want to keep a baby and start a family?
00:13:33
Or do you not want to start it? It's your pro.
00:13:36
This one choice. And right.
00:13:38
The the one choice is abortion. For those of you for people who
00:13:43
are listening, can you explain like, what's the difference?
00:13:47
What is, what you're saying, the pregnancy centers?
00:13:49
Like what do they do? And what's, what's wire?
00:13:52
The wire people reporting the so Crisis.
00:13:56
Pregnancy Center would be that if you are a woman, not a
00:13:59
perfect person, but a woman who finds herself pregnant, with
00:14:01
versus pregnancy, whatever the situation is, abusive
00:14:07
relationships, Great single poor low-income whatever may be and
00:14:13
you would like to find other resources other options other
00:14:16
than abortion. Maybe you would like to adopt
00:14:18
out your baby maybe you want to keep your baby and you don't
00:14:20
know how that's going to be possible and so Crisis Pregnancy
00:14:23
would be something that would help you with with setting you
00:14:27
up with adoption setting you up with you know food baby if
00:14:32
they're often funded obviously nonprofits so they're not
00:14:37
funded. By the state, they're funded via
00:14:40
people many churches obviously work with a lot of these crisis
00:14:43
pregnancy centers to help the women.
00:14:45
I know the church that I used to go to and my sister, her husband
00:14:49
have a church and they are very involved with several local,
00:14:51
crisis pregnancy centers where they will throw baby showers for
00:14:54
all the women having babies, they will do Christmas parties,
00:14:57
you know, stuff like that. And so these are not funded by
00:15:01
the state. Therefore, this is not like if
00:15:03
you and I choose to go and find them.
00:15:05
Personally, it's not our tax dollars.
00:15:06
It's something we could You know do but yet the state wants to
00:15:10
shut them down because the Crisis Pregnancy Center is
00:15:13
misinformation because they don't actually help you with
00:15:16
getting an abortion. Got it.
00:15:18
So it's the voice of keeping the baby.
00:15:21
Right? And they don't want that.
00:15:24
Where's Planned Parenthood isn't going to help you get adopt your
00:15:28
baby or keep your baby. They are there to give you an
00:15:31
abortion to enter pregnancy. Got it.
00:15:35
Okay. We funded with tax dollars.
00:15:39
Interesting. Yeah, it just all comes back to.
00:15:44
If you have one choice in California, there's one approved
00:15:48
choice and we've talked about this.
00:15:51
As it may be, you know, one day in a couple weeks, we'll talk
00:15:54
about more in terms of like, arakawa Publican platform and
00:15:57
all that stuff and sort of our answer to what that is and what
00:16:01
that means. But we won't get into that
00:16:03
tonight because that's not the point of what that is.
00:16:05
But it is interesting that they always say, they're pro-choice
00:16:09
when reality, they're just probe.
00:16:10
This only choice, you can't be anything else.
00:16:14
Is there anything else you want to touch upon with prop one
00:16:17
before we move on? Look, I don't think so.
00:16:24
Okay, let's see what's a start though.
00:16:29
It actually is interesting because like you said, a lot of
00:16:30
people didn't know, because more people did show up to vote.
00:16:33
No, on proposition 27 which was the legalizing sports betting, I
00:16:38
think, Almost 9 million people show up to vote for prop 27.
00:16:42
Where is it was just over 7 billion for prop one.
00:16:46
That's really weird and but prop 27 had way more advertising.
00:16:51
Yeah we were I mean I got me. It was about it daily.
00:16:54
I got mailers I could not watch a YouTube video without prop 27.
00:16:59
Being shoved down my throat, my 15 year old daughter was like
00:17:03
I'm voting. No, because everything I see
00:17:04
told me down where she can't vote but she was making a
00:17:07
mockery of it because she's like all I hear, She's like, I get
00:17:09
the mail and all I see I get advertisements on YouTube and
00:17:12
Twitter and she's like, I'm voting.
00:17:13
No, that was the one that we disagreed on, where I actually
00:17:16
voted yes on it. But that's a conversation for
00:17:20
another day. I want to talk about real quick
00:17:24
this because this is sort of interesting to me as an attorney
00:17:27
and I'll try and make this as quick as possible is the
00:17:31
announcement of Gavin. Newsom, scare court.
00:17:35
So if you for those who are listening, You don't know what
00:17:39
his character is. It's basically a rip off of
00:17:43
Michael Schell and burgers plan to kind of attack homelessness
00:17:49
or tackle homelessness not attack homelessness.
00:17:51
That sounds horrible that they're going to attack the
00:17:53
homeless to tackle homelessness maybe that's the solution.
00:17:56
Maybe we just have to attack homeless people.
00:17:59
And it's just that is completely a joke for anybody who wants to
00:18:03
take that out of context I disavow attacking homeless,
00:18:06
people do not, attack homeless people, don't attack anybody, in
00:18:12
fact just you know, keep your you know, what's about you and
00:18:15
don't attack anybody anyway. So he came up with this Carrick
00:18:19
or idea and it like I said it's a ripoff of Michael Shawn
00:18:22
Burgers idea what it basically is it's going to be interesting
00:18:27
in terms of civil rights. because, The idea is basically
00:18:35
here's the basic gist of it is that they will start arresting
00:18:39
homeless people. And when these homeless people
00:18:42
are taken to court, they will give them a choice.
00:18:45
And the choice is, you can either go to jail for what you
00:18:48
did or you can go into rehab. There's also like just homeless
00:18:57
people, that committed crimes, you weren't very clear on that
00:19:00
public intoxication. Station being, you know, a
00:19:04
nuisance, I mean, you could, I mean, there's plenty of things
00:19:07
you can pick up homeless people on all the time, you know,
00:19:12
public nudity. It's just the idea is that they
00:19:15
can actually have a way a mechanism to kind of get them in
00:19:19
court and then force them to go into some sort of rehab and the
00:19:24
court would have order mental health service.
00:19:30
Sort of like there would be a conservatorship over this
00:19:34
person. Now, there's been a lot of
00:19:37
pushback in terms of civil rights, who say, well, you can't
00:19:40
force people to take mental or go into rehab or mental
00:19:44
treatment against their will. Also the details of a are
00:19:49
really, really sparse in terms of how they're actually going to
00:19:53
implement this, they do have attorneys who are
00:19:59
court-appointed. Attorneys for conservatorships.
00:20:02
I don't know if they want to start doing that.
00:20:05
For this certain thing are they going to appoint like private
00:20:08
attorneys like myself and say okay you're going to be a member
00:20:11
of care core and you're going to protect like it's right now
00:20:15
there it's sparse on details and it brings up a lot of questions
00:20:19
about whether or not it will actually work.
00:20:23
It's a bold solution at least it's a solution.
00:20:26
I feel like it's something that Newsom.
00:20:29
Definitely ripped off of Michael shallenberger, and I think,
00:20:31
shellenberger rightly called him out for saying.
00:20:33
Yeah, you ripped off basically, what I said, which was he wants
00:20:36
to do, he called it Cal psyche, which is the state would create
00:20:40
basically one giant program called calcite, and they would
00:20:44
kind of get all the homeless people who are suffering from
00:20:47
mental issues, into this calcite program.
