Your Tax Dollars Fund Radical Nonprofits

[00:00:01] $6 million is just the tip of the iceberg for what our taxpayer funds go to in terms of radical non-profits. Also, California Democrats are leaning more towards democratic socialism more than ever and are eschewing mainstream Democrats. And also, no shocker to anybody, but Berkeley came out with a study that said California is completely unaffordable. We're going to get into that more on this episode of the California Underground starting right now.

[00:00:45] What's going on everybody? Thanks for tuning in to another episode of the California Underground. We have a ton of stuff to get to including what your taxpayer dollars are going to fund in terms of radical non-profits, how they helped shape the Stop Nick Shirley Act. Also, we're going to be talking about how California is unaffordable and California Democrats are getting even more progressive and left-leaning. There's a ton of stuff we want to get into tonight, but first I wanted to shout out a quick thing.

[00:01:12] So if you haven't already, my book, The Gilded State Witch is coming out for publication on September 8th is available for pre-order on Amazon. There are going to be paperbacks where right now you can go and get the special pre-order lowered price of $2.99. That is $2.99 for a book that is over 300 pages long, 600 citations. This is not a little tiny pamphlet. This is a in-depth book.

[00:01:37] It took me two years to write this book and here we are. It's ready. It's ready for pre-order. It's going to be coming out in a couple weeks. So if you want to grab it at that $2.99 price, you can scan the QR code right here. Also, if you're listening on audio, you can go to Amazon, just check The Gilded State and go look for it. It's my name, Philip Moriello. You can see the beautiful artwork they did with California falling apart and the fires in the background. So make sure you go check that out. Please help support the show.

[00:02:06] Something I'm very proud about and I'm very excited about because it took a long time, but there's a lot of stuff. I really did my homework on a lot of this stuff. So please, if you want to support the show, you can go check it out. $2.99. It's a great price for such a big book. It's a lot of stuff and I hope you enjoy it. But also throughout the show, the QR codes down here. So if you decide throughout the show, you're like, hey, I really like what this guy is saying. I think I'm going to buy that book. Thank you to everyone who's tuning in live right now.

[00:02:32] I see someone already tuning in from Reno. So yeah, we got a lot to get to. If you are in the chat, make sure you put your thoughts in the chat. I will be checking them throughout the show as well. Another thing that I did want to mention really quickly. This is a friend of ours over at the Hoover Institution. This is their new page is called California Decides.

[00:02:55] We're fans of giving you facts based evidence. We're giving you the facts. We're giving you the evidence to make your own decisions when it comes to politics. Because we believe we don't need to tell you you are smart enough to figure this stuff out on your own. We don't need to tell you who to vote for. A lot of people always ask, are you guys ever going to do like a voter endorsement guide or something like that? No, we never have and we never will. So I'm just going to throw that out there. We will never do an endorsement guide. We will never do a voter guide.

[00:03:24] We are never going to tell you how to vote because that's not our job. Our job is not to sit here and tell you and spoon feed who you should vote for. Our job is to give you the information and the facts so that you can go out and make those decisions yourself. So our friends over at the Hoover Institution want to let me know that they came up with this. I just came out. California Decides. It has all of these different topics, frequently asked questions, how elections are run, why do we have so many ballot initiatives? Like it just goes over a ton of stuff.

[00:03:54] So it's a great resource if you have all these questions. How are California schools funded? And they are well written. They're not just little blurbs. So the Hoover Institution did a really good job with this. I did want to make that quick shout out. All right. Before we get into anything tonight, I did want to let you know if you're in the market, if you're in the market for a upper end Sacramento, suburban Sacramento home, I have news for you.

[00:04:22] Because Gavin Newsom has decided to list his first mansion, not the mansion he lives in now, which is in Marin County. The first mansion that he bought when he became governor in Sacramento, the outer boroughs of Sacramento, the outer suburbs. He is now listing it for $7.5 million. It was just announced today that California Governor Gavin Newsom has put his house on the market for $7.5 million. This is an aerial view of it.

[00:04:50] It spans 8.2 acres with seven bedrooms, 12,663 feet. Beautiful area. I mean, look at this community. That is a lot of trees. I thought there was a rule about how many trees you could have around your home because of wildfires. But, you know, when it's King Newsom or Old Noodles, you don't have to worry about wildfires. He doesn't listen to that stuff. The rich don't worry about that sort of stuff unless you live in the Palisades and then they lost all their homes. So if you're interested, you could go buy his home for $7.5 million.

[00:05:18] And just as a reference point, I do want to point this out. Gavin Newsom bought that house when he was first elected back in 2018 for $3.5 million. So if he sells it for $3.7 million, so if he sells it for $7.5 million, he's going to make a pretty penny of profit on that. But basically, he's doubling his money. What a great grift for a guy who's supposed to be a public servant. He should be living in the governor's mansion.

[00:05:46] He chose not to live in the governor's mansion because he wanted his kids to live in a place that's closer to school, the schools, the private swanky schools that they go to. And he decided, I'm going to live 45 minutes outside of Sacramento. I'm not going to live in the governor's mansion. It's not nice enough for Gavin Newsom. You know, the governor's mansion is not nice enough for Gavin Newsom. Even though they just redid it, Jerry Brown went ahead and redid the entire governor's mansion to bring it up to date. He didn't want to live there.

[00:06:13] So instead, he used his LLC through Plump Jack to buy it and avoid the transfer tax because it was given as a gift through the LLC. So just another remarkable feat by Gavin Newsom, a guy who's a public servant. He's a public servant to us here in California. And I just want to let you know that. So if you're in the market for a house in the outer suburbs of Sacramento for $7.5 million, you can go ahead and you can buy that home. All right.

[00:06:42] Let's get into our first story. This story is it started. I will kind of give you a little bit of preview of why this story is so fascinating to me. It's not it partially is because of the fact that this Corey Jackson is an assemblyman here in California. This headline grabbed my attention, but we're going to go through this and I'm going to show you how when you go down the rabbit hole of this story, it gets even scarier as to what our tax dollars go to.

[00:07:12] So here's the story, which is that California quietly boosted taxpayer funding for a nonprofit funded by a city and assemblyman from $250,000 to $6 million, a 2,300% increase. Its latest IRS return reports, zero employees, zero volunteers, and only $57,000 in annual expenses.

[00:07:37] So what do you need $6 million for if you're spending only $57,000 on expenses? And even before it, $250,000, that's a lot of money. You're actually doing pretty well as a nonprofit if you're only doing about $60,000 in expenses and you have no employees, no volunteers. So this is Corey Jackson. He's an assemblyman. He is from Moreno Valley. So that's him right there. That's Corey Jackson.

[00:08:03] So he was able to steer $6 million towards his own nonprofit. It directs the Senate Nonprofit Center Against Racism and Trauma. It's called CART, which has been tax exempt only since February 2022. Earlier this year, he named CART his legislative district's nonprofit of the year. So he named his own nonprofit, the nonprofit of the year, and gave it $6 million, a 2,000% increase.

