While Los Angeles was descending into chaos on June 7th over ICE raids, Gavin Newsom was in Napa Valley at an exclusive wine sipping event. Kamala Harris is reportedly “seriously” considering running for governor of California. California once proposed amending the Constitution to create a “world federal government.” Newsom loses again to President Trump in court over his use of the California National Guard. Are you a Californian who feels isolated and alone in your political views in a deep blue state? Feel like you can’t talk about insane taxes, an overbearing government, and radical social experiments without getting a side eye? Then join us on the California Underground Podcast, the most trusted podcast on all things California politics.Original air date 6.24.25#kamalaharris #gavinnewsom #presidenttrump #californiapolitics #californiagovernor #losangeles #napavalley*The California Underground Podcast is dedicated to discussing California politics from a place of sanity and rationality.*Check out our full site for more information about the show at www.californiaunderground.liveCheck out our sponsor for this episode, StopBox, by going to www.stopbox.com/californiaunderground to get 10% off your orderFollow California Underground on Social Media Instagram: www.instagram.com/californiaunderground X: https://twitter.com/CAUndergoundTik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@californiaunderground?_t=8o6HWHcJ1CM&_r=1YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj8SabIcF4AKqEVFsLmo1jA Read about our Privacy Policy: https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/privacy-policy/
00:00:00
While LA burns Gavin Newsom is sipping wine in Napa Valley,
00:00:03
Kamala Harris is now seriously considering running for
00:00:07
California governor. We have a constitutional
00:00:10
amendment that was proposed by California way back in the day
00:00:13
for a one world federal government.
00:00:14
That and much more on tonight's episode of California
00:00:17
Underground Podcast starting right now.
00:00:21
What's going on, everybody? Thanks for tuning into another
00:00:24
episode of the California Underground Podcast.
00:00:26
I am your host, Phil, the most trusted podcast for all things
00:00:29
California politics. Welcome to the show.
00:00:32
Thank you to everyone tuning in live wherever you are, YouTube,
00:00:36
Rumble X Instagram, face, literally everywhere.
00:00:40
OK, so everywhere if you've got comments or questions, make sure
00:00:43
you put them in the child and get to them in a little bit.
00:00:46
We have a lot to cover tonight. We got BIG4 big stories
00:00:49
happening. We got Newsome losing to
00:00:52
President Trump again in the 9th Circuit.
00:00:54
We have him also sipping wine while LA burns Kamala Harris is
00:01:00
now seriously moving closer to running for governor of
00:01:04
California. And Senator Scott Weiner wants
00:01:07
to revoke all calls for a constitutional convention, Art.
00:01:10
Under Article 5. And one of the calls for
00:01:12
constitutional convention in California may be a little, you
00:01:16
know, shocking, maybe not so shocking, I don't know.
00:01:19
But before we get started, make sure you like, share, subscribe,
00:01:22
review, all that stuff. That definitely helps with the
00:01:24
algorithm and that helps us grow the show.
00:01:28
So first topic right off the bat tonight, Gavin Newsom again
00:01:34
losing to President Trump in the 9th Circuit, this time regarding
00:01:38
the National Guard. So if you need a little bit of a
00:01:40
back story, there was the LA riots.
00:01:44
Everything was going crazy. The riots and violence and
00:01:47
everything was happening down in LA and President Trump, in order
00:01:51
to protect federal agents and federal personnel in federal
00:01:54
buildings, federalize the National Guard on June 7th.
00:01:58
Now Gavin Newsom, who doesn't like his authority questioned,
00:02:01
decided that he was going to make a big show about this and
00:02:05
sued in federal court to get control of the National Guard
00:02:09
again. Excuse me.
00:02:12
And it's not going so well for old Gavin Newsom.
00:02:15
He just suffered another loss where they said, yes, President
00:02:19
Trump can maintain control of the National Guard.
00:02:22
We're going to get into that and we're going to break it down a
00:02:24
little bit by little bit. So I apologize already for the
00:02:27
little legal wonky, but I kind of want to walk you through what
00:02:31
happened here and what the court said.
00:02:34
Because when this stuff happens, I always think it's great to
00:02:37
kind of sit down and read the opinion.
00:02:39
I'm also like a constitutional law nerd.
00:02:40
So I really like reading the opinions and seeing what they
00:02:43
have to say. It was pretty succinct.
00:02:46
I succinct for me, I think it was like 30 pages.
00:02:48
So it was pretty easy to get through.
00:02:49
But let's get started on some of the points that they made.
00:02:53
So this is the breaking news, the tweet that came out.
00:02:56
The federal federal appeals court has indefinitely blocked
00:03:00
Judge Breyer's order to put Gavin Newsom back in control of
00:03:03
the National Guard. The three judge panel, which
00:03:06
included two Trump and one Biden pointing was unanimous SO3O
00:03:11
against Gavin Newsom. Let's get into part of the
00:03:15
opinion. So this is the statue that is
00:03:20
gives the President authority is Federal Code 12406.
00:03:26
And the statue provides whenever the United States or any of the
00:03:29
Commonwealth's or possessions is invaded or is in danger of
00:03:32
invasion by a foreign nation, there is a rebellion or danger
00:03:36
of a rebellion against the authority of the government.
00:03:38
United States or the President is unable with regular forces to
00:03:42
execute the laws of the United States.
00:03:45
The President may call into Federal service members and
00:03:48
units of the National Guard of any state in such numbers as he
00:03:51
considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the
00:03:55
rebellion, or execute those laws.
00:03:57
Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors
00:04:01
of the States. And that's very important, that
00:04:02
language through the governors of the State, and we'll get to
00:04:05
that in a little bit. Or in the case of the District
00:04:07
of Columbia, through the commanding general of the
00:04:10
National Guard of the District of Columbia.
00:04:14
So let's see what else they had to say.
00:04:17
They go on and say the protesters threw objects,
00:04:21
including Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property.
00:04:23
According to the declaration submitted by defendants, those
00:04:26
activities significantly impeded the ability of federal officers
00:04:31
to execute the laws affording appropriate deference to the
00:04:34
president's determination. Conclude that he will likely
00:04:37
acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard
00:04:41
under 10 USC 12406. So that's the statute.
00:04:46
Here's the parameters. Basically, if it comes down to
00:04:50
the federal government cannot enact laws or it makes it very
00:04:53
difficult to enact laws, or they need to quell a rebellion, then
00:04:59
the president can call up the National Guard.