00:20:51
But it will be interesting to see because homelessness is an
00:20:55
issue. And right now outside of
00:20:57
spending I don't know billions and billions of dollars on it.
00:21:01
I mean what is San Francisco spend billions of dollars
00:21:04
fourteen billion dollars a year on homelessness and it's not
00:21:07
getting better. It is interesting to see whether
00:21:10
Newsom will get this finished before his the end of his next
00:21:14
term which will begin in January.
00:21:18
And if he does what's and then he wants to run for president.
00:21:24
I'm just kidding which we're going to get to.
00:21:27
We're going to talk about why? He did stuff this year that I
00:21:30
think shows that he wants to run for president, but that's
00:21:33
something to keep your eye on in terms of whether or not it this
00:21:37
will go through and whether it will look good for Gavin.
00:21:40
Newsom will actually be a solution.
00:21:43
Will there be a bajillion lawsuits regarding civil rights
00:21:46
of the homeless? I think there's a lot of people
00:21:48
who are just fed up with homeless, that they're at their
00:21:52
out point where they just go on. I don't know.
00:21:54
Just do something. Just do anything.
00:21:56
Like we can't keep going down the same road.
00:21:58
Road, nothing's working like, try something different.
00:22:01
So that's a story that I thought was bigger and you know I've
00:22:07
learned a lot about it, through different attorney groups and
00:22:10
stuff like that. So I thought it was interesting.
00:22:14
I could just see and I'm being serious.
00:22:16
When I say this in a few years, the homeless groups, rise up.
00:22:20
And they're kind of like the new BLM for there because they're
00:22:22
going to feel like they are being targeted, simply for being
00:22:26
homeless, not for committing crimes.
00:22:28
There's going to be Like a hole? Uprising of them against the
00:22:32
state, you know against the system.
00:22:35
Yeah. We like you hate us because
00:22:38
we're homeless. Yeah I think there's like I
00:22:42
could see that happening. Oh I could definitely see that
00:22:44
happening in different places in LA and San Francisco, I could
00:22:48
definitely see groups of you know, middle-class college
00:22:54
students creating these organizations in March and in
00:22:58
the name yeah free the homeless or something like yeah it'll be
00:23:04
like I heart homeless or something like that will be
00:23:06
their slogan but yeah, I could see that and that's Now, we'll
00:23:10
be ahead of the game. I'm sorry.
00:23:11
That's a joke. That's it.
00:23:13
Don't don't do that either and don't attack homeless people.
00:23:19
So yeah, we're not calling for people to attack homeless.
00:23:24
People don't affect almost people.
00:23:26
All right, so that was my second or first one.
00:23:29
What's What's the next one you want talk about?
00:23:36
So we talk about I guess this actually goes along with it but
00:23:39
Gavin Newsom. Vetoing.
00:23:44
What was it? SB, 57.
00:23:46
You want to talk about that? Yes, let's talk about that.
00:23:51
Okay, you talk. Okay, Senate Bill 57.
00:23:57
I have it right in front of me. The bill would have authorized
00:23:59
legal operation of drug harm reduction centers.
00:24:01
In the major old metropoliz has of La San Francisco and Oakland
00:24:06
in San Francisco, a test pilot program where people could use
00:24:09
illegal drugs, under medical supervision has been active
00:24:12
since January. And this was a bill that went in
00:24:17
front of Gavin Newsom, and he vetoed it.
00:24:22
And I think a lot of people were shocked that he vetoed,
00:24:28
something like this because it had a lot of support from his
00:24:31
Democratic colleagues. Also, authored by Scott weiner.
00:24:36
Yes. Yeah.
00:24:38
Because he made a whole sting. He went on Twitter immediately,
00:24:40
and threw a temper tantrum after SB, 57 was beat out, but I think
00:24:46
anybody who knows, and I don't want to Pat myself on the back,
00:24:49
but I'm going to go ahead and Pat myself on the back.
00:24:51
Anyway, when I saw That this bill was heading towards his
00:24:53
desk. I said to myself, I think I
00:24:56
probably said this on a coughing California politics back and
00:24:59
day. I said, if he's smart, he's not
00:25:03
going to sign this bill because it's wants to run for president.
00:25:08
He's not going to sign this bill because there's no way you can
00:25:12
go to the flyover states, like Iowa and win a primary, where
00:25:17
you one of your bills, you sign into law is to allow for the The
00:25:23
safe safe. Again, this is air quotes a safe
00:25:27
and legal drug operation centers, where people can just
00:25:31
go and shoot up illegal drugs. That's not going to fly if you
00:25:34
want to run for president and it was a smart calculation on
00:25:38
Newsome's part. I hate that he probably came to
00:25:41
that conclusion because of political aspirations, not
00:25:45
because this is absolutely terrible bill.
00:25:47
But sometimes you got to be happy with the results how they
00:25:50
happen. So what are your Thoughts.
00:25:54
Well, I think it actually is interesting that it got.
00:25:57
As far as it did, considering it does somewhat contradict SB, 57,
00:26:05
that we just spoke about no sir, not what's so wrong about that,
00:26:08
the Care Act, Drug abuse is illegal and then here they were
00:26:15
trying to make it like. Well let's make it legally safe
00:26:19
but let's also Russ homeless people for crimes and so I felt
00:26:24
like they actually the to contradicted each other.
00:26:27
But yes, like you said early on early this year, you thought
00:26:33
Newsome would be do it simply because of his presidential
00:26:36
aspirations and it would not look good when it was brought up
00:26:39
across the whole country that, you know, oh Lisa.
00:26:41
Find this SB 57 into law allowing legal safety, sites for
00:26:46
drugs because with everything everything is a slippery slope
00:26:51
and I hate to be that person but everything is a slippery slope
00:26:53
and it's going to go beyond just like safe drugs for the homeless
00:26:56
community and you know this and that it's going to be like
00:26:59
suddenly it's going to be our teenagers are going to be
00:27:01
showing up to be sites and no one's do and they're going to be
00:27:04
protected. You know we're always about
00:27:05
protecting our kids from their parents.
00:27:08
The parents are bad people here. So, I'm very glad to see that
00:27:12
this was vetoed. However, I did you read his
00:27:14
letter that he put out this statement?
00:27:18
I did not. Oh, I'm sorry, I should have
00:27:20
sent it to you. I think we put a whole I'm not
00:27:26
going to read it, but he there was a few things that he said
00:27:30
that he would like to that. He was concerned about that, he
00:27:32
would like to be addressed so that this could be brought up in
00:27:34
the future like these concerns on just this and that of why he
00:27:39
vetoed it and what he would like.
00:27:41
Like to see reformed so this can pass in the future.
00:27:45
Hmm. Okay, yeah.
