Where You Gonna be when Half of California Riots?

Conversations that matter podcast. I'm your host, John Harris. I keep having the song rung through my head, which probably hardly any of you have heard, but some of you might have, by Jamie Johnson called California Riots.

Recorded, I don't know, maybe 15, 20 years ago. I don't even remember, but I heard it when it came out and I was actually living in California. So actually, if I was living in California, then it would have been, when was that?

So, man, okay. So that actually, that was like 15 years ago. That's when I heard the song. Anyway, go check it out. I can't play it because it's gonna flag me with copyright stuff, but Jamie Johnson, if you like country music, California Riots, even titled the video, where are you gonna go in half of California Riots after the lyrics of that particular song.

But we're gonna talk about the California Riots today. It's a subject that's kind of near and dear to my heart just because I'm from Southern California originally. And some of these riots are happening not far from where I was born in Van Nuys, California.

I'm sure there's probably, even in Van Nuys, I'm sure there's some turmoil, who knows. When this kind of stuff happens, you never know what street's gonna be the next street that you're blocked from. And I mean, that's not just riots, it's also traffic.

But during these kinds of times, when the tension is high, it could be traffic too. So for those who are commuting through all this, you have my sympathy and my prayers. I do wanna say one thing, one quick announcement before we get into all of this.

I do wanna let you know about the men's retreat that's coming up in the beautiful Adirondack Mountains of New York, far away from any California Riot, peaceful, serenity. You get to come and be with other guys who are normal.

That's the thing that I emphasize. And those are the people that come. I think, I mean, if you think I'm normal, I don't know, maybe not, but I try to make this as normal as possible. Meaning, it's just guys who are not putting on any pretenses who are coming to fellowship, but we're not just going to do sessions and like a lot of conferences I go to, right?

You're like in the auditorium, you're at booths, you're having these conversations that are related to whatever's going on in there. We don't just do that. There's a lot of outdoor activities, a lot of downtime, really good food.

Anyway, you're gonna wanna check it out. Musicandmasculinity .com is the website this year, musicandmasculinity .com. And it's not just for musicians. This is for anyone to understand. I think it's gonna give you a fuller grasp of what sacred music should evoke.

And if you're someone who is in music though, this is gonna be particularly beneficial. I'm actually excited about it. We got Tim Bouchon, who is a Christian music artist. He actually was the one who, he runs the studio that he recorded my album and then mixed it.

Pastor Danny Steinmeier is gonna be there and he's just gonna bring us some good Bible teaching on music. His father, Mark Steinmeier though, has been a minister of music, or at least I think he's had various hats that he's filled, but at the very least, he has been a piano player in church for decades and he's very accomplished.

And he has things to say about music that I really haven't heard anyone else say. So I think you'll be blessed by that. Of course, I'll be there. A .D. Robles is gonna be there. Myself and A .D. are gonna talk about some things unrelated to music.

Mine will kind of have a bridge, but for those who don't wanna hear all about music, there's other stuff too. And then of course my dad, Pastor Scott Harris will be there. I realized that's a recent picture of me.

And if you're watching, that's like a picture of my dad from 20 years ago, which means we actually don't look like that different in our ages. It's kind of weird. I probably should have found a newer picture of my dad.

Anyway, yeah, all that dark hair is now gray. The schedule's up there on musicandmasculinity .com and you can sign up. So check it out. All right, well, this is a live stream. So I will take some interactions.

One question is any updates on the SBC convention? Well, this isn't specifically the convention, but you can go watch at the Church Reform Initiative on their YouTube channel, the first part of the documentary on Faith Baptist Church in Knightdale, North Carolina, and how Summit Church where J .D. Greer is a pastor tried to essentially gain their property, take their assets and so forth.

And it's a whole windy story. So check it out if you want the details on that. But part one dropped, it's called Defending the Faith or sorry, Defending Faith Baptist, part one. And so we'll see if that, I don't know if that'll make a lot of waves.

I did have someone ask me about making a resolution from the floor concerning these kinds of situations. So, but other than what I've said last week about the SBC, no, it's, I think it's already starting actually, right?

Today, I think it's starting today. And I think Wednesday's the day when there'll be a lot of, Tuesday, and then I think mostly the Wednesday are gonna be the hot days. So we'll see what happens. I haven't paid any attention.

So I hope some of the explanation includes catching up on what actually happened. I will try to catch you up on what's happening in California. I've only seen a guy on a bike with a Mexican flag and that's it.