00:05:01
He can quote what they say, federalize the National Guard
00:05:05
for the use of the commander in It says, assuming arguendo that
00:05:21
plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that
00:05:24
defendants violated the statutes procedural requirement, the
00:05:27
proper remedy would be injunctive relief tailored to
00:05:31
defendants failure to issue the order through the governor, not
00:05:34
an injunction prohibiting the president from exercising his
00:05:37
lawful authority to call up the National Guard.
00:05:41
All right, let's break that down for a quick second.
00:05:43
Remember I said in that statue, it said through the National
00:05:47
Guard or through the governor's office.
00:05:50
That is a that's one of those things in the legal world where
00:05:54
you get down to the nitty gritty of what is through mean as
00:05:57
opposed to by the governor. So Gavin Newsom's whole argument
00:06:03
is that President Trump didn't have the authority or he didn't
00:06:07
do this correctly because he basically just went ahead and
00:06:11
did it. So what happened was on June
00:06:13
7th, the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, issued a
00:06:17
memorandum to what they call the adjudent general, who is the guy
00:06:22
who is in charge of the National Guard here in California, works
00:06:26
in the governor's office. He is part of the governor's
00:06:28
office. They issued A memorandum that
00:06:31
they were calling up the National Guard to protect with
00:06:35
the federal personnel and the protect federal buildings
00:06:38
because there was all these issues.
00:06:40
So when that happened, the Adrian General read it and said,
00:06:45
OK, I'm just going to secede or I'm just going to cede my
00:06:49
authority to the president of the United States and the
00:06:51
Secretary of Defense. That's what we're supposed to do
00:06:53
here. President Trump took over and
00:06:55
that became part of the issue. That will probably be a part of
00:06:58
this larger lawsuit because it really comes down to, as unsexy
00:07:04
as it sounds, it really is going to come down to procedure and
00:07:09
whether or not it was supposed to be through the governor's
00:07:12
office, which what does that mean?
00:07:15
Or does it have to be by the governor?
00:07:18
And that's what I think it's all going to come down to.
00:07:20
So Newsom is suing over the fact that his authority was basically
00:07:26
usurped by the president, United States under this federal code.
00:07:28
So let's go on to the next part goes on and say we also note
00:07:32
that California's concerns about escalation interference with
00:07:35
local law enforcement at present are too speculative.
00:07:37
We do not know whether future protests will grow due to the
00:07:42
deployment of the National Guard.
00:07:44
One of the arguments that Newsom made was, well, calling up the
00:07:51
National Guard is going to cause and further flame a lot of
00:07:56
tensions in LA that's already kind of bubbling over.
00:07:59
So calling up the National Guard made it worse.
00:08:01
If you remember, basically after Trump called up the National
00:08:05
Guard and federalized the National Guard, they were all on
00:08:09
TV. Newsom, Karen Bass, Democratic
00:08:12
congressman, senators, all of them were on all these news
00:08:15
networks saying he's inflamed the tensions by calling up the
00:08:19
National Guard. He's made it worse by calling up
00:08:21
the National Guard. They tried to make that part of
00:08:24
their lawsuit. They tried to say, well, by him
00:08:28
doing this, this was the harm by him.
00:08:30
This is the harm that we need emergency TRO relief for is we
00:08:35
need the National Guard back. Otherwise it's going to continue
00:08:38
to inflamed these protests and it's going to get worse and
00:08:40
worse. So the president made it worse,
00:08:42
not better. What the court here is saying is
00:08:47
way too speculative. That is way too speculative for
00:08:52
you to say that the National Guard was the reason that there
00:08:56
were these riots and protests. Again, the court didn't really
00:09:00
take that into consideration. They're looking at the statute
00:09:03
and they're applying the facts to the statute.
00:09:07
And I want to take a step back really quick where we are at in
00:09:10
the process. There was a, a quick TRO in the
00:09:14
trial court or what they call the District Court and federal
00:09:16
court. It was then upheld that
00:09:18
President Trump could use it. They appealed it or I'm sorry,
00:09:22
reverse that. The District Court said that
00:09:25
President Trump had to return the National Guard to Governor
00:09:29
Newsom. They appealed.
00:09:31
It went back to President Trump. Now this is part of that appeal.
00:09:35
The appeal said, Nope, President Trump gets to keep the National
00:09:39
Guard under his, his authority for now.
00:09:41
And that's where we're at. So the case hasn't heard its
00:09:46
whole way out. It's probably gonna be a while
00:09:48
until we hear the actual what happens here.
00:09:50
Maybe it just gets dismissed. Who knows?
00:09:52
I wouldn't put it past Gavin Newsom to quietly dismiss this
00:09:55
and go away so he can stop suffering so many losses.
00:09:59
But that's where we're at in this process.
00:10:01
And that was part of their argument was there's irreparable
00:10:03
harm that California is going to suffer if we don't get our
00:10:09
National Guard back. So I wanted to talk about this
00:10:14
really quick because Gavin Newsom, you know, the master
00:10:18
politician, the master snake oil salesman had to spin it.
00:10:24
He had to spin what was a clear loss into his favor.
00:10:29
And but, you know, I read the entire opinion, made these
00:10:32
highlights and I'm showing them to you.
00:10:34
I read the whole opinion and it is pretty conclusively a win for
00:10:38
President Trump, not for Gavin Newsom.
00:10:41
And somehow he managed to make it all about him winning so
00:10:45
quickly after this was dropped, after the court order, almost
00:10:48
within like literal minutes, Gavin Newsom was posting all
00:10:52
over social media taking a victory lap about how he had
00:10:56
won, about how they had stood up to President Trump that he is no
00:11:01
king. As it goes on to say, the court
00:11:02
rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants
00:11:06
with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a
00:11:09
court. The president is not a king and
00:11:12
is not above the law. We will press forward with our
00:11:15
challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of military,
00:11:18
U.S. military soldiers against citizens.
00:11:22
Here's the issue there, old noodles.
00:11:24
You lost. The statue is pretty clear.
00:11:28
You know, 10 USC 12406 says the president can when it makes it
00:11:34
hard to enact federal laws. And in this case, there were the
00:11:38
ICE raids going on. They were trying to conduct
00:11:40
these immigration law enforcement raids or arrests.
00:11:45
They were trying to do what they were supposed to do or what they
00:11:48
were ordered to do. These protests and riots were
00:11:51
making it hard to do. They were throwing objects at a
00:11:55
lot of the federal law enforcement cocktail, Molotov
00:11:58
cocktails, concrete, all of this stuff.