00:27:49
That you know, kids over the age of 14 could also use these safe
00:27:53
drug sites because their parents are really mean and won't let
00:27:56
him use it and drugs, that is well, I mean, we're sort of
00:28:00
headed down that road in California, Scott wiener our
00:28:06
favorite, senator who was really focused on the top issues of
00:28:10
California. Is has a group of other Senators
00:28:15
who are pushing for the legalization of psychedelics in
00:28:19
California now. So it seems to be like they just
00:28:24
kind of keep pushing the envelope and to keep pushing the
00:28:26
envelope. And you know, I don't see how
00:28:29
this is really. The most important thing to be
00:28:32
pushing. Psychedelics, are there any
00:28:34
other states who Colorado to Colorado?
00:28:38
Legalize. I feel like Colorado legalized.
00:28:44
California wouldn't be the first state to legalize psychedelics
00:28:47
like shrooms or something. But it's got winner does like to
00:28:51
put out these ever so important bills that really tackle the
00:28:54
hard issues here in California like protecting drag queen story
00:28:57
hours and psychedelics and stuff like that.
00:29:00
Shows his real top priority. This article I was reading
00:29:04
though about these programs so there was a test pilot program
00:29:12
In San Francisco and mayor London Bridge.
00:29:14
Shut it down. And there was not really a lot
00:29:18
of media on it because they didn't want to make it look bad.
00:29:23
However, the UK Daily Mail did a deep dive on it and they said,
00:29:28
San Francisco. Sutorius taxpayer-funded open
00:29:31
air drug markets will close at the end of the year after the
00:29:33
facility that said to have cost 19 million dollars in taxpayer,
00:29:37
cash treated, just 1 in every 1 users, And failed to cut
00:29:42
fatal overdose numbers. The Lincoln Center in tenderloin
00:29:46
at the heart of San Francisco Civic Center opened in January
00:29:49
and was intended to help the city's large population of
00:29:51
homeless people and drug addicts, to help to find help
00:29:55
but critics say the site rented a cost of 75 thousand dollars a
00:29:59
month. Has failed to curtail the
00:30:01
problem in the crime-ridden city which recently recalled its
00:30:04
woke. DHS a boudin amid a spike of
00:30:06
crimes blamed for a Sharp decline locals quality of life.
00:30:10
They note that only Only point one percent of those using the
00:30:13
site were directed to treatment in the first five months despite
00:30:17
the estimated 19 million spent running cost.
00:30:19
So if we're want to see, does this work or not?
00:30:26
You can look at this test. Yeah we saw the results.
00:30:29
This type this pilot program is a Cisco did not work point one
00:30:32
percent for 19 million dollars. That's how much it really
00:30:35
helped. So it's, it's a disaster waiting
00:30:42
to happen and like you said, is probably going to come back with
00:30:45
some reiteration. Okay, I don't I my bet is if it
00:30:49
comes back with just a couple tweaks here and there, I'm not
00:30:52
sure. New some would even sign it.
00:30:53
Then I think this is just a toxic thing.
00:30:56
Because any smart politician is going to see the possibility of
00:31:00
any opponent. Whether it's Republican or a
00:31:02
Democrat in the primary is going to be able to show.
00:31:05
Pictures of drugged-out homeless, people dying in the
00:31:09
Streets of San Francisco ago. This is the San Francisco and
00:31:14
California Newsom has run. Is this what you want coming to
00:31:18
Iowa and then people go? No, I don't want that coming to
00:31:21
Iowa. Don't California, my Iowa and
00:31:24
like that's it, like, he'll be dead.
00:31:26
In the water before he even gets his foot off the ground.
00:31:28
So Well. I don't know, I know a lot of
00:31:37
people come to California to be homeless because we pay them to
00:31:40
be homeless, but are a lot of them like raised here because
00:31:45
I'm just thinking back to, I know you weren't raised here.
00:31:47
I was raised here. The Dare programs that we had.
00:31:51
Although yeah, Tire life. Like so were those a complete
00:31:54
failure? I think I remember seeing that
00:31:59
dare overall was not a success. I don't know.
00:32:05
I'd have to look that up. That'd be interesting to see
00:32:08
what the Dare program was an overall success or not, but we
00:32:11
can look it up right now. We have such that drug use here.
00:32:18
I think it's because of the laxed policies in terms of DA's.
00:32:23
I think it's the laxed criminal policies.
00:32:27
Michael shellenberger did a great job.
00:32:29
Exposing that video where he went and talked to the homeless
00:32:32
people, he talked about homeless guy who basically spilled the
00:32:35
beans and was like, look people come here, because I get $800 in
00:32:40
cash. I get a certain amount of drugs,
00:32:43
I get clean needles, I get basically provided a life to
00:32:47
continue my addiction on the streets, and if I have no bills,
00:32:52
And I don't have anything to use it on other than food. $800 can
00:32:57
go a long way and if the city is not going to move me along, if I
00:33:00
set up a tent, there's no disincentive to not be a
00:33:04
homeless drug addict in California.
00:33:06
It's just the most comfortable place.
00:33:09
I think people to go, the weather is good.
00:33:12
You're not going to have to worry about freezing to death or
00:33:16
Overheating to death, like an Arizona and that's just it, like
00:33:21
it's just the most, all the combination of the factors.
00:33:24
Just makes it the best for almost people to show up here.
00:33:27
I guess they figure if I can get on a bus with my last couple
00:33:32
hundred bucks and all my possessions and catch a bus
00:33:36
Greyhound bus to San Francisco. That's where I'll go.
00:33:41
So that's my theory. Okay.
00:33:47
I want to look December 20th. This is actually really recent,
00:33:51
this was as of three days ago. The Dare program.
00:34:02
I'm looking to see Talk Amongst yourselves with regards to pot,
00:34:11
explicitly 5.8 percent of eighth graders, 13.8% of 10th graders
00:34:15
and 19.4 percent of seniors were utilizing a 2008.
00:34:18
Only five years after the fact, those figures expanded the 780
00:34:22
and 22.7% It doesn't look like it was an overall success.
00:34:29
But anyway, 30 years program ran and then they figured out it was
00:34:34
not successful. Yeah, I guess, having police
00:34:37
officers come in and talk about drugs to kids and scare them
00:34:42
with the whole. Like, this is your brain on
00:34:43
drugs, didn't really work at the end of the day.
00:34:47
There was a story that was mentioned in this article that
00:34:50
we didn't really talk about. We could just touch upon briefly
00:34:53
was the recall of chesa boudin How big of that was in San
00:34:58
Francisco and California politics?
00:34:59
That he was recalled. That was this year, right?
00:35:03
Or was it last year? I think it was last year at the
00:35:06
wrong direction together. No.
00:35:08
I think it was last year. I think it was last year because
00:35:12
there was the recall, there were two recalls going on.
00:35:15
Yes, yeah. So never mind that.
00:35:17
That was not going to try to anyway on to the next, my turn
00:35:24
your turn. It's your show.
00:35:27
Should fill you go ahead. I'm just trying to keep it even
00:35:32
on what we want to talk about next.
00:35:34
I think that was me. Turn.
00:35:36
Okay. Speaking of spending money and
00:35:41
where does it all go? The California Surplus.
00:35:46
That was bragged about to be a hundred million dollars, ninety
00:35:52
seven, and change. Is now gone poof.