Yeah, it was more than that. It wasn't just a guy on a bike. Since New York is a commie state, asked Steve, should I leave my guns home if I come to the retreat? Hmm, it really depends. I'm not, I can't give advice on this kind of thing, especially live on the air.

That's not really a kind of question I can answer. You'd have to check the laws. I don't know what kinds of guns you're planning on bringing. Depending on the kind of gun you're bringing and the kind of permit you have, it may or may not be acceptable.

So I think it's totally fine if it's illegal. And that's all I'll say about that. All right, well, we are gonna get into this issue of the California riots. And then I will, at the end, talk a little bit about this.

Sadly, Jennifer Lyle passed away. Some of you don't know who that is. I will explain that. It's SBC related stuff. So I'm gonna keep that for the end. But let's start here with the podcast. We're gonna, I'll give you a little update about what actually has happened.

This is an article from the Daily Signal. Worse and more violent LA riots escalate. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said on the Sunday evening press conference that the violence was getting increasingly worse and more violent.

The violence that I've seen, he says it's disgusting. It's escalated. So you've had people with hammers, he said, breaking the bollards behind the federal building and taking the rocks, if you will, or pieces of concrete and throwing them at officers.

We've had liquid of who knows what description thrown at officers. There's no limit to what they're doing to our officers. These are LAPD guys too, right? This isn't just ICE. This is, the general rioters have come out.

The people that are attracted to this kind of thing, probably regardless of the cause, have come out. And there's a lot of tension in Los Angeles right now as a result of this. What happened initially, I don't think this article gets into it, just talks about the Democrats who are condemning ICE and saying that ICE isn't, Trump's inflammatory.

He's escalating the tensions. But ICE essentially had some approved by court, so there were court orders to, and I don't know what business this was. There is apparently a business that was involved in some high level illegal activity.

And it sounds like potentially drug trafficking and human trafficking and these kinds of things. Anyway, ICE raided and it was the ICE raid that was, like I said, approved, that has sparked the anti-ICE demonstrations and now a general lawlessness.

That's what started it. And I think that was Saturday morning, if I'm not mistaken, when this started. Here's a article from the Epoch Times, Los Angeles on edge after three days of riots. You can see the picture here and these are, what are these?

It says Waxmo, Waymo taxis burn near Metropolitan Detention Center of downtown Los Angeles. So this is where I think some of the migrants, illegal migrants were taken. And these, unfortunately, these taxis, what did they ever do?

I guess they were just sitting there and they got attacked and now they're burning. And so you got, and there's a line of, I guess, ICE agents there. Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass blamed ICE operations arresting illegal immigrants.

This is 22 minutes ago, an update from Jackson Rickman at Epoch Times for stoking the riots in her city. We do not know, she said, where and when the next raids will be. That is the concern because people in the city have a rapid response network.

If they see ICE, they go out and they protest. And so it's just a recipe for pandemonium. And that is completely unnecessary. She continued, if you dial back time and go to Friday. So Friday's where it started, I guess.

If immigration raids had not happened here, we would not have the disorder. So a lot of it now is trying, it's a spectacle. It's a media spectacle. You have all these images and normally, I mean, normal people, again, right?

I'm not the expert on normal people, but I guess I'm making myself that today with the comments on the retreat and now this. Normal people don't want cars burning. They don't want police cars attacked.

They don't want civil unrest in the streets. They just kind of want to be able to get to work or if they have recreational activities, get to those. They don't want to have the hassle. They don't like seeing disorder.

It makes everyone anxious, right? And so now that you have this spectacle, the question is how to politically navigate it, which is what it is. It will die down eventually, but who's going to take the blame for it?

Who's going to be politically hurt through this? And if you blame Trump for it, then you'd have to say these raids were wrong. They should never have happened. And that's the whole issue with it. It's Donald Trump.

Of course, the Republicans want to blame the Democrats. There's some creative ways they are trying to do that, which I will show you one of them, my goodness. But of course, the obvious thing is that this would have never been a problem in the first place, Mayor Bass, if you weren't allowed in your city, in your lawless city, it wasn't this sanctuary city harboring illegal migrants.

And those who have committed actual crimes, and I don't say actual as if being an illegal migrant is not a crime, it is, but I mean, crimes that would be a crime, whether you were an illegal migrant or not, letting those things just happen and continue to happen, that might be the pretext for having ICE come in.