[00:08:33] Let's see. We're going to get into the more nitty-gritty of why this is even more shocking to me. So this is him awarding himself. Remember, this is his own nonprofit. This is him awarding himself Nonprofit of the Year for a nonprofit that he is now increasing funding for. This is where the story gets really interesting. When I started to pull on this threat, because like I said, we like to provide the facts. We like to look at the documents.

[00:09:04] We don't like to just sit there and tell you our opinion or something. It's not that type of show. We're not just sitting here to rage bait you and stuff like that. We're here to give you the receipts. Just like my book, The Gilded State, we provide plenty of receipts. We provide the receipts, and we do our research, and we do our deep research on this stuff. So I wanted to bring this up.

[00:09:27] So this is the budget summary for the 26-27 year that he was awarded $6 million. So you see down here, it's approved $6 million in general fund one time for the Center Against Racism and Trauma. CART. To expand anti-racism programming and trauma recovery resources in the Imland Empire with the budget bill language. But this is where the story really gets interesting.

[00:09:54] I didn't mean to clap like that, like I'm like, yes, queen, or something like that. This is where it really caught my eye, and it got more disturbing. This is all listed under immigration services, right? So there's these different categories, adult protective services, immigration services, and vulnerable populations. There are some interesting groups in here that are being funded in the tune of millions of dollars.

[00:10:21] You're tax payer money to the tune of millions of dollars to these nonprofits. One of them is approves $5 million general fund one time for the Black Immigrant and Refugee Equity Project. Another one is approves $5 million general fund one time for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Sharla, with budget bill language.

[00:10:42] Another $5 million for the Immigrant Welcome and Empowerment Center approves $30 million general fund for the one time for the Stop Hate program. $30 million for the Stop the Hate program. So all of these things are being funded with, you guessed it, your taxpayer dollars.

[00:11:03] These nonprofits, these nonprofits that have been set up recently in the terms of Corey Jackson's nonprofit just four years ago, and they're getting our tax dollars in the tune of millions of dollars. And I'm just going to say something about nonprofits. I think there's a lot of good that nonprofits do, and I think there's a lot of nonprofits out there that are doing the honest work. There are a lot of nonprofits out there that do the honest work here in California, and they really actually do want to do good in our society.

[00:11:34] There is a problem, though. I have a huge problem with the government giving our tax dollars to nonprofits. I'm just going to say this. I don't think the government should be using tax dollars and giving it to nonprofits. It's almost like they figured out a loophole where they can give the money to these nonprofits, and the nonprofits, it disappears into these nonprofits.

[00:12:01] We don't get to see what they're really spending the money on because it goes to these nonprofits, and all they have to do is kind of report who they're paying, who's on the salary, how much they've raised, all that stuff. It goes into these black holes of the nonprofits, and we don't see where the money goes. And it's almost like they figured out a loophole where we can be less transparent and pick and choose these nonprofits and give them millions of dollars, and they can push our political agenda, which we're going to get to in a second about how some of these have pushed an actual agenda.

[00:12:30] And some of them have actually been pushing legislation that was recently signed as of this past week. So I think they should just stop giving taxpayer money. They should make it illegal for government across the board, federal, state, all of it. I don't think nonprofits should be getting government money. I think they should be competing in the free market of ideas. They should be competing based solely on donations from individuals.

[00:12:56] If you are so beholden or believing in your cause, I think that you should actually go out there and get people to donate to you. There's probably millionaires and billionaires who believe in your cause. I'm sure there are. I'm sure there are left-leaning Democrats or people who have a ton of money who believe in your cause. And they'll write you a big, big check. But we shouldn't be forced as citizens to be funding these nonprofits.

[00:13:26] And one analogy I thought of when I was thinking about the show today was if anyone's ever went into business... Now, private business is different than nonprofits, but I'm going to make the analogy here, and you can let me know in the chat if it makes any sense. When you're in business, you get to a point where you're making money, things are going well, and you start to... You have to pick vendors. You have to pick people who are going to help you run the business because you can't do everything yourself.

[00:13:52] So you start to contract with this vendor, with that vendor, somebody else. And nine times out of ten, most business people end up picking someone that they like. I mean, me and my family, we were in business for a little bit, and we ended up going with people we liked. I mean, they had a good product, but we also liked the people who we were doing business with. So we had a personal preference. But that's different because it is a private business.

[00:14:17] It's our money, and we get to absolve all the risk of it, absorb all the risk of it. And if things go sour, then we have to deal with it. This is sort of the same thing, except with politicians and nonprofits and the government, they don't absorb any of the risk. Because they can go out and go, well, you know what? I personally really love this nonprofit. I love what they're pushing. I love this radical agenda that they're pushing.

[00:14:43] I love that they're pushing open borders and that I want complete lawlessness in our state. I love that about this nonprofit. I think it's amazing. So I want to take – I'm going to be very generous, and I'm going to give them a one-time this year, at least just this year out of the general fund, I'm going to give them $5 million. Or this Stop the Hate program, I'm going to give it $30 million of taxpayer money. That's the difference. The difference with the private business is it's your money, and you have to live with the consequences if it doesn't work out.

[00:15:13] In government, you pick favorites on personal biases because you like their agenda. And also, you know, by extension, you give them money, and the nonprofits then go out, and they do these agendas and enact these agendas and push for these agendas that you can't probably do as a politician because you might get voted out. Even in California, there are some policies that may be a little too out there. But get the nonprofits to do it.

[00:15:43] Get the nonprofits to be the boots on the ground. Get the people to talk about crazy things like open borders and, you know, no immigrant is illegal or anything like that because that's the radical policies that they are going to get behind. That's why I think they should get rid of all funding, all government funding for nonprofits. And I feel bad for the ones that have done it correctly and have done it well because they do it correctly, and they usually ask for these grants, and they get money.

[00:16:13] But it's kind of like that situation of a few bad apples ruin it for everybody, and this is a perfect case of that. So when I said that these nonprofits are pushing radical agendas and we're seeing it play out just as recently as now, I want to pull up this article from the Washington Examiner. It says, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2624 on Saturday allowing Immigration Services Group's address to be shielded from public records,

[00:16:42] criminalizing publishing their information with the intent to incite threats against them. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHARLA, co-sponsored and testified for the bill before the state legislature passed it to the governor's desk. The taxpayer-funded charity drew Republican scrutiny after its Los Angeles Rapid Response Network led to a union's arrest that sparked fiery protests against U.S. immigration and ICE customs in June of 2025.

[00:17:09] So if you remember the L.A. riots, the L.A. riots were part of CHARLA. Right? They were part of this. They were part of funding some of the activists and the protesters who started the L.A. riots. And what is AB 2624 if you don't know the number? Well, it's referred to as the Stop Nick Shirley Act. So you know that act. Nick Shirley came here.