00:35:57
It's all gone. I bought things you spent it.
00:36:01
Tell you. I spent it.
00:36:04
It's not that. Expensive for people listening
00:36:06
to buy that any California, merge that you need 96 or 97
00:36:10
billion dollars. So this was When was this
00:36:14
announced? That were in a deficit that we
00:36:21
have this, like, additional this surplus of 97 billion dollars it
00:36:27
was at the beginning. Well, it was last year because
00:36:30
the budget was for this fiscal fiscal year, right?
00:36:35
As I'm reading this article from the American spectator,
00:36:38
California state, budget has been Awash in cash as lawmakers,
00:36:41
this year enjoyed a ninety seven point five billion budget
00:36:44
surplus and excess amount that's left.
00:36:46
Larger than the entire general fund of all, but two states, New
00:36:49
York and Texas. So that was this year, that it
00:36:53
was announced. And then in 2021 the governor
00:36:59
enjoyed, a significant 76 billion dollar Surplus.
00:37:03
So two years in a row of surpluses.
00:37:07
And and now next year, they're saying, we're probably going to
00:37:10
be what 25 billion deficit that. What?
00:37:15
Yes, the legislative. What's the office called?
00:37:24
I forget legislative budget office or something like that
00:37:27
predicted, because of falling revenues, warning signs of
00:37:32
bullfighter, the publication in love falling, tax revenues, and
00:37:35
layoffs at Bay Area, Tech companies.
00:37:38
And now it's going to be, like, 24 billion.
00:37:40
Oh, here we go. The legislative and out analyst
00:37:43
office revealed this month. The legislature would face a
00:37:46
budget problem of 24 billion dollars in 23.
00:37:50
Or the budget problems mainly attributable to lower Revenue
00:37:53
estimates. That's a big swing That is a big
00:37:58
swing and we're, I'm imagining. We didn't like, vote, all those
00:38:03
people on the budget committee. I imagined was just Kept in the
00:38:07
people that appointed them and didn't vote them out because
00:38:10
they're really good at budgeting really terrible about it.
00:38:14
Well, I think they saw ninety seven point five billion dollars
00:38:21
and their eyes got really wide, and they decided we're going to
00:38:24
spend it on a whole bunch of things, including giving you
00:38:27
more of your tax money back. It almost triggered.
00:38:31
A constitutional provision under the California Constitution that
00:38:35
would have required the state to give tax money back.
00:38:38
Like, you can't raise infinite amounts of tax money, under the
00:38:40
California Constitution, the specific articles escaping, Me
00:38:44
right now. But if you raise a certain
00:38:47
threshold, you actually have to give some of the money back to
00:38:51
California taxpayers. That is, unless you can find
00:38:54
things to spend it on, you can't just be sitting on a whole bunch
00:38:57
of money so okay that's why he was sort of spending like a
00:39:02
drunken sailor this year. Let's say fifteen hundred
00:39:07
dollars for healthcare workers. Expanded Healthcare.
00:39:10
In particular like we talked about women seeking abortions,
00:39:14
Ends, three months of free, public transit.
00:39:16
Record per pupil school funding. I'm sure you have comments about
00:39:22
whether spending more money on Public School per pupil is
00:39:25
probably a good thing or a bad thing.
00:39:28
It would patient wasn't like failing, you know, I mean, I
00:39:33
think we talked about a few weeks ago how they want to now
00:39:36
do the additional four years or whatever.
00:39:38
And I just, it's like they're failing.
00:39:40
I think weirder 48th 49th in the nation and throughout leave.
00:39:44
More money at the problem. Hasn't solved it yet.
00:39:46
So they need to find out why we're so bad at education.
00:39:50
Public education fixing. I'm not anti publication if it
00:39:54
works but it's not working. Yeah, it's broken.
00:39:59
Well, I mean, teachers unions who own and have their strings
00:40:03
in the California legislature. And with Gavin Newsom are always
00:40:07
going to beg for more money. Yeah, when you have yeah what is
00:40:13
it? Superintendent to make half a
00:40:15
million dollars like over 500 dollars.
00:40:18
Maybe we examine why? Where that money's from?
00:40:21
What I've heard, awful stories from Futures about the condition
00:40:24
of their schools and there's things that absolutely need to
00:40:26
be repaired and the school's, absolutely need money but it's
00:40:29
never going actually to the schools and to the education and
00:40:32
to furthering the children's lives it's always going like you
00:40:35
said to the supervisors who are making five hundred thousand
00:40:38
dollars somehow in all these education bills in all these
00:40:42
funding public education is always the fine print and that
00:40:45
it's not really going to the schools that's not really going
00:40:47
to the A shit's going to the person whose thinks there's some
00:40:50
Hotshot running our lives. Yeah, just looking at some other
00:40:56
things that he's spent on. This was also in advance of the
00:41:00
recall election. Yeah, well that may I don't
00:41:06
know. Putative spouse has putative
00:41:10
spouse is may have to wait because now we have a 24 billion
00:41:13
dollar deficit he wants to spend 12 billion to How's the homeless
00:41:18
3.4 billion to expand preschool to all four year, olds 1.5
00:41:21
cleaning up the light. And, of course, these were all
00:41:24
things that he announced while getting a nice photo opportunity
00:41:29
for future campaigns. Whether it was the recall or the
00:41:34
election this year or maybe a presidential run in 2020 820
00:41:39
what number we look at 28 would be when he'd be up if by drones
00:41:43
again. I think so.
00:41:46
Yeah, yeah. I think they'll look bite and
00:41:48
run again. He wouldn't want to interfere
00:41:50
with that, so I'm sure 2028. Yeah.
00:41:54
So, It's interesting too that we went from this huge budget
00:42:00
surplus and this article I'm reading the American spectator.
00:42:06
Let me ask your opinion. And this could be a topic of
00:42:09
discussion is, do you think Because of this deficit, it's
00:42:14
going to require Gavin Newsom to become even more moderate in the
00:42:18
next coming years. If he has a deficit where he has
00:42:21
to sit down and go okay, the state I was bragging has a
00:42:25
hundred billion dollars in a surplus.
00:42:27
Now we have a 24 billion dollar deficit, he's gonna have to sit
00:42:30
down and show he can balance a budget and work across the
00:42:34
aisle, and within his own party as well.
00:42:37
And show, I can do this and I can govern efficiently.
00:42:41
Do you think Think he can do that.
00:42:46
You okay. What do I think he can go more
00:42:47
efficiently? No.
00:42:48
But you kind of ask you two questions moderate.
00:42:52
I imagine that will be, he'll be forced into becoming more
00:42:56
moderate and showing that he actually can fix the budget,
00:42:59
improve the budget, but I feel like the things he's going to
00:43:03
start cutting are going to be like, really that really that
00:43:07
like, it's not going to benefit you.
00:43:08
And I the actual taxpayers, it's going to like, he's not going to
00:43:12
cut anything there, in my opinion, I think.