You wouldn't have those problems if you just kept the city the way it should be kept, but they're not doing that. So it depends at what point you, I guess the timeline where you want to come in and say, this is the problem or that's the problem.

But ultimately, obviously I agree with the general consensus from the conservative media, this is a problem because Democrats made it a problem. Democrats thought they could have majorities and they wanted to help the quote unquote victims and impoverished and illegal migrants who don't have anywhere to go.

And of course the toxic empathy came out and this has been going on for years and it's coming to a head now. And it's been coming to a head for quite some time, but it's really coming to a head now. This is an article from the Epoch Times, what to know about the ICE protests.

I would suggest, just go check that out if you want more on what's going on. There's the famous guy with the Mexican flag on a mask on top of one of these vehicles. And this has become escalated too, because Donald Trump of course did call out the National Guard.

And I think about, what was it? How many? 2 ,000, yeah, troops from California National Guard. And Gavin Newsom is irate about this. He doesn't think Trump went through the proper approval process, but here's looters.

I mean, he already got, like I said, these are the people who come out no matter what protest is happening. They're just going to come out and be part of it because that's who they are. So this is a scene at a gas station.

So, and then since I didn't show it before, but I described it, there's the guy with the flag. So, I don't have the link. You can just check it out at the Epoch Times. I think it's on the front page. I of course have a subscription.

So I don't know if this is behind a paywall, but it'll give you a basic synopsis. So what I've already told you though, is basically I think what you need to know. We're going to get into the legality of it though, and what the conservative approach should be.

Someone asked the title, what to know about the ICE protests in LA as Trump deploys National Guard. That's the name of the article. Okay, let's talk about, let's take a step back for a moment and talk about this.

So, I'm going to give you a little personal background and also just a little bit of like constitutional and legal background. We don't need a whole lot. And then we'll apply some principles. Sound good?

I did advertise this as the, this is going to be the most conservative take that you hear on this particular subject. Of course, I was just putting it out there on X because that's what you do on X, right?

A .D. Robles advised me to just have fun on X. Don't take it too seriously. So, that's what I did. But I do think this probably will be the most conservative take you hear on it because I am dedicated to honoring states' rights and federalism and our constitution as much as possible.

But I also see that in many ways we're post-constitutional. And so, I'm navigating these things. I think a lot of people are trying to figure out what paradigm we live in and how to navigate it. And my take, well, what I'm going to tell you is different than anything at least I've seen.

And it doesn't mean that I'm unique, but I haven't, what I've seen coming from people are the predictable guys who are more like West Coast Straussian types who think that Gavin Newsom's this rebellious Jefferson Davis type character and Donald Trump needs to go full Lincoln and just go in there and basically invade California, right?

You have that, some people think that's the most conservative thing, the most forced, the most violence, the most, like that's the conservative thing to do, right? And then of course, there are those who think that this is, like all those are arrangement with the states, the federal arrangement should be honored so that California should be California.

But if they really don't want to be part of this country, they should just secede. They should just leave, right? Like the very strong decentralizers, they think that's the most conservative thing. And I'm not sure either one of those is actually in the paradigm we are in right now.

And I'll explain why as we get into the podcast. Okay, so let's start this. Let's start this way. I'm looking at the questions here. I don't see many. Feel free as we continue, I'll probably check this periodically.

So feel free to leave questions or comments in the section there where you can do that. If you are streaming on YouTube, or I think I can see X and also Facebook. So, all right, let's start here. Let's talk about principle real quick.

So the constitution of the United States, introduction, right? The initial preamble, we the people of the United States, okay? You know anything about the preamble? You know that this is not talking about people in a broad sense, like in the aggregate, this is talking about the people of the several states.

So emphasis on United States. It was the committee on style that wanted it to be people because it's shorter. But if we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, okay? Number one, more perfect than what?

Well, more perfect than the union they had before under the Articles of Confederacy. More perfect than the union they had where the government, the centralized government, the general government, they don't have the power to tax.

Where it was more vulnerable to things like Shays' Rebellion. That kind of more perfect union, something that works better for us. To establish justice, to ensure domestic, I don't think that requires a lot.

So that would include insurrections internally, that would include external threats. Establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, okay? So we're talking about trade, regulating trade. But more than that, it's also just making sure that we have a beneficial arrangement for all the parties of this contract.

Provide for the common defense. Promote the general welfare. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.

So ourselves and our posterity, that's us and our kids, and their kids, and their kids, right, in this line. So here's the thing, when you look at this, this is not law, this is just a preamble, okay?