00:12:02
So what did the president do under that statue?
00:12:04
He said, I'm going to federalize the National Guard and I'm going
00:12:06
to protect our assets and our people.
00:12:09
And that's what he has the right to do.
00:12:10
And the, and the case goes on to say that it's likely the
00:12:16
defendants in this case, President Trump, are going to
00:12:19
win, right? That's why they upheld this,
00:12:22
because based on the standards of an injunction or temporary
00:12:25
restraining order, what they call TRO, it's likely the
00:12:28
defendants are going to win because they don't really see
00:12:32
what the argument is here. The president has the authority,
00:12:36
there's the statute. And again, sure, they can get
00:12:40
into the weeds of should it be through the governor's office or
00:12:44
should it be by the governor? Is that who they should
00:12:47
coordinate with? And I think they're probably
00:12:50
going to argue this whole thing about the memorandum went to the
00:12:53
Adjudin general. The Adjudin general stepped
00:12:55
aside and said, OK, now the National Guard is yours.
00:12:58
You have to. You can do what you want with
00:12:59
them. And Gavin Newsom didn't like
00:13:02
that. He didn't like people
00:13:03
questioning his authority. He didn't like Trump coming in
00:13:06
and taking his National Guard away from him.
00:13:08
So what was the only thing he could do?
00:13:10
He could sue. He's making this whole stink
00:13:13
about this. And then he goes on to social
00:13:15
media and he posts stuff like this that is a blatant lie that
00:13:20
he did not win. And I don't see anywhere in this
00:13:24
summary or in the case opinion where he said the court rightly
00:13:28
rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with
00:13:31
the National Guard. I didn't get that anywhere from
00:13:34
the entire opinion that he can do whatever he wants.
00:13:36
Trump just followed what the statute said, and he did what
00:13:39
the statute said. And the court said, yeah, that
00:13:41
he did what the statutes allows him to do.
00:13:44
We're going to give him the deferential treatment of this is
00:13:46
what the president can do under federal law, and that's the end
00:13:49
of it. And we're just going to keep
00:13:51
this stay in place and President Trump can keep the National
00:13:55
Guard under his authority until this is all kind of worked out.
00:13:58
But what's really kind of the saddest thing is while I know
00:14:02
people who are watching this or listening might be celebrating
00:14:05
that Gavin Newsom got another loss in the 9th Circuit at the
00:14:09
hands of President Trump. I will say this.
00:14:12
We should all be a little disappointed that all of these
00:14:15
lawsuits are being paid for with our tax dollars.
00:14:19
So all these monumental losses that, remember, there was a
00:14:23
story a little bit ago that got about the tariffs and they sued
00:14:28
about the tariffs and they got kicked out of court immediately
00:14:30
because they didn't check something as simple as
00:14:33
jurisdiction. Like Rob Bonta, the top
00:14:36
attorney, supposedly the top attorney in all of California,
00:14:40
Our attorney general didn't figure out whether jurisdiction
00:14:43
was proper or not. Now he's suffering more losses
00:14:46
over the National Guard. But this is all part of a $50
00:14:49
million taxpayer funded fund that they put aside specifically
00:14:54
just to sue President Trump. So I think the biggest point
00:14:59
that you should really be upset about is that he keeps losing
00:15:04
and we keep paying for his losses and this is going to keep
00:15:08
going and whatever he can do, he's going to keep suing over
00:15:11
and over again. So, all right, that was that
00:15:16
story. Everyone.
00:15:17
Thanks for tuning in. If you're in the chat, make sure
00:15:19
you hit up the chat with any questions or comments.
00:15:23
We got a lot of stuff to get to. So excuse me while I take a sip
00:15:26
of water. All right, next story,
00:15:34
California, I'm talking to you right now.
00:15:38
Have we not suffered enough already?
00:15:41
I just want to, I'm looking plainly into the camera right
00:15:43
now. Have we not suffered enough with
00:15:46
everything that's been going on in California between wildfires,
00:15:50
homelessness and the economy and everything that we are facing,
00:15:55
Have we not suffered enough to get this type of news that
00:16:00
Kamala Harris is now seriously not just thinking about it, He
00:16:06
is seriously or she is seriously thinking about running for
00:16:12
governor of California. And this is really kind of
00:16:17
terrifying. And the fact that she is
00:16:20
seriously considering she was kind of on the fence, it didn't
00:16:24
sound like she was excited. But all I can say is Kamala
00:16:27
Harris is now seriously running for governor.
00:16:30
And this is all I can say to that.
00:16:32
No God, please no, no, no. So it was reported in The Hill
00:16:40
that Harris is giving it a serious look, meaning that
00:16:44
sources close to her are now reporting that she is gone from
00:16:50
kind of on the fence and not so, you know, kind of wiggly here
00:16:54
and there. Now she's seriously considering
00:16:56
she gave herself a deadline that by the end of the summer she's
00:16:59
going to announce and it seems like she's moving ever so
00:17:05
closely to running for governor of Calvin.
00:17:08
And just I, I want to take a moment and just remind the
00:17:12
people who are watching and listening about the queen of
00:17:16
cringe herself. And just, there's a little
00:17:19
little little complication that we have courtesy of on demand
00:17:24
news on YouTube. So, you know, watch a little bit
00:17:27
of this. I grew up understanding the
00:17:31
children of the community are the children of the community.
00:17:34
In one term he has already. Yes, you may laugh.
00:17:41
You need to get to go and need to be able to get where you need
00:17:44
to go to do the work and get home need.
00:17:51
To get to where you need. To go.
00:17:53
We did it. We did it, Joe.
00:17:56
You're going to be the next president of the United States.
00:18:01
I don't know what's wrong with you young people.
00:18:04
You think you just fell out of a coconut tree.
00:18:08
You exist in the context. I'm a gun owner.
00:18:12
Tim Malls is a gun. I know that.
00:18:16
And nobody breaks in my house. They're getting shot.
00:18:20
Yes, yes, I I I hear that. I hear that.
00:18:22
Probably should not have said that.
00:18:26
What's that? We'll deal with that later.
00:18:28
Who doesn't love a yellow school bus, right?
00:18:31
Can you raise your hand if you love a yellow school bus, right?
00:18:35
Just there's something about the and, and most of us, many of us
00:18:40
went to school on the yellow school bus, right?
00:18:42
On the bus, round and round. She loves her school bus.