00:43:16
Thing that he starts to cut is actually going to be things that
00:43:18
might even hurt us and but that would be beneficial to anyone,
00:43:22
crossing the border anyone coming in for, you know, because
00:43:26
we're such a sanctuary state for everything now.
00:43:28
So I feel like those things will stay protected but the actual
00:43:31
taxpayers here that have been here, paying taxes will be the
00:43:35
ones that won't see anything from it.
00:43:39
As usual. Yeah, I could agree with your
00:43:42
opinion. I think he'll make Sessions on
00:43:46
stuff that doesn't hurt or make kind of move the needle at all.
00:43:54
Which is fine there's probably a crap ton of programs that
00:43:57
deserve to be cut that at the end of the day, don't we
00:43:59
probably don't even know exists that needs to be nothing but
00:44:04
yeah it won't change our daily lives but it will be cut but I
00:44:09
think it will also force him to be.
00:44:14
I guess it's going to force him to be more moderate because he
00:44:16
doesn't have just an endless amount of cash to spend.
00:44:20
Like I think he can't just go along and have fix homelessness
00:44:23
by spending a crap ton of money. I'm gonna fix, you know, I'm
00:44:28
going to be a sanctuary state for abortions because I have a
00:44:30
crap ton of money like I think it's going to force him to
00:44:33
moderate. His overall goals.
00:44:37
Because if you're running at a deficit, especially 25 billion
00:44:40
dollars, you can't be running around creating a progressive
00:44:45
Utopia with, when you don't have money to spend on it and States
00:44:51
unlike the federal government which can just print money and
00:44:55
run credit and it doesn't really matter.
00:44:56
They're just playing with like Monopoly money States can't
00:44:59
really do that. They can't run on credit so they
00:45:03
have to deal with what they have.
00:45:05
And if the state doesn't have money, the state does that
00:45:08
money? It's not like they can just
00:45:09
print up more California bucks to make it work or finagle with
00:45:14
the banking system. So it will be interesting as a
00:45:19
state. I don't think like, we can't
00:45:20
technically file for bankruptcy, we can't claim.
00:45:23
No cities can cities that can definitely file for bankruptcy.
00:45:27
New York tried to do it in the 70s in Jimmy Carter said, no,
00:45:32
I'm not going to help bail you out in the 70s.
00:45:35
That's how New York was New York, might be on that path.
00:45:37
Again, it might be headed towards the New York of the 70s,
00:45:41
so yeah, it will be. It'll be interesting to see he
00:45:46
can't, he definitely can't boast about it.
00:45:49
And I think this is gonna be interesting.
00:45:54
Let's say hypothetically. This is all sort of under the
00:45:57
cover of Gavin Newsom running for president 28 which we all
00:45:59
know is going to do anyway because he's always looking for
00:46:03
that next Brass. Ring is somebody whether it's
00:46:07
Trump or DeSantis is going to point out you went from a
00:46:12
hundred billion dollar Surplus. To a 25 or 24 billion dollar
00:46:18
deficit in one year, explain to the American people.
00:46:24
How you took all of that money and squandered it away.
00:46:28
And went into a deficit is that the type of President you want
00:46:32
running the country? It may make a difference.
00:46:37
If with people in the life that may not make a difference, they
00:46:39
may say just spend baby spend, I don't care, they don't know
00:46:42
about economics as well. So but I definitely think it
00:46:46
will be something that's going to crop up down the line for him
00:46:49
politically. This is not going to look good
00:46:51
for him. Where did all the money go?
00:46:56
And I think we deserve to know where it went.
00:47:01
Yeah. And they don't publish their
00:47:02
state checkbook. So we have no idea where all
00:47:05
that money goes. Let's see.
00:47:08
Did it do eyes? I picked one.
00:47:11
So you pick another one? Okay.
00:47:15
All right. How about the so-called
00:47:19
accidental release of this ECW information, private
00:47:22
information, right? Yes, that happened back in June
00:47:30
I think. Okay, I found the article from
00:47:33
the reload. I think they were the one that
00:47:35
broke the story less than 24 hours.
00:47:39
During some site upgrade it was accidentally exposed Right.
00:47:45
Yeah, you got it. You can crack.
00:47:49
What was it addresses? People who had applied for CCW
00:47:52
permits people who had them? People who had been denied?
00:47:55
Basically if you applied and last paper, get however many
00:47:58
year, whatever it was Information, like 40 people.
00:48:04
I'm just, yeah, try to recall. So I might be wrong, their
00:48:07
personal information even including if some of these like,
00:48:12
for some people who had a restraining orders against
00:48:15
their, you know, abusive domestic workers and what not.
00:48:19
And I think that their addresses names addresses Etcetera.
00:48:24
Hmm, but not, what's interesting is I saw that their their
00:48:28
banking information was not released allegedly, but then he
00:48:32
said you should cancel your credit cards.
00:48:35
And I was like, well, if I another, the financial
00:48:38
information was released where we canceling credit cards.
00:48:43
I thought that I had heard initially.
00:48:47
Someone had requested this information, he was like, oh,
00:48:49
that should be information available to the public.
00:48:52
Was that just a sensationalist thing that people ran with when
00:48:57
I was looking find that again. Yeah.
00:49:00
And I don't, I don't want to put out misinformation, so I'm at,
00:49:03
I'm genuinely asking. Yeah, I think they're what you
00:49:10
could request some information. But all of the private
00:49:18
information kind of got released as well.
00:49:20
So I think there were looking for like general information and
00:49:24
it sort of got leaked, that they were able to go in and get all
00:49:27
the information. And if you were going on like
00:49:30
Reddit, the California gun subreddit people were able to
00:49:33
like, look up their name and they were like I just looked up
00:49:37
my name and was able to see my address, my phone number like
00:49:41
date of birth, like all that stuff.
00:49:45
I It's, you know, I don't usually like to put my tinfoil
00:49:49
hat on, but this is one of those cases where I'm definitely
00:49:51
putting a tinfoil hat on, and I think it's interesting that it
00:49:55
happened so quickly after the Bruin decision, which kind of
00:50:00
enshrined, the right to carry and conceal and get your car and
00:50:04
concealed permit. Even though the Attorney General
00:50:09
released a letter and said, hey, we're we instruct all of law,
00:50:14
enforcement Sheriff's and stuff like that to comply with this
00:50:17
new Bruin decision. We're not going to stand in the
00:50:19
way. We're not going to do anything
00:50:21
and then all of a sudden whoopsie we're going to share
00:50:24
all of your information and sorry it's all out there now so
00:50:30
everybody knows if you have a carrying concealed permit which
00:50:34
brings up a whole host of issues of safety to the person, not
00:50:40
only for identity theft, but whether or not, you know,
00:50:44
somebody who's all they have a carrying concealed, but I don't
00:50:47
know where they live. But now you do, you have their
00:50:50
address, you have their phone number, you have your third date
00:50:52
of birth. There's a lot of safety concerns
00:50:56
as well. Although, I don't know how smart
00:50:58
you would be if you're going to go after somebody who has a
00:51:02
carrying concealed permit at their home address.
00:51:05
Probably means they're also packing something else.