[00:17:33] He exposed a ton of fraud going on with a lot of these facilities in terms of daycare and other medical facilities that are basically billing the government for not doing anything. He exposed all of this. And then immediately after, Mia Bonta, who is the wife of Rob Bonta, the attorney general, the attorney general who should be looking out for this stuff, now authored this bill quickly, almost as soon as Nick Shirley did this,

[00:18:01] and came out with a law that, nope, you can't go after these people. You can't figure out their addresses. It can't be published. You shouldn't know what's going on with any of this stuff. And she tried to play it off as it's about harassment and all of that. But in reality, we all know what she was doing, which is they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. And they had to quickly correct course and go, darn, someone figured out how to expose all of our fraud. And here we are.

[00:18:29] So Sherla, who co-sponsored and testified for this bill, they've been a part of this, the Stop Nick Shirley Act, and they've been part of the L.A. riots. And I want to watch this clip real quick of the managing attorney for Sherla. This is around the time of the L.A. riots. This is a partial clip of her on the news and the local news in Los Angeles. I want to watch this real quick about, and her responses, and we're going to comment on that. So let me pull that up right now.

[00:19:00] What do you have to say to critics who claim that your organization has gotten millions of dollars from the Biden administration and they talk about your Democratic ties? Well, we are a nonpartisan organization. What she's referring to is that the Biden DHS actually gave Sherla also more money. So keep that in mind. That's why I say all government, all government funding of nonprofits should end. There should be a moratorium on government spending for nonprofits because this is what happens.

[00:19:30] It funnels down from federal. It funnels down from the state. It just never ends. It's our taxpayer dollars going to these organizations. I don't think you should be able to pick. I don't think you should be able to pick and choose. The government should be providing and worried about using those millions of dollars to fix roads, to do basic services, to hire more police, to make sure that criminals go to jail, to make sure we have the basic necessities that we ask of a government, not to provide it for these radical nonprofits.

[00:20:19] It's very good of the managing attorney to understand what a 501c3 nonprofit is, is that as a 501c3 nonprofit, you cannot be involved in politics, meaning you can't campaign for anybody, you can't donate money to anybody, and you can't get involved in politics. It's very strict about that part. If you're a nonprofit attorney, you should understand that you always advise your clients. You can't get involved in politics as a 501c3. There's 501c4s, which are different. That can get involved in politics.

[00:20:48] But 501c3, you can't get involved in politics. So very good on her that at least she knew that. And she's trying to play it off as like, we chose that. Well, you didn't choose that. That's required of you to not get involved in the elections or any sort of politics. You'd lose your 501c3 status and your tax-exempt status. So she's playing it off as like pat on the back. Good job for us. We didn't get involved. We're not partisan. Right, because you're legally not allowed to be partisan.

[00:21:20] Definitely has it out for us, particularly Latino community. You know, we are seeing folks being rounded up regardless of status or anything. Just taking, basically it's a fishing net. You know, they want to catch everyone. And what is their marker? Our race. And so when we have an administration in place that is clearly being racist against our community,

[00:21:44] against our immigrants folk who are the foundation of how we run what we have, you know, we're going to stand up against that. It just, it is, it is a by proxy of the racism and the bigotry that we are seeing, not of anything else. That was a whole lot of talking points. You don't see the beginning of this video where she stumbles and doesn't really have a lot of good answers.

[00:22:14] No offense to this girl, young lady who is doing her best on local news. She doesn't seem like she came very prepared. But you will see in a couple seconds how it's very easy for them to slip into their talking points. And then once they get into their talking points, they're very, very vocal and very fluid with their speech. Of course, everything's racist. Everything's racist. Any sort of immigration enforcement is racist. Period. Full stop, according to Sherla.

[00:22:42] What about critics who are saying that these raids are in the interest of public safety and that these undocumented people are people who have committed crimes in our community? You kind of touched on this. How are you responding to that, though? Because we keep hearing that over and over again. Right, of course. So one thing people who continue to perpetuate that rhetoric need to understand is that this administration is saying that anyone who is here undocumented has committed a crime and a violent one. And that is not the fact.

[00:23:09] The majority of the people being caught up or detained or taken are not folks with criminal records. Except if you enter the country illegally. I'll say that again. Unless you enter the country illegally. Forget that crime. We'll just put that crime aside. That's not the criminal record she's talking about. Yeah. There are exceptions. People were born here undiagnosed.

[00:23:36] But what I'm saying is they always kind of brush past that criminal charge. And so we are seeing this left and right. We saw it when they took folks to El Salvador. And we continue to see it now. There is no targeted effort to take out folks who are quote unquote criminals or violent criminals. It is an effort to take out the Latino community. And we have seen this before with Project Wetbag in the past.

[00:24:04] And this is a perpetual cycle that we are no longer standing for as a community. Because it is not okay to target folks for their race, for who they are. We're seeing it through the LGBT community as well. It is not okay to target people for who they are. We used to be a country that... Again, I told you, she gets into her talking points and she's much more fluid because it's kind of a reflex.

[00:24:32] It's kind of like, you know, you take enough swings off the tee. And any sort of sport you practice enough in the movement, it just becomes easier and easier. It's like anything. Once you practice it, you get easier and easier at it. So once it's easy for her to refer back to or revert back to the same talking points of, well, it's racism and it's hate against the LGBTQ community. That's what this is all about. It's not about public safety. It's not about any of these issues.

[00:24:58] It's not about the fact that, yes, we are as of right now until there's enormous immigration reform, which could happen if democratic socialists take over the country. We're going to get to them in a little bit. Until now, we still have laws on the books about immigration, how to do it properly and how not to do it properly. Crossing the border is not one of them. You don't get to just walk into the country. It's a criminal offense to just enter the country and stay here.

[00:25:25] But it's easy for people like this who work for Charlotte to just revert back to their old talking points. We believed at some point that we stood because of our merits, because of what we brought to the community, because of how prideful we were working together. That is no longer a fact. We continue to work together. However, folks are this particular administration is now targeting us because of our race,

[00:25:52] because of what we look like, because of what our name sounds like. It is no longer a targeted effort. So the rhetoric needs to be addressed. Well, we'll continue to be having... A lot of nothing. But that's the Sharla managing attorney around the time of the L.A. riots. And again, Sharla had a hand in the L.A. riots. They had a hand in the Stop Nick Shirley Act.

[00:26:16] They clearly have a goal, which is that they are fans of open borders and unrestricted immigration. Okay. If that's your nonprofit, again, you have a right in this country. If you want to start a nonprofit for any cause that fits what would be a tax-exempt status, I think you should be welcome to do that. But again, I think you should go out into the marketplace of ideas and fight for nonprofit dollars.

[00:26:47] And you should try and get donations from other people, individuals, private individuals. And if people believe in your nonprofit, they'll give you money. And if people don't believe in your nonprofit and believe that it's just a bunch of junk or they think you're too radical, then you fail. I think she says there, we used to be a country based on merits. That's interesting for her to say.

[00:27:15] We used to be a country based on merits. Is your nonprofit getting money based on merits? Or is it getting nonprofit money from... Or is it getting donations from the government because of political ideology? I want to see if you cut off funding, you cut off all funding and government funding and public dollars to a lot of these nonprofits, would they still survive on their merits? To use her words, to use the Charlotte managing attorney's words, and that could be her back then.