00:18:49
Right. So I just got I, I do believe
00:18:53
that we should have rightly believed, but we certainly
00:18:58
believe that certain issues are just settled, certain issues are
00:19:01
just settled. Clearly, we're not.
00:19:04
No, that's right. And that's why I do believe that
00:19:06
we are living sadly in real unsettled times.
00:19:11
It is the Caribbean nations, island nations in the Western
00:19:16
Hemisphere. That is where the Caribbean is.
00:19:19
We are also in the Western Hemisphere.
00:19:20
They are our neighbors and. I'm sorry, we, we're, the
00:19:26
Caribbean nations are in the Caribbean and they are in the
00:19:31
Western Hemisphere, which is where we are, which is where the
00:19:34
Caribbean nations are. Thank you for that
00:19:37
clarification. About the significance of the
00:19:39
passage of time, right, The significance of the passage of
00:19:44
time. So when you think about it,
00:19:46
there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of
00:19:49
what we need to do to lay these wires, what we need to do to
00:19:53
create these jobs. I think it's very important, as
00:19:57
you have heard from so many incredible leaders for us at
00:20:02
every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the
00:20:06
moment in time in which we exist and are present.
00:20:12
First and foremost, I believe that we must, we're going to
00:20:15
take this stuff seriously, as seriously as you are, because
00:20:18
you have been forced to have to take it seriously.
00:20:20
So you're now no longer are you necessarily keeping those
00:20:23
private files in some file cabinet that's locked in the
00:20:27
basement of the house. It's on your laptop.
00:20:32
And it's then therefore up here in this cloud that exists above
00:20:37
us, right? And.
00:20:43
Before I begin, I do want to when we invest in clean energy
00:20:47
and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children
00:20:52
can breathe clean air and drink clean water.
00:20:55
As the United States Senator, I was proud to Co sponsor and then
00:20:59
as President, as Vice President it was my honor with the
00:21:02
President. With the President, the United
00:21:08
States shares a very important relationship which is an
00:21:13
alliance with the Republic of North Korea.
00:21:16
A future where we can see what is possible, unburdened by what
00:21:22
has been. We have dreams.
00:21:24
We can see what is possible, unburdened by what has been.
00:21:28
I can imagine what can be and be unburdened by what has been.
00:21:32
You know who saw what could be unburdened by what had been.
00:21:39
Burdened by what has been. I love Venn diagrams.
00:21:57
I really do. I love Venn diagrams.
00:22:00
It's just something about those three circles.
00:22:02
And I like to think about a lot of things in the context of a
00:22:04
Venn diagram. I love Venn diagrams.
00:22:06
Always ask, is there a Venn diagram for this?
00:22:09
I'm telling you it will. It's fascinating when you do so
00:22:13
Venn diagrams, those three circles, right?
00:22:15
And I asked my team to do a Venn diagram of where these attacks
00:22:18
are happening. So voting rights, women's
00:22:21
reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, and of course there was
00:22:25
a huge intersection. Sometimes people will open the
00:22:28
door for you and leave it open, sometimes they won't and then
00:22:33
you need to kick that door down. I think I'm sorry to everyone
00:22:52
who I made you sit through that. That was I just, I felt like we
00:22:57
needed to do that because we needed to be reminded of exactly
00:23:04
what California is up against if Kamala Harris ends up running,
00:23:10
right, if she ends up running and winning here in California.
00:23:15
So I think it's very important that we kind of take a step back
00:23:17
and we we kind of just watch all those videos when we go, oh, OK,
00:23:20
it's, it's only just six months, but that's what we're up against
00:23:26
here in California. If Kamala Harris runs now, she
00:23:30
would be probably the number one contender.
00:23:34
I would say, especially in the Democratic Party.
00:23:36
Katie Porter would not be very happy about this.
00:23:39
Katie Porter, who is running, I think she's running for governor
00:23:42
of California. Every time I see one of her
00:23:43
commercials, she's basically running against President Trump.
00:23:46
This was from RealClearPolitics, which goes on to talk about a
00:23:51
poll that was conducted, whether or not she should run for
00:23:55
governor. And she is.
00:23:57
This was in April. So, you know, a couple months
00:23:59
old, two months old. Harris is currently leading a
00:24:02
slate of hypothetical candidates with 31%.
00:24:06
However, voters were evenly split on whether she should run
00:24:10
for governor, with 50% saying she should and 50 saying she
00:24:15
should not. Among Democrats, 74.7% said she
00:24:18
should run, but among independents, 54 percent, 54.5
00:24:22
said she should not. Even 24.4% of voters who voted
00:24:26
for Harris in the 2024 presidential election said they
00:24:29
did not want her to run for governor.
00:24:33
So not great numbers for for Kamala Harris in that sense.
00:24:40
I even though she would be, I think that she would be
00:24:45
obviously the biggest name recognition because let's face
00:24:49
it, there's not many people can even name all the people who are
00:24:52
running for governor right now. There's probably, you know, a
00:24:55
couple of them, but you don't know like all the people who are
00:24:58
running. Like, you know, there's Via
00:25:00
Ragosa was the former mayor of LA.
00:25:03
There's Xavier Becerra, who was the former Health and Human
00:25:07
Services secretary. There's Katie Porter, who was a
00:25:10
former congresswoman, tried to run for Senate against Adam
00:25:13
Schiff. But none of these, I think, are
00:25:15
like really big household names. A lot of these are like, unless
00:25:19
you're really into California politics, you know exactly who
00:25:21
these people are. There's Steve Hill and and Chad
00:25:23
Bianco on the Republican side. She would probably be the
00:25:26
biggest name to jump into the Democratic race.
00:25:30
But I, you know, I was discussing this with someone
00:25:33
this past week about her possibly running and it was
00:25:38
they, they brought up a good point about Kamala Harris is
00:25:40
that she is someone who does not like to make decisions under
00:25:48
pressure. And that was the description of
00:25:52
her. She's someone who does not like
00:25:53
to make decisions under pressure.
00:25:55
That's the entire job of being a governor or a president, which
00:26:00
she ran for. And I think she likes the idea
00:26:04
of being a governor because she thinks it comes with the
00:26:08
accolades and she gets to be governor and maybe she can run
00:26:10
for president down the line farther when she proves herself
00:26:13
in California. Be kind of tough to prove
00:26:15
herself in California because I think she's even farther left
00:26:18
than Gavin Newsom. But she's not the the numbers
00:26:23
aren't really in her favor in terms of people are split on
00:26:25
whether she should run or not. Yeah, Democrats would show up
00:26:28
for her, but there's a long way to go until 2026.