00:51:09
I agree. But if it's yeah I agree.
00:51:12
But there's only safety issues for sure.
00:51:14
Yeah, I think it will also has a very strong chilling effect on
00:51:21
people who initially may have heard the ruling from the
00:51:24
Supreme Court and are in counties were like San Francisco
00:51:28
or La where it's really hard to get a CCW.
00:51:31
And now, all of a sudden Supreme Court says, Nope, you have to
00:51:34
issue. You don't need good cause
00:51:36
anymore. Everybody shall issue know, you
00:51:40
have a lot of people in those counties who before could not
00:51:43
get it? Are now all of a sudden going
00:51:47
maybe I shouldn't get it because I don't want my name breached or
00:51:52
given out by the California attorney general.
00:51:55
I felt like it was very It would it react of Retribution by rub?
00:52:01
Ons it just seemed too convenient that mere days after
00:52:05
the decision came out. Excuse me that this came out.
00:52:12
All the information was out there and it effectively chills
00:52:16
the want of people to go get a CCW in California.
00:52:21
Right. But he was re-elected.
00:52:25
Oh yeah I mean he was re-elected resoundingly, that didn't
00:52:28
change, that didn't change anything but what's also he's
00:52:33
hypocrisy back in May. So just weeks before this
00:52:38
happened, he was like really on about the health apps about, you
00:52:42
know, you need to keep users health information.
00:52:44
Private, they have a fundamental right to their privacy, it's in
00:52:47
the Constitution, their privacy, their health information,
00:52:49
private, private private. It and I think that's not the
00:52:52
first time. He said that he's made
00:52:53
statements and he's passed other things or his hat bright, like
00:52:57
we're all these privacy acts, the consumer privacy act like he
00:53:00
acts like he's so big on privacy and you know, your
00:53:03
constitutional right to privacy. But then all of a sudden like
00:53:07
owners were under it but her old attack.
00:53:11
Yeah. I mean that's because in
00:53:13
California, they see gun owners really a sort of second class
00:53:18
citizens, because they view gun ownership as a Class.
00:53:21
Right? So it's not surprising they did
00:53:25
this. It was probably and of course in
00:53:28
an investigation of themselves, right?
00:53:31
They determined we didn't do anything wrong.
00:53:34
It was, it was purely accidental.
00:53:37
We didn't do anything wrong. I also, when I investigate
00:53:41
myself, didn't do anything. Yeah, when I am solid, when I
00:53:44
usually question myself, did I do anything wrong?
00:53:47
I didn't do anything wrong. You always talk yourself out of
00:53:49
it. I didn't do anything wrong.
00:53:52
So there was no repercussions. There was no consequences, there
00:53:56
was nothing that happened to Rob bonta, there's nothing to happen
00:53:58
to anybody who was involved in this, but all I can say, is
00:54:04
anyone listening still go out and get your CCW?
00:54:10
Don't be angry. I think if he, if he did this,
00:54:13
once guns rights are absolutely women's rights and especially
00:54:18
carrying concealed definitely a great equalizer when you're out
00:54:22
in public. So, yeah, I think you can get
00:54:26
away with it once I I think if it happens again, people are
00:54:30
going to be like, okay now we know you're just doing it on
00:54:32
purpose. Unless he investigates himself
00:54:35
again goes now we just, we wouldn't they reluctant for some
00:54:38
other office, how it helped me. Governor, probably from Ponte,
00:54:43
that's scary. I think he's, I forget, I think
00:54:46
he might have a might be like, have opened up a, for lieutenant
00:54:51
governor for 2026. He's on there for something I
00:54:53
forget. Yeah, I could see that.
00:54:55
But a lot of times they also do that, so they can just park
00:54:58
money that they have left over from campaigns that they have to
00:55:00
close down. Right.
00:55:04
Okay, so that was a big story. I'm trying to think of I guess
00:55:12
the last one, a lot of people whose gives me a last one that a
00:55:15
lot of people were asking about or people commented on
00:55:20
Instagram. When I put this poll out there
00:55:23
is the issue of reparations. So California has created this
00:55:30
task force. It was, it's been around for a
00:55:35
couple years now. Shirley Weber who was who is the
00:55:39
Secretary of State. Now, she was the assembly woman
00:55:42
who started the task force, and it finally came to a
00:55:47
determination that at first, they were going to Give
00:55:53
reparations monetary reparations in the amount of 223 thousand
00:55:58
dollars. And then it got up to four
00:56:05
hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars almost 500
00:56:09
dollars. So the number keeps growing with
00:56:13
every report that keeps coming out, it's the first of its kind,
00:56:20
so way to go California. It's the first of its kind and
00:56:25
the I don't know how much the appetite is going to be for
00:56:29
reparations, in a state. That was not a slave state in a
00:56:36
state. That was Formerly owned and
00:56:40
occupied by Mexico, which was formerly owned and occupied by
00:56:43
indigenous people, how well that's going to go over.
00:56:48
I think it's it's a hot button issue.
00:56:53
Yes, so I have questions on this, I do that.
00:56:59
You're not going to answer but I still have questions and
00:57:02
comments. so, this task force, this was They're still working
00:57:10
on the numbers and they have to do all sorts of research and you
00:57:13
know they like one of the things part of this SB, what was it
00:57:16
like, I forget now 112 ones. I forget, I'm sorry.
00:57:25
They so, they that passing was for the task force like, okay,
00:57:29
we need to put together this task force, that will figure out
00:57:32
how to educate the public on. You know, why we're doing this
00:57:36
and the number that we need to come up with, I'd want to know
00:57:40
how far this is going to go and how deep this is going to go.
00:57:45
For example. A one of the things that says is
00:57:50
that it's, you know, to give black people the reparations,
00:57:53
especially those who have ancestry, who were slaves.
00:57:59
So how do it says black people, especially not only.
00:58:06
So it's like, okay, how black residents of California, it
00:58:10
doesn't go to all black residents of California.
00:58:12
Do they have to have been residents for certain amount of
00:58:15
time? Hmm.
00:58:17
Get more money, if they can prove that both of their parents
00:58:20
were ancestors of slaves. Kind of thing I could think
00:58:22
Improvement in jumbo size or family.
00:58:27
But then obviously this is already past is going to happen,
00:58:30
who knows, how much, how far are we going to take this?
00:58:33
And I mean we were slavery was horrible thing about it.
00:58:37
Is it happened? Like, I'm not denying that and I
00:58:41
think that there is definitely things that were taken.
00:58:44
Like I am very into Holocaust World War Two history and one of
00:58:49
the things that like actually the woman, a gold was a book
00:58:52
that I don't know if you or it was a movie and I don't know if
00:58:54
you would have read it because there was like a whole laughing,
00:58:56
they're so Fascinating to me how this painting that was owned by
00:58:59
the Jewish Family and the Nazis had stolen it.
00:59:02
The first half of the book is all like the history of the
00:59:04
family and the Holocaust of their, you know, whole ordeal
00:59:08
during World War 2. The second was like the law.
00:59:10
How those proven with the law that this was belong to their
00:59:13
family and how they got back from Germany and preparations.