So this is, the rest of the document explains exactly where the barriers are, what can and can't be done, and how to separate the different, where power is, where sovereignty rests, and that kind of thing.

Not just ultimate sovereignty, but where that sovereignty, that authority, I should say, is vested. And it's vested in three branches, of course, and there's different authorities that these three branches have.

And then, of course, there's the states, which have far more authority under the original contract. Now, the thing to notice about this, and the reason I bring it up is, it's supposed to achieve a certain end.

One of the things I've seen in some political conservative circles is this idea that the constitution is somehow this divine document. I have literally heard people say it's inspired by God. Now, you could, in a loose sense, I suppose, say the men who were drafting this were thinking about scripture quite a bit, and trying to balance principles that they gleaned from scripture.

But I'm sorry, it's not inspired by God in any other sense. It is not a mystical, or it's not like a sacred scroll. This is a document that serves a very practical purpose, and that purpose is outlined in the preamble.

As soon as the document isn't suited for serving that purpose, or as soon as elements of that document can't suit that purpose, you have to start what's called the amendment process. And if there's so much gridlock, and you have no way, no mechanism by which to actually salvage this arrangement, then you're in a real spot, because it's no longer actually suiting the reason for the purpose for why it exists.

And I think in a lot of political conservative circles, the constitution is revered in such a way that this has become the end in and of itself, not a means to an end, the preamble is the end. You wanna make sure that you have a society with tranquility, common defense, general welfare, blessings of liberty to ourselves, our posterity.

That's the goal.

But when that's not happening, then you have to ask, so what's the document doing? Obviously, I'm not saying the document itself as a piece of paper failed, but obviously it's supposed to bind humans.

And if the humans, this is a letter from our ancestors, this is our ancestors telling us, this is what we expect. And if we've disregarded it so many times, we are to a point now where, and this is the stage that we're at in many ways, is we call it post-constitutional, and then you have an option.

Do you try to get back to what you've lost, which I'm very sympathetic to, or do you recognize we've lost it, and we need a different arrangement in the paradigm we're in now because of things like, well, we don't have virtue anymore, the culture's different.

It's a bit, the scale's off, whatever the case is, right? We need smaller republic, we need a different arrangement, just like the founders who crafted the Articles of Confederation and then crafted, they weren't all the same group, but then crafted the Constitution, they did the same thing, right?

Because they all decided,.

Yeah, the Articles of Confederation,.

Which was a perpetual arrangement, supposedly, not so perpetual, I guess, because it doesn't fulfill the tasks that we need it to fulfill. John, why are you making such arguments against the Constitution?

They're not against the Constitution, they're for the Constitution, they're for the reason the Constitution exists, right? And so I think this is gonna be foundational to what I say about these riots, to some extent, because it gets into all this constitutional stuff, but we have to think about what applies and what doesn't in the, where we live in realville, as Rush Limbaugh used to say.

We live in realville, we don't live in, it's really great to think that we could go back to like pre -1865 arrangement, and I wanna do everything we can to get back to states having more and more control, they do a better job, it's the grand experiment of if one thing works in one state and it doesn't work in another state, you can learn from that mistake.

It would be great to go back to that, but we're post that, and we don't seem to be going back in every way. As hard as I fight, as hard as I try, it doesn't seem like that's the trend. Now, I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing.

I'm for decentralization. I think localism is the key to, well, nothing. I think it's the solution to a lot of our ailments, but if things aren't reworked and if people aren't interested in localism, then you have to make do with what you have, right?

Might not have all the ingredients for the stew you want, but if that's all you got, you gotta make camper special, as my grandma would say. So, here's some guiding principles here. Or I should say, here are some things to consider as we get into the immigration debate.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4. This is in the U .S. Constitution. So, this is Congress, right? Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.

That's, this is given to Congress itself. Is that the one that, yeah, that is the one. Okay, really, naturalization is the issue there. So, when it comes to who's a citizen, who's not a citizen of this thing we call the United States, this is supposed to be something that is decided by the states, not individually so that there are different rules for each state, but uniformly throughout now 50 states.

They have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. And of course, there's been all kinds of precedents and so in development since then, and that's come to the point today where you take a citizenship class, you get a, you know, sometimes you get a green card first, but there's a process to go through in order to be a citizen.

And there's a difference, obviously, I'm not gonna get into that today between natural born citizen and a citizen. Now, the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which there's a really great argument to say that that's actually, that we shouldn't probably honor that just because of the way it was passed, was it even legitimate?