00:26:31
And all I got to say is, God help us if Kamala Harris decides
00:26:35
to run for governor of California.
00:26:37
That's literally the last thing we need.
00:26:39
We've already suffered enough just this year.
00:26:41
LA has seen wildfires and protests and riots and
00:26:45
homelessness, and it's just we've seen enough already.
00:26:48
California. I don't need to see Kamala
00:26:49
Harris running for governor. But one thing about Kamala
00:26:53
Harris running for governor is that if she runs, someone else's
00:26:59
already said they're going to jump into the race, and that is
00:27:02
Rick Grinnell. So Rick Grinnell has already
00:27:04
said that he's going to jump into the race.
00:27:07
Grinnell, who's the former ambassador to Germany, told
00:27:10
Politico's Dasha Burns that Harris chooses to run to replace
00:27:15
Governor Gavin Newsom. That will have an influence on
00:27:17
his own decision. Quote, I want to see if Kamala
00:27:20
runs. If Kamala runs, I think, you
00:27:23
know, there's a whole lot of Republicans who are going to
00:27:25
have to take a look at it, not just me.
00:27:29
Goes on to say if she runs, I'm going to make.
00:27:31
It's going to make me have to look at it.
00:27:34
Right now I'm not running. So Rick Grinnell, another name
00:27:39
that might jump in because of Kamala Harris.
00:27:42
So you might get a 2 for one. If Kamala Harris jumps in,
00:27:46
you're going to get a Rick Grinnell who's also going to
00:27:48
jump in. So 2026 is just going to be as
00:27:51
dramatic and as exciting and probably for 2026, that will be
00:27:57
the biggest race outside of all the midterm races is who's going
00:28:01
to be the governor of California.
00:28:02
You also have the governor of New Jersey.
00:28:04
That's a big issue as well. But if let me know your thoughts
00:28:09
in the comments regarding do you want Kamala Harris to run?
00:28:12
Do you think she should run? I have a feeling I know what the
00:28:14
answer is going to be, but Lord help us if Kamala Harris decides
00:28:18
she's going to run. All right, next story, I'm going
00:28:25
to talk about this really quickly.
00:28:28
So not really quickly. I want to dive into this one.
00:28:30
This one's really interesting. You can all for everyone.
00:28:34
This is I, I, this is going to be my most, I should say, Alex
00:28:39
Jones kind of segment here on the California Underground
00:28:43
podcast. So, so brace yourself.
00:28:45
This is going to get pretty interesting.
00:28:49
Scott Winner came out this week and he had a video, which we're
00:28:54
going to watch in a second, where he wants to revoke all the
00:29:00
previous calls by the California legislature for an Article 5
00:29:04
constitutional convention. We're going to get to what that
00:29:07
is. I'm sure if you've heard about
00:29:09
what a constitutional convention or an Article 5 convention in
00:29:13
the states, you know what I'm talking about here.
00:29:15
But basically, Scott Weiner wants to revoke all those
00:29:21
previous calls for a constitutional convention.
00:29:25
Let's hear what he has to say about.
00:29:27
It Donald Trump wants to rewrite the Constitution to strip people
00:29:31
of their citizenship, to eliminate basic civil rights,
00:29:35
and to cement his own power so he can stay in office for the
00:29:38
rest of his life. In California, we are working to
00:29:42
stop him from being able to do that.
00:29:45
So there is something called a constitutional convention, and
00:29:49
that's how you can rewrite the Constitution.
00:29:51
We've never had that before in the US And although there are
00:29:54
problems with the Constitution, now is not the time to open it
00:29:57
up for extremists like Marjorie Taylor Green and Donald Trump
00:30:01
and Jim Jordan to be able to do God knows what with the
00:30:05
Constitution. It takes 34 states to call for a
00:30:09
constitution in order to trigger one.
00:30:11
We are getting dangerously close to that number.
00:30:15
And California has called for several constitutional
00:30:19
conventions over the last century, about 1/2 a dozen of
00:30:22
them, on different subjects. And so we don't need that risk.
00:30:27
So I introduced a resolution. It just passed the full state
00:30:31
Senate this week and that will now go to the Assembly to
00:30:35
blanket rescind all of Californias calls for a
00:30:39
constitutional convention so that we are no longer on record
00:30:43
as one of those potentially 34 states.
00:30:46
So again, constitutional problems.
00:30:49
I would love to reform it and modernize it and make it better.
00:30:53
I hope that there is a time when we can do that in a Safeway.
00:30:57
Now is not the time. It's not safe to do it, and
00:30:59
California is not going to be a party to it.
00:31:02
I don't want to do a constitutional convention
00:31:04
because my team is not in power. See, that's how that works.
00:31:08
I'm all for the constitution and amending it.
00:31:11
Not when my team's not in power. I want to guarantee the outcome
00:31:14
and make sure that I get what I want out of a constitutional
00:31:18
convention. So he explained right there a
00:31:21
little bit about what a constitutional convention is.
00:31:24
You know, it's very odd for Scott Weir to be talking about
00:31:26
stuff that doesn't involve, you know, protecting sex traffickers
00:31:31
or something like that. I thought this was pretty
00:31:35
interesting, so I went down. Well, First off, let's go to
00:31:38
this Article 5. It goes on to talk about
00:31:40
basically how the states can do it.
00:31:43
Is that three 4th 3/4 of the state legislatures can call for
00:31:47
a constitutional convention. What happens is then they have
00:31:50
this convention of the States and they can start proposing
00:31:52
amendments to the Constitution. So there's two ways you can
00:31:55
amend the constitution. Congress can put forward an
00:31:59
amendment and then there's a convention of the states which
00:32:01
can do this as well. This is what he's talking about
00:32:05
is that there's 34 states. They've slowly been adding
00:32:08
states on to sign on to it. There's actually an organization
00:32:12
called I think Article 5 or Convention of the States.
00:32:14
I think Mark Levin runs it and they are getting closer and
00:32:18
closer to reaching that threshold to do so.
00:32:21
And once there's a convention of the states, it then kind of
00:32:25
opens it up that all the states can start adding all these
00:32:27
different amendments, which, you know, could be good, could be
00:32:31
bad. That's sort of the gamble you're
00:32:32
taking is red states can start proposing a whole bunch of ideas
00:32:36
and then blue states are going to start proposing a whole bunch
00:32:38
of ideas that can change the the amendments.