[00:27:43] I don't know if she's still the actual managing attorney. What if she went out there in the marketplace of idea and wasn't getting subsidized by the government? Based on your merits, right? That's what you're asking is everyone should be judged on their merits. Well, your nonprofit should be judged on your merits. And not on the fact that you get enormous subsidies from our taxpayer dollars. So that's the really scary thing about this story. It started with $6 million for Corey Jackson. He was just the tip of the iceberg.

[00:28:14] He was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what kind of radical nonprofits him. I'm sure you could go through this entire budget report and find more nonprofits that do the exact same thing or have some sort of radical agenda. And our money in terms of millions and millions of dollars go to these nonprofits. Whether you like it or not, they take your money, and then they give it to groups that have a political agenda that absolutely hates you. And you're supposed to sit there and smile and go,

[00:28:44] yeah, that's fine. We should give it to these nonprofits. Cut it all off. Cut it all off is my point. Cut it all off. Make it all legal. Put a moratorium on it. Ten-year moratorium. Let's agree on that. Can we agree on a ten-year moratorium for nonprofits? Just don't give them money for ten years. And let's see if any of these nonprofits can actually succeed on their merits based on what that girl is saying. All right. I want to get into some of the comments.

[00:29:14] Somebody said, don't we as taxpayers have a right to know? We do. That's my point is that it goes into the black hole of nonprofits, and then we have no idea what happens after that. Let's see. Somebody else said, nonprofits, for anybody else but Newsom, he's the one that's profiting and no taxes and more BS. Yes. Boop, boop, boop, boop.

[00:29:44] Nick Shirley is speaking at a rally in Sacramento tomorrow, so the fight's not over there with the Stop Nick Shirley Act. All right. Let me know your thoughts in the comments. I'm going to move on to the next story. Let me take a drink of water first. So kind of in the same vein of what we're talking about here with Charlotte and these radical groups,

[00:30:13] I know you're probably not shocked to hear this, but California Democrats are getting more progressive. That's right. California Democrats are getting more and more progressive. So this article came out. Let me pull this up real quick. This article came out. California voters prefer progressives and democratic socialists to mainstream Democrats, a poll says. As progressives nationwide seek to prove their politics can beat Republicans,

[00:30:42] California is still a battleground between the left-wing and centrist factions within the Democratic Party. And we've been talking about this for a while. We've been talking about this for a while. I did a whole special live stream basically on democratic socialists and why they are ascending right now. Also, make sure if you're in the chat, make sure you like all this stuff. It helps with the algorithm. Comments, all that stuff helps our reach. Like this video right now. It helps people find it, gets promoted. So make sure you do that.

[00:31:13] A new poll in California may offer a window into the national struggle to define the Democratic Party in a state that's often thought of as the capital of blue America. Voters are now more likely to say they're turned off by candidates who align themselves with the Democratic Party. But that's not because they're moving right. The survey published Wednesday by the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found that voters are more inclined to vote for a candidate who identifies as a progressive or a Democratic socialist

[00:31:42] compared with those who call themselves mainstream Democrats. Also, identifying as any sort of Republican or MAGA or otherwise made voters say they are overwhelmingly less inclined to give their support. That's not shocking. We've said this before. Trump is toxic in California. MAGA is really kind of toxic. Like broadly, I say broadly, it's kind of toxic in California. Goes on to talk about all these different Democratic socialists

[00:32:11] who right now are winning all over the place. Democratic socialists are on the rise. They're on this enormous ascendancy. It's almost out of nowhere. Democratic socialists, they've been around, but it seems like all of a sudden they've picked up steam. And I'm going to get into that. I'm going to talk about why I think that they've picked up steam so recently and why all of a sudden they're doing so much better. So California Democrats are moving more towards Democratic socialism. It's not surprising.

[00:32:39] I'm sure you're sitting there going, yeah, that's not surprising. California is getting more blue. Although California went more red in 2024. Interesting contrast. So one closely watched race is in California's 14th district near Oakland where a special election for the seat vacay by the disgraced former Democratic rep Eric Swallow has come down to the wire between the progressive state Senator Aisha Wahab, I think that might be how I pronounce her name, and the centrist-leaning transportation official Melissa Hernandez, both Democrats.

[00:33:08] The two are strictly divided on Israel while Wahab has called its actions in Gaza a, quote, genocide and called for an end to weapons aid. Hernandez has been noncommittal. Wahab has also taken stronger stances against corporate abuses and the U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement and called for significant police reforms while Hernandez has run on public safety and business-friendly policies. Let's take a look at what Aisha Wahab is running on.

[00:33:38] This is her page, Aisha Wahab. I might be saying her name. I don't know if I'm saying it correct at all. Aisha Wahab. I apologize if I'm getting your name completely incorrect. She says it's simple. It's so simple, it takes a page that takes you about three or four scrolls on your mouse to get through. That's how simple it is. It's super simple. You just got to, these are the simple solutions. And each point has about four or five points under it. She wants to make life affordable. Who doesn't? Everybody wants to make life affordable.

[00:34:08] Raise the federal minimum wage so work pays enough to live. Yeah, because, you know, raising the minimum wage, if it does anything, it's so, it solves poverty so quickly that we should just tell third world countries to raise their minimum wage. Why don't third world countries just defeat poverty by raising their minimum wage? Why don't they just do that? Probably because that's not what really defeats poverty. Health care for every American, pay Medicare, pass Medicare for all. Good luck with that.

[00:34:37] I don't think they will. Housing people can actually afford. Aisha will fight to increase federal funding for affordable housing. We don't need more subsidies. We don't need more subsidies. We're $40 trillion in debt. We don't need more subsidies for housing. Housing, what we need to do is get the hell out of the way. We need the government to get the hell out of the way when it comes to housing. I've said this before and I'll say it again and I'll keep saying it over and over and over again.

[00:35:04] The way you build housing is you get the government out of the way. And that's actually going to tie into our next story we're going to get to about Berkeley. Invest in social housing, workforce housing, and deeply affordable housing. So social housing is that ugly stuff that does look like it came out of the Soviet Union, all those gray, ugly buildings. Protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP. Good jobs, small businesses, and the economy of the future.

[00:35:31] Create good-paying union jobs because that's what we need, more powerful unions. As we've seen here in California, the last thing you need is more powerful unions. They're more powerful than the politicians here in California. Unions get away with almost basically murder. They tell the politicians what to do. They lobby for it. The politicians then turn around, do what they want. That gives them more money. Pass legislation that gives them more money. Asked Lorena Gonzalez. Lorena Gonzalez, when she passed AB5,

[00:36:01] that was an enormous piece of legislation that was basically a giveaway to the unions to force more people into employee jobs and out of freelance gig jobs so that they would have to join unions. It was an enormous giveaway. Lorena Gonzalez, who blocked me on X. It's a point of pride for myself. Is that Lorena Gonzalez? I'm so touched that Lorena Gonzalez, the president of the Labor Federation here in California, blocked little old me.