00:59:17
And yeah, there's things that were stolen from people.
00:59:20
Hmm, 100%. And they should be given back,
00:59:23
but this seems to be for all black people, bro.
00:59:27
It's of California. So if they moved here from
00:59:30
another country, a few years ago like this, do they get
00:59:34
reparations? Do they need to be a certain
00:59:36
percentage of black? I know, I joke with you that I'm
00:59:39
2% Nigerian with a DNA test to prove it.
00:59:41
That's true. I'm too much that idea and I
00:59:43
don't look it, it's in my DNA test.
00:59:46
No, I'm not going to fight for reparations, but does that mean
00:59:48
that someone like me and Bo collaborations, Tommy, this
00:59:50
white girl home. I 2% Nigerian, okay, next up
00:59:55
Japanese we have them in camps that's a fact like so is it
01:00:00
their turn next Probably should be how about the, you know, the
01:00:05
people that we did still the same for Mexico?
01:00:08
Yeah. Or the indigenous.
01:00:10
So, how? Well, I think, the first
01:00:14
question I can answer regarding who qualifies, I think the task
01:00:19
force is said they. You would have to be able to
01:00:21
prove based on lineage that you did descend from someone who was
01:00:26
a slave. So, to answer your question,
01:00:29
could it be someone who moves from a country In Africa and
01:00:35
they just show up and they say, hey I want to get you can't do
01:00:37
that. It has to be through lineage to
01:00:40
show great-great-great-grandmother.
01:00:43
Grandparent was a slave and therefore I'm a descendant of
01:00:46
that slave so that I think that's going to be.
01:00:52
The tricky part is to show, lineage is going to be requiring
01:00:58
people. What if you can't find records?
01:01:01
How do you figure it out? Out.
01:01:03
How do you verify that? These are the correct records of
01:01:07
the certain people applying and to your other question.
01:01:13
How long do you have to be a resident of California?
01:01:17
Because if you are, if you can prove, if you've done
01:01:21
ancestry.com or you've done your research and you say, yeah, I'm
01:01:24
a descendant of slaves. If I move to California, I'm
01:01:28
going to get five hundred thousand dollars.
01:01:31
What's the cutoff of people moving to California and getting
01:01:37
that? Because right now I'm going back
01:01:40
to a previous story. We're at a 24 billion dollar
01:01:43
deficit. And this would cause I think I
01:01:47
did the calculations. It would quite literally
01:01:50
bankrupt. The entire State like the amount
01:01:53
of money it would take is almost the amount like we run our
01:01:58
budgets at. I think I did the math right at
01:02:01
five hundred thousand dollars, they estimate how many people in
01:02:05
California would classify? I think I did the math.
01:02:08
And I was, it's a, it would literally quite literally
01:02:13
bankrupt, the state, to the point where you couldn't give
01:02:16
money a public schools, you can get money to First Responders,
01:02:19
like every government program would be cut off for this
01:02:24
program to pass. And I don't think again is, is
01:02:31
all interconnected politics is all interconnected.
01:02:36
Let's say, hypothetically the task force comes out by June
01:02:40
gives their final number goes to the legislature legislature who
01:02:43
doesn't care because they most of them are far.
01:02:46
Left Democrats from the Bay Area.
01:02:48
Who don't care about spending money, go.
01:02:51
Yeah, this is great. Let's do it.
01:02:52
We're going to do this. We're gonna be the first in the
01:02:54
nation for reparations. This bill lands on Gavin
01:02:57
nuisance desk. He's looking at a price tag that
01:03:01
would dwarf, the state's budget while we're in a deficit and now
01:03:05
he has to either sign it and it would be a suicide for the state
01:03:12
or veto it. And then have to answer to
01:03:17
people, why he vetoed reparations.
01:03:20
Why he as a privileged white man vetoed reparations?
01:03:26
I would not. I don't envy when that bill
01:03:29
shows up on Gavin. Newsom, says desk.
01:03:32
And he has to figure out what what's that?
01:03:41
He's kind of screwed. If he does and screwed.
01:03:43
If he doesn't like either, either signs it and they figure
01:03:47
out how to spend the money and, you know, it's not going to go
01:03:52
smoothly and perfectly, you know, there's going to be Kings
01:03:55
to it. I mean, look at how much how
01:03:57
much money was lost in the EDD fraud during covid.
01:04:02
How many millions and hundreds of millions of dollars went to
01:04:05
people in prison and falsified accounts and stuff like that,
01:04:08
like who weren't supposed to be getting it.
01:04:09
So I could definitely see this having the same exact issues.
01:04:18
Well, we also love to be a sanctuary State on everything.
01:04:21
Yeah. Would be the next step.
01:04:22
Yep. So that's, that's my thoughts on
01:04:26
it. I, it's interesting that it's
01:04:28
made it, I will admit, this is one thing I got wrong.
01:04:33
I didn't think this was going to get as far as it did.
01:04:35
I thought this was purely virtue signaling.
01:04:37
I thought it was started to say, hey, look, we're going to do
01:04:41
this but now it's plugging away. They've made their
01:04:45
recommendations. They're going to make their
01:04:48
recommendations to the legislature.
01:04:51
It may not get out of the legislature.
01:04:53
Either. The legislature may just be
01:04:55
like, like the budgetary committee.
01:04:57
Make, look at this and go, we don't have the money for all of
01:05:01
this. So we're not going to put this
01:05:02
to the floor. It may not even get voted on,
01:05:05
like it may not make it past committees.
01:05:06
But either way, I think it does raise a lot of questions that a
01:05:12
lot of other people in California are going to kind of
01:05:15
be like, like you brought up. Japanese Americans who were
01:05:19
interned against their will Mexican Americans?
01:05:24
Who were The land was taken from or and the indigenous people
01:05:28
here in California who is taken from or people from China and
01:05:34
they were used on railroads basically slave labor there
01:05:37
where they were paid like nothing to work on the railroads
01:05:40
like how far do we go to kind of cure the ills of the past and
01:05:47
how do you look at people with different backgrounds and say
01:05:53
it's your responsibility to pay for this?
01:05:55
This, I always say the example that like, when for me,
01:05:59
personally, I'm Italian. And when slavery was happening
01:06:05
in America, my ancestors were, I don't know, pushing carts around
01:06:11
the hills of Italy. Like it.
01:06:12
There was nothing. We had no direct connection.
01:06:15
We were a whole ocean Away From Slavery.
01:06:17
Do the African nations that originally sold slaves to
01:06:22
America. Do they kick in for reparations.
01:06:25
Like it, where do we? You know, it's a big kind of big
01:06:29
matzo ball to unravel, but it's in California Fashion, it's it's
01:06:35
progressing forward. And interestingly, and also
01:06:39
interestingly there's nine people on this task force and
01:06:43
all of them are Democrats. Yeah, which is interesting
01:06:46
because it's obviously it's not a one-sided issue at all.
01:06:55
The woman that's in charge of the task force was young.
01:06:58
She seems very intelligent, very educated.
01:07:00
But she just got her. She just can't pass the bar.