I will say this about that, and other true originalists are gonna say all that, it is kind of locked into all these precedents that now we're so far downstream from it, it's treated that way. So we have to deal with it, right?

And the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

So you're not just a citizen of the United States, you are also, you are forced to be a citizen of the state in which you reside, if you follow the rules, and the rules have changed here and there. But it's Congress that's vested with this authority, it's Congress that's vested with it.

So what happened to California? So I bring all that up to say this, what's going on in California right now is under the purview of Congress. These aren't citizens, they're not, they are not actually supposed to be here, Congress is the one that determines and enforces immigration law, fine.

Now, let's just, we'll accept that, okay? What happened to California? Well, you had the 1986, what in the world? Library of Congress, a Latinx resource guide. Really, Library of Congress, really? We're using Latinx, all right.

Okay, well, the Library of Congress, hopefully Trump gets on, Trump, if you're listening to this podcast, your Library of Congress for the United States has Latinx on it. 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, all right.

Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act. President Ronald Reagan signed it into law in November 1986. This act introduced civil and criminal penalties to employers who knowingly hired undocumented immigrants or individuals authorized to work in the US.

However, the act also offered legalization. Let me give you another word for this, amnesty, which led to lawful permanent residence and protective naturalization to undocumented migrants who entered the country prior to 1982.

We had amnesty in 1986, meaning those who are here illegally, well, we just decided, you know what? Again, it's Congress, right? Congress is like, they get to decide this stuff. President signed it. Congress said, you know what?

It's too much of a hassle or whatever, right? We're not gonna enforce this stuff. You can stay. Now, at that time, I don't know if it says how many migrants were in the country, but not nearly as many as today.

2 million, something like that, if I remember correctly. They're all granted amnesty. Now, a lot of people wanna blame Reagan, and they say, oh, it's Reagan's the reason California went the way it is.

Not so fast, actually. That happened nationwide, and yeah, Reagan was the one who signed this. 1994, this is where things really went south in California. Now, you could say that this had already been happening, and you had the 86 amnesty and all that, but this is where things flipped.

If you remember, California at one time was actually a red state, and it is not anymore. It is a permanent blue fortress. I think the last election, 2024, was really about whether or not the whole country was gonna be that.

Was the whole country gonna be California or not? That's what I saw. I mean, this is a heartbreaking thing for those who have lived there for generations. I go back, I think, five generations, no, six generations, if I'm not mistaken, in California on my grandma's side.

She's very proud to be from California, very heartbroken about what's happened. For years, she would say, well, if all the good people leave, what's gonna happen? And try to get me to move back, and she doesn't do that anymore.

She recognizes it is so bad in California, and I mean, I could tell you story after story after story because I go back there practically every year, the homelessness, the crime, just how dirty it's gotten.

I mean, I remember the 90s. I remember what it used to be. My parents remember the 60s. She remembers the 30s. It was a different place, and I don't know. She probably remembers the 40s. I don't know if she remembers the 30s.

I think she was born in 1932, but anyway. She can still probably outwork me. She's like super grandma with the energy she has. But anyway, all that to say, it has changed culturally in drastic ways. You are a foreigner.

That's how you feel as an English-speaking American. When I go back to Panorama City, where she lives, I feel like I am in Mexico. In fact, when we went to Mexico, my wife and I a few years ago, Cancun's more like touristy and stuff, right, that area, but driving around there, I felt like, I was like, this is like California, only better.

It's cleaner, because Los Angeles, it's such a dump, and you feel like such an outsider, and even when I lived there in 2011, 2010, 2011, I felt like such an outsider. I was the only guy who looked like me and talked like me at the gym, meaning English, meaning like a taller, white-looking guy, and I was like the local gym, but I didn't mind it so much, because you get used to those things in a way, but it was so different.

I knew it was different than it had been. Anyway, off my personal stories, I'll get back to those. 1994 is where things really changed in California, and it was Proposition 187. Proposition 187 was a really good idea.

It was known as the Save Our State Referendum, ballot initiative proposed by anti-immigrant organizations which restricted undocumented immigrants from the state's public service, including access to public education and healthcare.

Now listen, if the federal government or the general government, if they fail, if ICE isn't going and arresting people, or if you have a sanctuary city where they're just putting all kinds of wrenches in the way of the gear system, and no one can actually enforce the law because the local government's gumming up the works, what happens is the state has to hold the bag.