[00:36:31] Invested in American manufacturing, semiconductors, clean energy, and advanced technology. Revitalized small business with targeted tax relief. That's interesting. Socialists talking about tax relief. She goes on to talk about education and opportunity, builds for the 21st century, repair roads, fund robust public transit, invest in renewable energy infrastructure, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, hold polluters accountable. Let's see.

[00:37:00] She goes to talk about human rights, civil rights, and safe communities, and corruption. Put people first. Foreign policy, end endless wars, and invest in people at home. So that's her platform. It's very simple. There's only about 100 points here. It's very simple that you just vote for Ayesha Wahab. But she won. She did very well. And I want to watch this video real quick. This is from the majority report with Sam Seder. This is not Sam Seder. I guess his gal Friday was filling in.

[00:37:29] So she had this to say about it. Well, it's the clip first, and then she talks about it a little bit. And then I want to comment about why I think she's kind of right, but she's not necessarily. She's missing the mark. So let's watch this clip real quick. AIPAC be afraid of you in Congress. And do you support U.S. taxpayer funding weapons for Israel? No, I don't support weapons going out of this country.

[00:38:00] I think that there's a time and place for war, but just needless war is unnecessary. And I've been very clear about that. I believe in human rights across the board. I've said it a million times as a former foster youth. I think that we should care about the foster youth here in this country and in this county, as well as the kids being detained under United States ICE detention centers, as well as the kids abroad. And what we are seeing... The kids abroad.

[00:38:29] We should worry about the kids here first, but we should also worry about the kids abroad. I'm not sure what that means. Worry about the kids here, but also worry about the kids abroad. A lot of kids abroad. It's a lot of money to care for all the kids all over the world. It's not the American dream or really upholds the American value system across this world. So I think that it's a concern.

[00:38:58] I do believe in a strong relationship with all countries and all nations. And the United States needs to practice better diplomacy, even with nations where we don't necessarily like their leadership or care for their leadership. And so I think that there is a difference in international relations and how we have gone about it in the last three decades. And I will say I'm a kid that grew up in the 9-11 era.

[00:39:21] And we've seen war after war after war, endless war that didn't actually serve a purpose and created more instability in those regions, which actually does affect both Europe and the United States negatively. She did grow up in the shadow of 9-11. I like that answer. This is just that's a standard answer that should be for every Democrat going forward. I'm not focused on foreign wars. I'm not focused on sending money abroad.

[00:39:51] I'm focused on my constituents and making lives better here at home. Yeah, I'm just going to say it. That sounds familiar. I think you know where I'm going with this. It sounds familiar. What is that message? What is that message? Focus here on people at home.

[00:40:19] Don't go into foreign wars. Don't get into foreign entanglements. Focus on investing here in our country. Interesting. She's right. It's a good message. It's a very good message. But why? Why does it sound familiar? Oh, because it's the America first message. It's the message that Donald Trump ran on and that got elected on twice. It's the America first message. It's a populist message, I should say. It's a populist message.

[00:40:49] America first. It worked for Donald Trump twice. And now you have people on the Democratic Socialist side, the complete polar opposite of what Trump and Republicans are. And they're saying, well, it's a good message. It's a great message. It's a solid message. It's the message that they should be saying everywhere. And she's not wrong. But it's interesting that Democratic Socialists now are basically borrowing the America first

[00:41:17] message and using it for themselves in their campaign. And I'll say this. I'll say why. Why is it working now for Democratic Socialists? And I know this is going to piss some people off. I think it's because this administration right now has failed at doing what they said they were going to do when it comes to America first. I think this Iran war has been an enormous debacle that has definitely had a draining effect on the American people to the point where all I hear about is the Iran war. I don't even know what the Trump administration is doing anymore.

[00:41:47] I don't know what they're doing for American people. And that's an issue. They may be doing a lot of stuff behind the scenes, but the Iran war, every single day I turn it on, every single time I turn on the news, that's all they're talking about is the Iran war. And it's not very America first to go to Iran and get involved in a foreign war that is now dragged on longer and longer with it seems like there's no way out. And now you have Democratic Socialists who see the opening.

[00:42:13] They see the opening of, wait a second, if we take this language because the Trump administration has kind of dropped the ball on this America first message and we run with it, we're winning on the America first message. Just in a different, it's a different painted horse. It's a different kind of style of America first. It's big government statism. It's socialism. America first. So I agree. It's a good message. It's been working and I think that this vein of America first has been under there for

[00:42:43] probably over 20 or 30 years to the point where I think this kind of feeling of America first has been going on for a lot longer than people give us, you know, give a credit for. I think it's been basically since the early 2000s. You had the Reform Party, which they tried to get Donald Trump to run for in the Reform Party. It was Pat Buchanan who was more of an America first kind of populist conservative. And now you have the Trump administration who won based on an America first message, making a lot of promises about how we're going to look after America first.

[00:43:12] We're going to look at reducing the overall debt. We're going to cut waste and fraud and all that stuff. We're going to reduce the overall size of government. We're going to make it more affordable. We're going to cut taxes. We're going to make housing more affordable. We're going to grow the economy. All of those promises. And right now, I know people are going to get mad at me or get pissed off, but it's the truth is that because they've dropped the ball, the democratic socialists have seen this as an opportunity and they are running with that message.

[00:43:39] They are running with an America first message and it's winning. As much as you don't like Zoran Mamdani, I'm not a fan of Zoran Mamdani, that's for sure. A lot of these politicians, once they get into office, they obviously can't make all of these Santa Claus, pie in the sky, fantasy wishes come true where it's free this, free that, free buses, all of this stuff. We're going to give away free, free, free everything. It's the Santa Claus politician, right? That's a common phrase. They're the Santa Claus politician. We're going to give you everything for free.

[00:44:10] It's going to be great. And he's probably going to fall on his face because he won't be able to come up with 90% of the promises he made because they're not realistic. The promises that Donald Trump made on the campaign trail for America first were actually realistic, you know, cutting regulation, cutting taxes, reducing all sides of government. Those are realistic things that you can actually do. But Zoran Mamdani, the reason that he propelled to such popularity was in one debate with all the other mayoral candidates.

[00:44:39] They all asked, where would you go on your first foreign trip as New York mayor? And they all said different states. Israel was the biggest one. And Zoran Mamdani, the reason that he kind of catapulted from that to winning the election was because he said, I'm not going anywhere. I'm the mayor of New York. I'm focused on New Yorkers. And that was the first time you really saw the democratic socialists play with this America first idea. Now it's working. This idea of we're going to focus on you.

[00:45:06] Look, this Trump administration hasn't done what they're supposed to do. They failed. And now let's try socialism. It's a bad way to try and usher in socialism. And it's one reason I get really angry at this Trump administration is because their sort of failure to follow through on their promises has opened the door for the democratic socialists to get more popular. And more people are rushing. Here in California, more people are rushing to support democratic socialists. You're going to see more and more people.