01:07:05
January 21, she's really scary. Very young only licensed.
01:07:12
She's like we have talked about having a guest on to talk more
01:07:17
about reparations who I think would be more qualified than us
01:07:19
to talk about reparations. Hopefully we can get that guest
01:07:23
on and we'll reveal who that guess could be.
01:07:28
But at this point it was one of the biggest stories I think of
01:07:30
2022 and people in my comments on the poll said that this was
01:07:35
something they wanted us to talk about, keep an eye on it, it's
01:07:39
plugging away. And in typical California
01:07:42
Fashion, if it doesn't make sense.
01:07:46
Doesn't matter, they'll still go for it.
01:07:48
So Don't expect things to come out of Sacramento that make any
01:07:52
sort of economic or common sense.
01:07:54
Like that's just Sacramento in a nutshell.
01:07:59
So all right, we've been about an hour and 10 minutes.
01:08:02
I think we got to a good amount of the top stories.
01:08:05
I think we hit. Basically all of them, didn't
01:08:07
we? Sad that you didn't want to
01:08:10
discuss the California date Shake.
01:08:12
But I I was just going to mention.
01:08:14
We did not get to talk about how the date Shake would be the
01:08:17
official milkshake of California.
01:08:20
I have never had a milkshake or a date Shake.
01:08:24
I think that's a like an inland empire thing or something.
01:08:28
I don't know. I don't know.
01:08:30
I've never had that either. But did you just say you've
01:08:33
never had a milkshake or were you never?
01:08:35
I've never had a date Shake. Okay.
01:08:38
Yes, I my typical Order In and Out involves a Neapolitan shake.
01:08:41
So I've had plenty of milk shakes in my life but I've never
01:08:45
had a date shake. And it sounds disgusting people.
01:08:49
I don't know. Yeah, that just sounds
01:08:51
disgusting and if they're going to argue for California to shake
01:08:53
that is hurt for California. Shake shake shake.
01:08:57
Ain't it? Yeah, it's a very specific
01:08:59
thing. Like I don't First off, they, we
01:09:01
do we need an official milkshake and second of off.
01:09:05
It should just be the Neapolitan shake from in and out.
01:09:07
Like now we are discussing it, I'm so glad do, but this is
01:09:12
disgusting. But if we were going to
01:09:14
shouldn't have you'd like avocado and avocado milkshake,
01:09:17
know that yes. And of course, it's disgusting.
01:09:20
But like, isn't that like our fruit?
01:09:23
Is that the state fruit? I don't know.
01:09:27
I don't know. Okay, look this up right now.
01:09:37
California has the California Burrito been named, the official
01:09:41
burrito of California. okay, okay, as of this year, November
01:09:50
3rd 2022, The Unofficial fruit state fruit is the Hold on the
01:10:01
date. It is The Unofficial.
01:10:04
Ready? Wait, come on.
01:10:10
Come on sound effects. This is embarrassing.
01:10:14
The house is really embarrassing.
01:10:16
I'm embarrassed to be here right now.
01:10:18
You just got to sign off right now.
01:10:21
You're like, forget it. There we go.
01:10:29
The avocado is The Unofficial sea State 4.
01:10:35
See now. Yes, that's disgusting, but it
01:10:38
doesn't make sense. It does make sense, but it says
01:10:41
there's no official state fruit of California.
01:10:45
Well, Stan, official and unofficial official if it's
01:10:47
unofficial. I mean, that's probably about as
01:10:49
officials. So, how can we in the list of
01:10:52
priorities? Worried about naming a official
01:10:56
state milkshake, other than a state fruit.
01:11:01
I know, I think we need to make the state fruit.
01:11:03
I think we need to make that official.
01:11:04
Yeah, why don't just feel like we have make avocados?
01:11:07
The state fruit. Yeah, 2023 will be the year of
01:11:11
making California's take fruit, and it will be all Mikado's I
01:11:14
don't like avocados and I have a couple of avocado trees in my
01:11:17
backyard that are totally right now.
01:11:19
But that's so, so very on Southern Californian of you to
01:11:22
not like avocados. There's no, I don't like it.
01:11:26
Now, I'm leaving. You should know I'm ending this
01:11:30
podcast. It's anyway.
01:11:33
Yeah, the date Shake. There was just a joke that we
01:11:35
were laughing about that. That was one of the top stories
01:11:38
that nobody, because it was actually, we're posting just to
01:11:42
clarify. It was a was thing that somebody
01:11:45
of all the issues that we were facing like we need an official
01:11:48
date shake once. Yeah, so that's why I'm joking
01:11:53
about. Tackling the tough issues in
01:11:54
California, so I apologize to anybody who actually loves date
01:12:00
shakes. Some people, I think, I remember
01:12:02
posting about it and some people, my DMs were, like,
01:12:05
nowadays, Shake is delicious. I like, I don't know.
01:12:09
It sounds kind of gross, but and I've never been anywhere in San
01:12:14
Diego, where I've seen a date, Shake on the menu.
01:12:16
So it's definitely a I've lived here my entire life.
01:12:21
I've never seen, and it's tough to name anything in California,
01:12:25
like the official state, whatever.
01:12:27
Because California so big Like what we consider us down here in
01:12:33
Southern California. We can be like, oh, this is
01:12:35
totally like what we imagine should be the state fruit or
01:12:39
they should be the state burrito or something like other people
01:12:43
could be like no like we don't think it should be the avocado
01:12:46
or whatever. We think it should be the Almond
01:12:49
or the strawberry or almonds, not a fruit.
01:12:53
But anyway anyway, which is exactly what should be the state
01:12:59
fruit. We are diverse.
01:13:00
Yes, yes. On that note.
01:13:05
Any other final thoughts about 20 22, anything.
01:13:08
You looking forward to in 2023. There's no election.
01:13:11
That's important. But, you know, we will discuss
01:13:17
more things later. Yes, they'll be bigger plans in
01:13:20
2023. We're going to talk about more
01:13:23
in 2023. All right.
01:13:26
Well, that's our Roundup for the 2022.
01:13:29
Looking forward to it and as always when I just when I think
01:13:34
cauliflower like politics in general and especially in
01:13:36
California aren't going to get any more interesting every year
01:13:39
surprises me. So I always look forward to the
01:13:41
next year because something's going to happen where you go,
01:13:44
okay? It just gets weirder and
01:13:46
weirder. So, on that note like I always
01:13:49
like to end every show if you like the show, the best way to
01:13:52
support it, in addition to getting awesome merge, like
01:13:55
Camille is rocking right now is to just send it to a friend text
01:14:00
it, let somebody know. Say, hey, check out this
01:14:02
podcast, listen to it, share it with friends.
01:14:05
Make sure to like share, subscribe review, all that
01:14:09
stuff. YouTube Spotify, Google helps
01:14:11
the algorithm helps people find us and We'll see you all again
01:14:16
next week. Have a good night, everybody.
01:14:19
Happy New Year. Happy New Year.
01:14:21
Have a good night. Happy New Year.
01:14:20
Happy New Year. Have a good night.