00:32:41
Now this is where I'm going to put on my this is where I'm
00:32:46
putting on my tinfoil hat. So everyone, buckle up because
00:32:50
this is I went down the rabbit hole and I was researching.
00:32:54
It took me a while to find this. Thanks to Grok, at least I was
00:32:57
able to narrow down what I was looking for.
00:32:59
I was curious because I was sitting here going, huh, I
00:33:03
wonder what other things California has called a
00:33:06
constitutional convention on because there was 7, there's
00:33:11
only been like 7 calls for California or constitutional
00:33:15
convention by California. And I was like, I wonder what
00:33:18
else they've called for. And I know one of them is Gavin
00:33:21
Newsom called for this gun amendment, which we're going to
00:33:24
talk about in a, in a second, but there was another one in
00:33:28
1945. And when I say I had to dig to
00:33:31
find this, for you to, to know about this, I mean it.
00:33:36
I really had to dignify this. So this came about 1949.
00:33:42
And let me see if I can read it 'cause it is really tiny.
00:33:46
Give me one second. It basically says Assembly Joint
00:33:51
Resolution 26, Joint resolution relative to the participation of
00:33:56
the United States in a world Federal government.
00:34:01
Right. That is right at the top there.
00:34:04
I want to say this again, a joint resolution of the
00:34:07
Legislature of the State of California to the Committee on
00:34:12
Foreign Relations relative to the participation of the United
00:34:16
States in a world Federal government.
00:34:20
It goes on to say, whereas war is now a threat to the very
00:34:23
existence of our civilization because modern science has
00:34:27
produced weapons of war which are overwhelmingly destructive
00:34:30
and against which there is no sure defense.
00:34:34
Whereas the effective maintenance of World Peace is
00:34:36
the proper concern and responsibility of every American
00:34:40
citizen. Mind you, this is 1949, so it's
00:34:43
right after World War 2. Whereas the people of the State
00:34:46
of California, while now enjoying domestic peace and
00:34:49
security under the laws of their local, state and federal
00:34:52
government, deeply desire the guarantee of World Peace.
00:34:55
And whereas all history shows that peace is the product of law
00:35:00
and order, and that law and order are the product of
00:35:02
government. WHEREAS the United Nations, as
00:35:06
presently constituted, although accomplishing great good in many
00:35:11
fields, lacks authority to enact, interpret or enforce
00:35:15
world law, and under its present charter is incapable of
00:35:20
restraining any major nations which may foster or foment war.
00:35:26
Then it goes on to say we can keep skipping down.
00:35:29
Where as many states have memorialized Congress through
00:35:32
resolutions by their state legislatures or in their
00:35:35
referenda by their voters, to initiate steps towards the
00:35:39
creation of a world Federal government, reserving to the
00:35:43
nations and to the people those rights not specifically granted
00:35:47
as necessary to the establishment and maintenance of
00:35:49
world law order. Whereas several nations have
00:35:53
recently adopted constitutional provisions to facilitate their
00:35:56
entry into a world federal government by authoring A
00:35:59
delegation to such a world federal government of a portion
00:36:03
of their sovereignty. I want to say that again, they
00:36:07
want to authorize a delegation to such a world government
00:36:11
authority of a portion of their sovereignty sufficient to endow
00:36:16
it with powers adequate to prevent war now.
00:36:19
For therefore be it resolved by the Assembly in the Senate of
00:36:23
the State of California. That application is hereby made
00:36:28
to the Congress of United States pursuant to Article 5 of the
00:36:32
Constitution of the United States, to call a convention for
00:36:36
the sole purpose of proposing an amendment of the Constitution to
00:36:40
expedite and ensure the participation of the United
00:36:44
States in a world federal government open to all nations
00:36:48
with powers which will still be fine.
00:36:50
Limited, shall be adequate to preserve peace.
00:36:54
I'm just, I'm just, I'm just going to let that sit there for
00:36:56
a second. I I did not believe that this
00:37:00
when I I went down farther and farther down the rabbit hole on
00:37:04
this. I had to dig this up right, that
00:37:10
I had to look in congressional records.
00:37:13
I had to look through thousands of pages to find this.
00:37:18
Thankfully I found something called the Friends of the
00:37:20
Article 5 Constitution, and they actually had this much easier
00:37:24
than I looked for, but I found it.
00:37:25
They were proposing a world federal government back in 1949.
00:37:31
I think I said this this week to somebody on our team.
00:37:33
I said globalists have been at this a long time.
00:37:38
The idea that they wanted to propose a constitutional
00:37:42
amendment through Article 5 to enact a world federal
00:37:49
government, that we would cede some of our authority to some.
00:37:54
And, and to me, call me crazy, but the United States ceding any
00:38:00
authority or sovereignty to a world federal government sounds
00:38:05
about as anti American as I can think.
00:38:09
And this is part of now. I don't know if Scott Weiner is
00:38:11
smart enough to know this was part of it.
00:38:14
I don't know if he thinks that we're going to get rid of this
00:38:17
and we don't want people to know about this because it's it's
00:38:19
memorialized. Obviously I found a copy of it,
00:38:21
but this is going to be part of it.
00:38:23
So I guess they're not calling for a world federal government
00:38:25
or that constitutional convention.
00:38:26
They're pulling everything back now.
00:38:27
They don't want any constitutional conventions now.
00:38:31
So let it be known if you ever talk to people that California,
00:38:38
one time the legislature of California in 1949, jointly the
00:38:42
Assembly and the state Senate proposed amending the
00:38:45
Constitution to create a world federal government that we would
00:38:50
cede sovereignty and authority to.
00:38:54
That is some scary stuff. Now, the other thing that has
00:38:58
been put out there is Governor Gavin Newsom has pushed out this
00:39:03
gun control constitutional amendment.
00:39:07
Again, I know you're shocked, but it hasn't gone anywhere,
00:39:13
mostly because, as we know, with Gavin Newsom, anything he does
00:39:18
is mostly just for his presidential run in 2028.
00:39:21
This is all just for show from Cal Matters, they say.
00:39:25
Even as Newsome continues to tout the effort, largely through
00:39:28
social media advertisements that encourage people to sign a
00:39:31
petition and donate to his political action committee, it
00:39:34
appears to have gained little traction outside of California.
00:39:37
Legislative leaders and several other large states controlled by
00:39:40
Democrats told Cal Matters that calling for a constitutional
00:39:43
convention to adopt the amendment has not come up for
00:39:45
discussion among their caucuses. Quote.