People in Bakersfield have to pay for what's happening in Los Angeles, right? And this is what was happening. These people need a place to go when they get sick, and education's part of that too. I forget the name of that particular court case.

That was, I think, in Texas in the 90s, but forcing illegal migrants have the right to go to school. And now that includes, in many places, free lunch. So this is a horrible, horrible problem. So California said, you know what, forget this.

They don't have access to that stuff, and it passed. It passed. Actually, it was a pretty good majority, 59 to 41%. And there were protests at that time, 70 ,000 to 250 ,000. So oftentimes, it's protests.

They don't know how many people, but in 1995, there were all these protests. Of course, the whole thing got the, it worked its way up, I think, to the, what does it say here? Which court? I think it was the Ninth Circuit.

But it got struck down. The ACLU took the case, and it got struck down. And I think it was under, yeah, it was a 14th, I figured, I knew it was 14th Amendment, but it was under an equal protection clause.

It got struck down. So that was what happened to California. They could have done something about it. Guess what? They tried to do something about it, and they were foiled by the courts. And now we are downstream from this.

We are now 30 years past this point, and over 30 years, and we have, it's irreversible. 2006, I remember this pretty vividly, actually. So 2006, the May Day marches, anyone remember this? This is when there was a immigration reform.

Let's see, what law, does it say what law it was? So that would have been the Bush administration. Yeah, H .R. 4437, and it failed to pass. So we never actually got the law, but it was an intensive immigration customs enforcement.

Oh, sorry, I'm reading the wrong thing here.

Doo-doo-doo.

What does it say? Where does it describe the law here? Yeah, I know, why am I on Wikipedia? I never should have clicked this. This is what I get for a shoddy show prep, my apologies. I try not to use, you know, I'm not Joe Rogan here just pulling up Wikipedia.

I try to give you a better show than that. All right, so I'm not seeing where it's, it was a law that, oh, there it is, Immigration Reform and Control Act, okay. No, that's not it either. Okay, I'm getting confused by this Wikipedia page.

It was a law that essentially cracked down, though, on immigration. And let me see if I can find it within the article here. And they protested it, and I remember this so vividly because I think we had visited California right around that time, or maybe it was right before that time.

And even my grandparents were kind of like not going out to certain areas. And they were livid, though. The people there were livid because they could see clearly that people with Mexican flags were blocking streets.

And this is, it's not like you didn't see Mexican flags. You see them all the time in Los Angeles, but it was really the first time it was like in your face, protesters with American flags and protesters with Mexican flags clashing.

And so, yeah, it was,.

Let's see, that kind of,.

That happened over a course of, I think, a few weeks, if I'm not mistaken. Radio was talking about it all the time. It was a comprehensive, I think it was the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.

That must have been it. No, because that was the Gang of Eight bill. That couldn't have been it. I don't know. I don't remember. I don't remember the bill. I just remember it being talked about, and this was this huge thing.

And since that time, I just remember that you have this every so often in California. It's just like, I don't know, there is this Mexican nationalistic spirit, and it just manifests itself. It's like every like five or six years, it seems like there's something, there's some kind of like thing that happens, and not as intense as what's going on right now, but you have people that will start waving the Mexican flags and getting on street corners and that kind of thing.

It didn't happen as much as I don't think during the BLM stuff, that was different, but whenever they feel like their status is challenged or their ability to send money back home and that some restriction concerning immigration, you inevitably get this.

And I point this out for one reason, and that is to just say, look, there are guys online right now trying to tell you that this is totally astroturf. George Soros, big money. It's just all like, yeah, that could all be the case.

It could all be true that there's money going into this kind of thing. There's people that come out because they just like a protest. That's totally true, but you wouldn't have it happening if there weren't a sizable amount of people loyal to another country or countries that live in our own country, the United States.

It wouldn't happen, I'm telling you. That's the only reason it happens. That's the only way that you get as many people as you get to form the crowds that you're seeing out there is because you have people with strong loyalties to somewhere outside the United States, Mexico being number one in Southern California.

You see the Mexican flag there. I'm telling you, you drive around Los Angeles, you will probably, unless you're counting federal buildings, you're gonna see the Mexican flag there more than the United States flag.

You feel like you're in another country. And that came home to me, especially when I saw this last year. This is a billboard in Van Nuys. So this is where I was born. And this is the translation of what it says.

Papers in cases allegedly impossible. And you see a social security card and a permanent residency card. And of course, a little bitty American flag and there's a lawyer there and it's all in Spanish.