[00:45:34] It's almost like it's getting, it's building such critical mass and momentum at this point. And it's hard not to see that the democratic socialists won't be around and entrenched for many years to come. It started with Bernie Sanders and then it became the squad. And now we're starting to see more and more democratic socialists win primaries in elections all across the country. But I did think that was interesting that it was, it's an America first message.

[00:46:02] It's basically, she is parodying the same message Donald Trump said on the campaign trail about, don't get involved in wars, focus on citizens here, make their lives better. That's my goal. And she won handedly because that's what people want. People are struggling right now. And I think that's a good segue into our next story. Let me pull up real quick. Thank you everyone for tuning in tonight. Make sure if you have an array, there's the QR code right there.

[00:46:32] If you want to pre-order my book, The Gilded State, which is coming out on September 8th, it's going to be full of, full of facts, full of stories, history, all of that stuff. I'm very proud of it. So, and it's, it's selling, it's listed right now, pre-order $299. So that's a great price for a book that is over 300 pages long. It's not a pamphlet. It's not a quick little 100 page book. It is literally a, a nonfiction book.

[00:47:02] It's going to take you a while to get through. It's got 600 citations. So I went through, everything was researched and broken down and it's all there for you. So, and it has, I think it has an optimistic ending. A lot of people are kept asking, does it have a sad ending? I don't think it has a sad ending. I mean, the second half of the book is, is kind of eye opening in terms of what's wrong with California.

[00:47:27] But at the end of the day, it is, I think there's an optimistic ending. I will, I don't want to spoil and give away what the whole point of the ending is, but there is an optimistic forward looking kind of chapter at the end. All right. Let's see what some of your comments are saying. Um, all right. Yeah. People are stupid. People are stupid, but people are also, I think people are very desperate right now.

[00:47:55] And people, political nerds like us who are hanging out on a Tuesday night talking about politics, talking about California politics, not just any politics. I mean, there's levels of political nerddom. There are, there are shows that talk about national politics and it's easy to get into national politics because it's all in your face. Local politics, again, local elections matter. In fact, we have that shirt on our store. If you go to California underground dot live, you can get that local elections matter.

[00:48:26] But if you're here watching local elections or local politics, you're on my level of nerddom. And not everybody's on that level. Not everybody cares at that level. So they just go for the big, bright, shiny thing. They go for the Santa Claus. They go for the Santa Claus. Give me free stuff. Make it so I don't have to pay for the bus. Give me housing support. Give me money. Make my groceries cheaper. Stuff like that.

[00:48:57] All right. Somebody said, is that ironic? A little bit. I think it's ironic that they, I think that's politics though. I think that happens where if a, like in 2024, you saw an enormous coalition be built around the campaign promises of Donald Trump, where he promised a lot of America first policies. And a lot of people got behind that.

[00:49:27] I think a lot of people saw that and they said, okay, as political minds and political strategists, they said, this is something we have to go after. And you see this throughout politics where they'll take a winning message and they'll run with their opponent's winning message, but they'll kind of put their own spin on it. Right? They'll kind of just kind of tweak it up a little bit. It's not abnormal for that to happen. It's happened throughout politics. They don't reinvent the wheel.

[00:49:56] They see what the public sentiment is and they go, the public sentiment is America first. And that's what's working. So we're going to run on America first. And it worked because Zoran Mamdani made that comment about not visiting any other country and it propelled him to absolute stardom and he won the mayoral race. All right. Last story of the night. And if you have any more comments or chats or questions or anything like that, let me know. I'll get to him at the end of the show.

[00:50:25] Thank you again for everyone tuning in. Make sure you like hitting like does help this get discovered more by other people, helps with the algorithm, all of that stuff. Also, if you're listening on audio, make sure you leave a comment. That helps as well. Commenting, hitting the poll, whatever that all that stuff, interacting with the podcast. That helps as well. All right. Final story of the night. The Berkeley.

[00:50:54] Yes, the Berkeley, UC Berkeley. Came out with a story. Study. I should say it's a study. It's not a story. California has an affordability crisis. The fix may be politically uncomfortable. Astronomical housing prices soaring energy costs. California is taking flight. For decades, California had a golden glow in the public imagination. Sunlit, surf, redwoods, Hollywood, the Golden Gate Bridge.

[00:51:23] Today, however, the state is often associated with shock and awe housing prices. And as a result, its reputation has lost some luster. How has the cost of living here grown so high and so much higher than any other state? So UC Berkeley political scientist Sam Trackman. This is Sam Trackman. Offer some striking answers. And this is four white papers. I've read some of them. Um, and funny enough, they come to a lot of the same conclusions I do in my book.

[00:51:53] Voters and policymakers became broadly wary of growth and development in the 1960s and 1970s. He wrote, Popular policy is aimed to preserve the state's environment and its local landscapes and cultures, but also open many ways for opponents to challenge and obstruct development. First one that comes to mind in the 1960s and 1970s was CEQA. CEQA was and continues to be one of the worst policies that has ever been enacted in California history. If you're not familiar with CEQA, it's the California Environmental Quality Act,

[00:52:23] which basically requires that whenever you build a project, it has to go through this environmental study and it has to go through this long bureaucratic process to make sure it doesn't harm California's environment. And it had the intent. And I'll, you know, you'll never guess who actually signed it. It was Ronald Reagan. Governor Ronald Reagan signed this into law because it sounded great. Well, we want to protect California's environment. We do have a beautiful state. California is a beautiful state. We have enormous environment.

[00:52:53] We have enormous natural beauty in this state. So the actual intent made sense. We want to protect the environment. So we want to make sure people just don't bulldoze and blow everything down. The problem with that is since that has been enacted, since Governor Reagan signed it, CEQA has become more of a sword less than a shield. It was supposed to be a shield to protect the environment. Now it's a sword. You have all these NIMBYs who are using it for crazy, crazy things.

[00:53:21] Like they were saying that, you know, they couldn't redo a project in San Francisco because of the noise level. They couldn't do, redo a laundromat. They can do a building development because the laundromat that they were building on top of somehow had something to do with environment. So they couldn't do that. So they tied it up into litigation for three, four years. And that's the really issue is they're not actually trying to win. They're just trying to stall you to the point where developers give up. They just go, there's no point.

[00:53:51] I'm not going to do this anymore. A lot of developers are not going to build when they have this idea that they're going to have to carry costs for three to four years. Because when developers build something, it's like any business. They have a business plan. They have projections. They have what they're carrying costs, what it's going to cost to actually build. All of that stuff projected out. And they have a timeline so that they can start to make profit. Delay that by three or four years and all of a sudden the project becomes

[00:54:20] economically unviable. It becomes unprofitable. And they don't want to do it anymore. So the idea is that they get it caught up in CEQA and a lot of developers will just give up. Some developers will continue on. They just don't care. They're like, whatever, we have the money and we'll just keep doing it. Because we know at the back end, we'll make the money back in 30 years if they hold this up for three or four years in court. So that's what he's talking about is one of these issues right here.