00:39:50
They've come out of the closet. They've showed their true
00:39:52
intent. They want to eradicate the
00:39:54
Second Amendment period, said Allen Galby, founder and
00:39:57
executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation,
00:40:00
which has repeatedly sued overturn gun restrictions in
00:40:02
California. Quote.
00:40:04
He's staking out his territory for Democratic primaries, for
00:40:06
running for the White House in the future.
00:40:09
He's trying to take that mantle so that other candidates can't
00:40:11
claim to be the most anti gun candidate.
00:40:15
Well, I don't know if Scott Weiner conferred with Gavin
00:40:20
Newsom and I don't know if Gavin Newsom signed off on the fact
00:40:22
that they're trying to revoke basically everything that he is
00:40:25
trying to do and pull his gun control amendment away from him.
00:40:28
But that's the type of calls for constitutional amendments we
00:40:32
have coming out of California. A1 world federal government and
00:40:36
massive gun control. So just to give you an idea of
00:40:39
how California wants to change the Constitution.
00:40:41
And when Scott Weiner says, I hope there's a day that we can
00:40:44
do this and modernize the Constitution, you know that
00:40:48
that's just a sneak peek of what they would like to do when they
00:40:50
get their chance to modernize the Constitution.
00:40:54
All right, let's check out the chat for a second before we get
00:40:57
to our final story. Everyone, thanks for tuning in
00:41:03
wherever you are, YouTube, Instagram Rumble, everywhere,
00:41:08
everyone's chatting, having a good time.
00:41:10
Thank you for tuning in live. Somebody said it isn't something
00:41:18
about pollution. I don't think that was.
00:41:20
I think that was a front. There's something else because
00:41:21
China doesn't do anything about climate or pollution, right?
00:41:25
We're like a drop in the bucket when it comes to that stuff.
00:41:29
So there's some other comments in here.
00:41:33
I cannot say, I cannot repeat on on here.
00:41:38
All right, so final story of the night and we'll get back to your
00:41:43
chats and questions after that. Let's see, make sure we pull
00:41:49
this up. All right, Do we have another
00:41:52
French Laundry moment on our hands?
00:41:56
We all know the famous French Laundry moment.
00:41:59
Gavin Newsom, right in the the peak COVID time when everything
00:42:04
was shut down in 2020, when nobody could go to a restaurant,
00:42:09
was photographed sitting at the French Laundry enjoying a
00:42:14
opulent meal paid for by one of his best friends, who was an oil
00:42:18
and gas lobbyist, Jason Kinney. So look that up.
00:42:21
Now we have a new, I think French Laundry example of Gavin
00:42:28
Newsom. So this story came out this past
00:42:31
weekend about what was Gavin Newsom up to when LA started to
00:42:36
see riots and protests? What, what, where was he?
00:42:40
Why was he not on the why was he not ready for this?
00:42:43
Why did he not do what he had to do?
00:42:44
Why did he not act as quickly? And this goes back to the whole
00:42:48
thing about the lawsuit with the National Guard.
00:42:50
So a story came out from the City Journal that says a source
00:42:56
who photographed Newsom at the event expressed shock that the
00:42:59
governor was in attendance, given that riots had broken out
00:43:03
in Los Angeles the day before. I couldn't believe it, the
00:43:07
source said. He was just walking around like
00:43:10
this on an everyday occurrence. Newsom was at the wine party for
00:43:14
at least 90 minutes, according to source, who said that when
00:43:17
the governor finally left, he appeared to retreat to the inner
00:43:20
rooms of his winery. The timeline is worth noting.
00:43:24
The Los Angeles riots broke out on June 6 and in response to the
00:43:27
Trump administration's illegal alien deportation policies.
00:43:30
As Newsom sampled wines in Napa Valley the next day, rioters in
00:43:35
Los Angeles had already begun vandalizing public buildings,
00:43:39
barricading streets, setting vehicles on fire, throwing
00:43:42
rocks, bottles and cinder blocks at law enforcement officers.
00:43:46
That evening, after the wine party had finished, President
00:43:49
Trump authorized the deployment of 2000 National Guard troops to
00:43:52
California, saying that they were needed to address the
00:43:55
lawlessness. So that's an important question.
00:44:01
Gavin Newsom, what were you up to?
00:44:03
And we know now. We know what happened and where
00:44:07
he was. He was at an event.
00:44:09
It was called Vineyard Vibes or something like that.
00:44:12
It's for his sister's nonprofit called Plump Jack Foundation,
00:44:16
which I looked it up she works a total of like 2 hours for and it
00:44:20
looks like it's a good 'cause it's for breast Cancer Research
00:44:22
and stuff like that. But it was a exclusive event
00:44:25
where you have to pay like $150.00 ticket out of the price
00:44:28
range of most people. It was a fancy wine event with
00:44:33
food and wine at one of his Plump Jack wineries.
00:44:37
Mind you, he still owns these Plump Jack wineries.
00:44:39
I guess it's in a blind trust now, But to go back to the
00:44:44
lawsuit that he is currently fighting right now, the court in
00:44:48
that lawsuit had noted that there was a lack of action
00:44:53
between June 6th and June 7th, which opened the door for
00:44:56
President Trump to federalize the National Guard.
00:45:00
And that quote from that story right there is very important to
00:45:03
point out because between June 6th and June 7th, riots started
00:45:08
to build. They started to get more out of
00:45:10
control and nothing was being done.
00:45:12
So while LA was seeing worse and worse riots and protests over
00:45:17
the weekend of June 7th, you had Gavin Newsom up at one of his
00:45:21
wineries sipping wine, having a great time, not doing anything.
00:45:27
Nothing was done. No National Guard, no extra
00:45:30
help, nothing like that. And then finally, on the evening
00:45:33
of June 7th was when President Trump said, look, our federal
00:45:37
agents are under attack. Our federal property is under
00:45:39
attack. We need to do something here to
00:45:42
protect our our federal buildings and our federal
00:45:44
personnel. I'm the commander in chief.
00:45:45
I'm the head of the federal government.
00:45:47
I have to do something. So he called up the National
00:45:50
Guard. So now Newsom is whining about
00:45:54
the fact that he didn't act fast enough to send the National
00:46:00
Guard himself and be, you know, the head Mr. Machizimo leader.
00:46:06
And instead, President Trump stepped in and stole that from
00:46:10
him and usurped that authority from him and made him look weak.