[00:54:47] But half a century later, the unintended consequences of those policy decisions are clear. High cost for housing, utilities, and services which hit hardest among low- and middle-income Californians. Solutions, he said, will challenge many Californians to examine core political and economic beliefs. Quote, if California wants to be an affordable place, a place of opportunity, we need to be a place that fosters growth. Growth, Trackman said in an interview with the UC Berkeley News, that's just an essential element of affordability.

[00:55:16] Right. You have to encourage growth in this state. You have to encourage growth and increase of supply. It's basic economics. Growth fosters more supply, allowing consumers to have a choice. It creates competition, which makes prices more competitive.

[00:55:44] When you have laws like CEQA that hold things up and make it impossible to actually get things done. And CEQA is just one part of it. If you ever look through the California building codes, they are out of control, arcane, and laborious. And for one example is that they require sprinklers in some parts of the state, which can add easily $10,000 to a job, which then raises the price of housing.

[00:56:13] Because you've got to pay for that. You've got to pay for the sprinklers somehow. They require certain zoning areas because of the environment. And a lot of these policies that have great intentions, excuse me, at the end of the day, they stifle growth. This has been an argument of mine for many years on this podcast, is that the way you get out of this issue here in California

[00:56:43] is you have to foster an environment of growth. You have to foster that environment of growth where there's going to be more business, where people are going to open more businesses, people are going to want to build more housing. You're going to want to attract people here. And what's the way that you do that? And that's why this professor, and credit to Sam Trackman for saying the unpopular thing. I didn't go through the whole interview. But he does bring up some good points. Credit where credit is due.

[00:57:13] The UC Berkeley professor saying that we do have to tackle this issue. Uncomfortable truth. It may be uncomfortable with people at UC Berkeley. It may be uncomfortable to the Bay Area Democrats who are leaning more towards Democrat socialism. It may be unpopular to the LA Democrats who are leaning more towards socialism. It's not unpopular to the people who live outside of these big cities in these dark, these deep, deep blue cities. It's not uncomfortable because it's stuff that we have been asking for and clamoring for for years,

[00:57:42] which is you have to take the yoke off of the people government regulation. You have to take that off people and allow them to grow and prosper. You have to allow them to build. You have to allow them to build businesses. You have to allow them to hire. This is how you create a better economy in a more affordable state. You have to allow us to tap into energy solutions that are unpopular with a lot of the California electorate. Does that mean we have to drill for more oil? Probably.

[00:58:16] We could be creating a bustling oil industry here in California that creates good middle-class jobs that are good middle-class blue-collar jobs that could help bolster the middle class. But we don't do it. We could build nuclear power plants that create enough energy to the point that we have a surplus. Right now, California imports 30% of its electricity. Think about that. 30% of our electricity.

[00:58:45] Our renewables are not keeping up with what this state demands, so we have to import it from other states. And what do you think those states are doing? They're not cutting us a deal. They're selling it at a profit. They're laughing all the way to the banks. So places like Arizona are selling their energy to us and laughing all the way to the bank because their coffers are getting full because California has to buy electricity from these other states. We should be producing enough electricity and energy that we should be selling it to the entire West Coast. We have the capability. We just don't do it. So this is what he's talking about

[00:59:15] when he says it's unpopular and people have to struggle with it. Yeah, people who are living in Berkeley have to struggle with this and get their hands around, get their minds around the fact that you can't keep pressing forward with the same exact statism that we've been doing for 30, 40 years since the 1960s and 70s. This was an interesting point, is that adjusted by cost of living, California has the highest poverty rate in the country. And that's something I think a lot of Californians don't know

[00:59:45] and what is somewhat unique about poverty in California is what we actually have pretty high median incomes. I think it's interesting that, I think it's Guatemala. I'm pretty sure it's Guatemala. We are on the same income inequality standard as Guatemala, meaning there's such a disparity between the haves and the have-nots in this state.

[01:00:13] We are on the same level as Guatemala. Think about that. So for as much as Gavin Newsom and all these Democrats in Sacramento talk about how great our state is and how thriving we are, it's not really the truth. And there's a lot. But I want to bring this up for one reason, is because when you have UC Berkeley putting out studies, it is an authoritative institution in California.

[01:00:46] It's not some right-wing publication. It's not some right-wing opinion piece. It's not a radio host or something like that. This is the UC Berkeley political scientist saying, we have an affordability crisis. We've done these studies. We've gone through the numbers. And here's what it shows. You have to get, you have to foster growth. And how do you do that? You have to deregulate. You have to foster growth. You have to get rid of things like CEQA. You have to build more housing.

[01:01:15] You have to get rid of all of these burdens and regulations that are stifling California. One of these things, and a couple more facts that I do want to get to, and then I'll get to your points. So we already talked about, it has the highest poverty rate of any U.S. state. California is one of the highest median household incomes in the country. This is just some of the notes that I'm going off of. And the political scientist, Trackman,

[01:01:45] when he was asked about Prop 40, he calls the just tax the rich more instinct pretty short-sighted, pointing out that wealthy residents can and do leave the state, cap in how much revenue is realistically available. And he goes on to say, California has already raised revenue substantially per capita over the last decade. The problem is efficiency and design, not the top-line dollar amount. It's not enough to just increase revenues. We need to pay attention to how those revenues are being used, like on nonprofits that push a radical agenda. We don't need to be spending money,

[01:02:15] millions of dollars on nonprofits that push a radical agenda. And one of the things that he says here, which I think is really interesting, I've said this so many times, I think I talked about it last week on the show. He goes on to say, it's regressively funded progressivism. I like how he says that. It regressively funded progressivism. Well-intentioned policy that ends up paid for by the people it claims to help.

[01:02:43] I've had this view for a while about California, is that Champagne Socialists and Champagne Liberals and coastal liberals, they feel good when they vote for these programs and they vote for taxes and they vote for this stuff that doesn't really affect them. They're still buying their Hallie Bieber smoothie at Air One. They're still going to Whole Foods and all that stuff. Nothing wrong with Whole Foods. I like Whole Foods. I go to Whole Foods. But they're not being affected, right?

[01:03:13] Like they're not missing a fancy dinner at the Michelin Star restaurant in Los Angeles or San Francisco. They're not missing the trip to Sonoma. They're not missing any of that. But they feel good. They feel good because they voted for this stuff and they pat themselves on the back and they say, I voted for the thing that is supposedly really good for society. It's the laziest form of activism. Voting for statism is the laziest form of activism

[01:03:41] because it doesn't require you to sacrifice anything. It doesn't require you to do anything besides pull a lever or check a box. That's why it's really, really the laziest form of activism is to just go, well, I'm a good person because I voted for politicians who promised they're going to give us free buses. They promised they're going to give us all this free stuff. They're going to give us a free high-speed rail. It's going to be done. It's going to be done soon. And this is all going to be great. And we're all going to get this free stuff. We just have to spend a little bit more money and we have to tax the billionaires.