00:46:14
All because he was at this event sipping wine for the benefit of
00:46:18
his sister. Like, this is another French
00:46:21
Laundry moment in my eyes. And that I know that they said
00:46:25
they photographed him. That photograph is going to be
00:46:30
part of the opposition research and opposition campaign ads for
00:46:35
whoever runs against Gavin Newsom in 2028.
00:46:37
Mark my words, it's going to be the French Laundry.
00:46:39
And this picture of, well, when COVID was happening and
00:46:43
restaurants were all closed, here's Gavin Newsom in the
00:46:46
French Laundry. Now it's going to be when LA was
00:46:50
seeing protests and riots and violence over this weekend, June
00:46:53
7th, where was Gavin Newsom? He was at a winery sipping wine,
00:46:59
having a good time. And that's going to be The thing
00:47:02
is that he is not a leader when it really counts.
00:47:05
He's not the man who's going to when, when things get tough.
00:47:08
He's not the man who's actually going to show up.
00:47:11
There was an old commercial or an old ad.
00:47:13
You can look it up on Google or YouTube, something about who's
00:47:16
going to pick up the phone at 3:00 AM.
00:47:18
It's a, it's an older ad and it's literally the red phone is
00:47:21
just ringing. It's 3:00 AM in the morning.
00:47:24
And the question is, who do you want picking up the phone at
00:47:27
3:00 AM in the morning? And that's always sort of been
00:47:31
the question for presidents who are running.
00:47:34
Do you want this guy picking up the phone at 3:00 AM?
00:47:37
Do you trust when everybody else is asleep and no one knows
00:47:39
what's going on that you trust who's going to be in charge when
00:47:44
it all hits the fan? And that's not Gavin Newsom.
00:47:47
Because when COVID happened and everybody else was locked down,
00:47:50
he was going to the French Laundry.
00:47:51
He was sending his kids to private school when everybody
00:47:54
else had to do Zoom school. He's going to a fancy winery
00:47:58
event. When LA is facing protests and
00:48:01
riots and LAPD or LAPD officers are being put in danger because
00:48:06
they can't handle the crowds and are being completely overwhelmed
00:48:10
by all the chaos and violence. He was too busy.
00:48:13
He was too busy up in Napa Valley having a good time.
00:48:16
And that's going to be the question for Gavin Newsom and
00:48:20
probably his Achilles skill. Not just the homelessness, not
00:48:24
just the crime, not just the economy and the taxes and the
00:48:27
gas prices. All that stuff is going to
00:48:29
contribute. I, I'm not going to sit here and
00:48:31
say it's not going to contribute to opposition ads for against
00:48:35
Gavin Newsom. I'm just saying this that at the
00:48:39
end of the day, people vote for who's going to be picking up
00:48:42
that phone at 3:00 AM. And if they keep pushing this
00:48:47
image that Gavin Newsom was not caring about you and only caring
00:48:52
about himself when times were really tough, that's a losing,
00:48:57
losing argument that he, that's a losing point for Gavin Newsom.
00:49:02
And that is a major losing point on top of everything else of why
00:49:06
he can't be president. So we have Kamala Harris who
00:49:08
wants to seriously considering running for governor of
00:49:10
California. And then we have Gavin Newsom,
00:49:12
who we know is seriously running for president United States.
00:49:15
We know he keeps saying he's, he's not thinking about it.
00:49:17
He's absolutely 100% thinking about it.
00:49:21
So all right, got a couple minutes here.
00:49:25
I want to get to some comments, everybody who is jumping in
00:49:32
live. Thank you, everybody.
00:49:36
Evan is the commander in chief of the state Guards and
00:49:38
Firefighters, and he didn't deploy his National Guard during
00:49:39
the LA fire. Yeah, he didn't do that either.
00:49:46
He acted super quickly filing lawsuits with our monies.
00:49:49
Yeah, that's 100% true as well. Yeah, he's he's very quick.
00:49:52
Him and Rob Ant are very quick about filing lawsuits.
00:49:59
Who? I don't think President Trump
00:50:02
sleeps it well. I don't think President.
00:50:04
I don't know how he does it. The man is what, almost 80 years
00:50:07
old? I think he gets 4 hours of
00:50:08
sleep, which is unbelievable. Let's see.
00:50:14
It's seriously just a problem with Democrats.
00:50:16
Where was Newsome for the riots? Where was Karen Bass during the
00:50:19
LA fires? Where was Joe Biden literally
00:50:21
his whole presidency? Yeah, it's, again, that's Kamala
00:50:24
Harris in a nutshell, is she doesn't want to make tough
00:50:28
decisions when the pressure is on.
00:50:30
So it matters who casts a vote and only can Stalin.
00:50:35
That's a great quote. All right, Gavin Newsom is very
00:50:41
incompetent. He's delusional.
00:50:42
Think he could win the race for president.
00:50:44
Well, he's got an ego. I will say that he's definitely
00:50:47
got an ego and he thinks he can run for president.
00:50:50
He thinks he's he's, he's basically, if you know any
00:50:53
history about Gavin Newsom, you will know that he's basically
00:50:58
been the anointed one for a long time.
00:51:01
Ever since Willie Brown appointed him to some obscure
00:51:05
seat in San Francisco. He's been the anointed one in
00:51:09
California politics for a very long time.
00:51:12
So when you when you go through decades of being the anointed
00:51:15
1:00 and basically you keep winning your way up, you get
00:51:21
sort of delusions of grandeur that you should be president
00:51:24
someday and that you're going to be president someday.
00:51:28
All right, I want to thank everybody for tuning in,
00:51:31
everybody for tuning in live. Thanks for checking us out.
00:51:34
Hope you hopefully you like the 8:00 start time.
00:51:38
Everybody, what was I going to say?
00:51:40
Everybody who tuned in, thank you for everything and making
00:51:43
sure you hitch like, sorry, make sure you hit like share,
00:51:47
subscribe, review, all that stuff that helps with the
00:51:50
algorithm and the best thing that you can do to support the
00:51:53
show that is 100% free. You can also check out our nice
00:51:58
local elections matter. Sure, that's on our our shop.
00:52:02
If you go to Instagram, you can check that out.
00:52:04
But also, if you want to help us out 100% free, you can share
00:52:09
this show with someone who you think would get a kick out of it
00:52:11
or would find this very interesting.
00:52:13
And with that, we will see you on the next one.
00:52:16
Have a good one.