[01:04:11] It's all the billionaires' fault. They're all hoarding the wealth. And that's regressively funded progressivism, which to me is a perfect way to summarize it because it doesn't end up helping the people that they think it's helping. They think if they just check this box, they're going to help the poor. And then they can go back to doing whatever they want, go back to their Sonoma wine trips, go back to their trips to Lake Tahoe with their second home. They don't care.

[01:04:41] Go back to their home on the coast, drink their expensive champagne, have their friends over for expensive caviar. They don't care. But it does affect the people who have to suffer with the consequences. Like the law that bans gas-powered motors for lawn appliances. Who do you think that hurts? Immigrant lawn care? Maybe immigrant landscapers? People who are coming here on a blue-collar job

[01:05:10] and started their own little landscaping company. Now they have to go to electric. They've got to buy all new tools. When they had all the tools, they already invested in all these tools. Now they've got to go out and buy new tools. Who's that helping? Gas taxes. Who's that helping? It doesn't hurt the person who's pulling up their Range Rover or anything like that. That doesn't hurt. It doesn't help them. It hurts them. So all these things are regressive policies disguised as progressivism.

[01:05:40] And the common theme, I guess, we're running through tonight's show is you have someone like Aisha Wahab who says she's going to do all these things by the power of the government. We're going to increase the size of the state. We're going to make it so that you get all this free stuff. It's going to be great. It's going to be fantastic. But somebody has to pay for it. And usually there's not enough billionaires to soak because billionaires will figure it out and billionaires will get their money somewhere else or they'll move it offshore or they'll do something with it.

[01:06:10] And I think it's such a great way to really kind of sum up what they're talking about here. They go on to say low-income Californians who spend a larger share of their budget on gas absorb the cost. All of this, housing, rent, gas, groceries, all of this stuff. Utilities and costs in California were only 25% above the median state in 2008. So that's 2008, 25%. It's still high in 25% in 2008.

[01:06:39] We're talking almost 20 years ago. They're now 58% above the median state because our renewable energy is not doing what renewable energy is supposed to do. And we're required. Remember, we're required by the renewable portfolio standard here in California. It's a whole separate thing. I go into it in my book, The Gilded State. One of the longest chapters and one of the most deeply researched is the energy chapter. This renewable portfolio

[01:07:08] that California has to abide by. We have to get a certain amount by law from renewable energy sources. Nuclear doesn't count. It's not renewable, so it has to come from wind, solar, and what's the other one? Can't be hydro. That can't be that. So it's wind and solar right now, which means you've got to build a crap ton of solar panels and a crap ton of windmills, which are not very efficient. And just to really kind of drive home right now,

[01:07:40] California saw a loss of 30,000 jobs recently. That was recently. So 30,000 jobs. Our unemployment right now is 5.1% as opposed to the national, which is 4.1%, so it's a whole point higher. National CPI year over year, 3.4% here in California. GDP growth in the most recent quarter

[01:08:09] in California is 1.5%. That is essentially nothing. 4.1%. So UC Berkeley is calling it like it is. It's an institutional, it's a trusted institution for a lot of those far left, coastal city progressives. And I put progressives in quotes because like I said,

[01:08:39] I think they're more regressive than progressive. They attach progressive to their name, but that's not really the case. So now you have UC Berkeley saying it. Will anybody listen? I don't know, but it'll be out there. It's an actual source you can cite to. And when you're out there talking to people and you say California is unaffordable, and they go, ah, that's a right-wing talking point. That's a Republican talking point. Don't listen to that. That's just, that's a Trump MAGA talking point. California is unaffordable.

[01:09:08] No, no, no, no. There's this UC Berkeley poll study that just came out. Literally just came out a couple days ago. UC Berkeley poll study. I keep calling it poll. Study came out. And it shows how it's unaffordable. You say UC Berkeley, and all of a sudden it changes the parameter. They can't attack it from that angle. It's a right-wing talking point. It's a Fox News, Newsmax, whatever kind of talking point. UC Berkeley did this study. They had four white papers on it. They did a very good job researching it.

[01:09:38] And also, you know who did a good job researching all of this stuff about affordability? It's yours truly. And again, I just want to say, Gilded State's coming out a couple weeks. Wow, it's coming out really soon. I think it's a week from this upcoming too, September 8th. So it's coming out in less than two weeks. You can scan this beautiful little QR code right here. I do all of this. So it's interesting that UC Berkeley was doing these white papers.

[01:10:08] They kind of popped up at the tail end of me finishing my book. So I did refer to a little bit of them. But the fact that we both came to the same conclusion is interesting. UC Berkeley and myself came to the same conclusion about affordability here in the state and why it's so unaffordable. Energy, housing, all of this stuff. The economy. It's all because of regulations, over-regulations, the enlargement of the state. All of it has to do with why it's so unaffordable here. So if you want to read that, $2.99 right now.

[01:10:37] It's a special pre-order price right now. You can go check it out on the QR code. It would really help support the show. I'm just proud of the work. So I go through all of this stuff. So none of this was shocking to me, but I did want to kind of bring it up to you guys so that you know you can go look at it and bring this stuff up to other people who might not be in your same political camp and go, oh, it's just a right-wing talking point.

[01:11:06] Nope. This is UC Berkeley said this. All right. I'm going to read a couple more comments before we log off for the night. Thank you, everybody, for tuning in. Good evening, Indigo Hioka, 1259. Thanks for tuning in. Thanks for everyone for tuning in. Make sure you like the show, like, share, review, all that stuff. Helps with the algorithm. Let's see.

[01:11:36] America First isn't America only, though. People forget that. Yeah, but you got to be a little America First. You got to do a little bit more America First. You can't be going out and slaying, you know, slaying dragons all over the world. You got to focus on America First a little bit. All right. Thank you, everyone, for tuning in. Thanks for everyone in the comments and stuff like that. Great to have you all here on the live show. We're back on Tuesday. Last week, it was a weird show because we had to do it on Thursday

[01:12:06] because of a personal conflict. But we'll be back on Tuesday. We still got a lot of the propositions to get through. We still got a lot of those explainer episodes. We're coming down to the wire. It's crazy that next week is going to be September. It's going to be September. We're in the Burr months. Hopefully, this heat and this El Nino subsides sooner rather than later because it's getting really crazy out there. I didn't move from New Jersey to San Diego to deal with the humidity that I'm dealing with. It's just not fun.

[01:12:39] I don't know about anybody else wherever you're checking in from tonight what it's like. I'm sure it's bad all over. If it's bad here in San Diego, I imagine it's bad all over in California. I'm just looking to see if I missed any of these comments. All right. Looks like I got to everybody. Thanks for tuning in, everybody, once again. Make sure you like, share, subscribe, review, and if you're listening on audio, make sure you leave

[01:13:08] a comment. That usually helps with the algorithm, helps more people find us. The best thing you can do is to support the show that it's 100% free or if you want to pay $2.99, you can pay for, go get pre-order for the Gilded State. But the one thing you can do that is 100% free is share this with somebody you think will get something out of it and with that, we'll see you on the next one. Later.