On today's show, we have a new update with new evidence in the California election scandal. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110.
And now, your host, Logan Secular. All right, let's break down what this story was in case you didn't join us the day we covered it just a little bit ago. Because now we have breaking information that takes this from bad to worse. This is coming out of the state of California, where the ACLJ got involved and said, hey, what is your procedure when it comes to people who are trying to vote illegally? And the answer essentially was: what procedure?
But now there's even more. Will is joining us. Jordan will be with us in just a moment. We got Rick Ronnell popping in a little bit later on the show, so it's going to be slammed. But, Will, let's walk it back a little bit.
Give them a brief, brief version of this story, and then where we're at. That's right.
So, if you'll remember, we sent two state sunshine law, so the equivalent of a FOIA request to California: one to the Secretary of State's office and one to the Department of Justice's office within the state of California. We told you already on the show that when we sent this to the Secretary of State, and we'll get into this more in the next segment, but the Secretary of State was like, Hey, guess what? We don't, if we take someone off the voter rolls, We don't notate that it was because they were a non-citizen. But don't worry, it's a crime if someone were to register to vote under penalty of perjury and get on that list if they're a non-citizen.
So we're like, okay. That's shocking, but there's still a missing piece. We need to know what the Department of Justice in California is doing to keep these elections secure, because they keep telling us these are secure elections. We don't need voter ID, we don't need these things.
So we were waiting. They asked for an extension, and we got the response partially. From the Attorney General's office at the Department of Justice in California. And here's what it says. Two of the requests They say we still need some more time, so a couple more weeks.
But then all the records related to addressing policies for handling investigative referrals for illegal voting that we requested. This was their response in response to part two. Of your records request. After a reasonable search, including contacting knowledgeable individuals, DOJ has not identified any records containing or addressing policies that are specific to handling investigative referrals for illegal voting. This concludes the DOJ's response to part two.
So now, We know that the Secretary of State doesn't keep track of when they're taking people off the roll through being illegal voters, and the DOJ doesn't have any policies for investigating the illegal voting. They're doing nothing about this issue. If you wondered what's happening around the country in terms of voter identification, Voter verification. It is very clear that in certain states, which we know have had issues with this before. There's a whole lot of nothing happening.
And that is where the ACLJ is stepping in. We're going to get to work on it. Jordan's joining us right now. Phone lines are open for you at 1-800-68-430-110. Like I said, Rick Rinnell from California is going to be joining us in just a few minutes.
But I want you to give me a call. Is this shocking to you at all to hear that these areas, these specific locations, which have dealt with a lot of, not necessarily only fraud, but a lot of conversation around. The way Elections have laid out that they're practically doing nothing, that they don't only not have any sort of plan, they have no plan for a plan, they're not looking into it, they're turning a blind eye to it. And we and they've essentially admitted that. Phone lines are open at 1-800-684-3110.
The ACLJ is getting involved. Of course, it is. Wrapping up. Our impact match. Can you believe it, folks?
We're here on what then? 18th of the month. Summer is finally coming to an end. But The impact match will go through the rest of the month. I need you to be a part of the team today.
Go to aclj.org and have your donation doubled. And this is just the beginning. We're going to tell you about what we're doing to take action, not just in California, but in additional states. And localities to preserve election integrity as we head into a midterm election. You know, this is important for you, it's important for all of us, and it should be at least important for the American people.
Show us how important. Go to aclj.org, have your gift doubled today, and let me know by calling in: 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back. All right, we're back. My voice cracked there because, you know, I'm this emotional about this.
Phone lines are open. 1-800-684-30-1-10. Jordan's joining us in the studio.
Now, of course, we're talking about the ACLJ's work here. And I think this is always important to point out when we are directly involved. You know, you've heard some of these big stories yesterday. We're talking about the bounty for our soldiers that's happening in Iran. You're hearing about all these situations where the ACLJ can get involved in a diplomatic way.
We can get involved in international. The European Center for Law and Justice and the work we've done at the International Criminal Court. But this usually comes after the fact, though, when the war is over. Yeah, this, though, we're directly involved, and we're actually leading the charge here. That's right.
And Jordan, this is a state FOIA request, essentially. It's not called FOIA, but every state's got their own reason. A lot of them are called state sunshine laws. They basically allow citizens, it shouldn't have to take attorneys and legal groups to do it, but because these governments, like the federal government, even under this administration, as we know, and the Political appointees will tell you: you're going to go up against those bureaucrats. You're going to have to ask hard and usually take them to court to get any answers.
Here, you know, the first response from the Secretary of State's office is: We got nothing. We don't track anything about removing people from the list that has to do with being non-citizens, which is bizarre because federal law requires you to have the reasons. And so, there's no way of knowing then why if their list has removed people who should not have been voting at all, even in San Francisco, that allows. Legal. Non-citizens.
So, people who are here legally but aren't citizens to vote for the school board. They allow that, but there's like, who else is tracking? And they're saying you can't even check a box. Then you go to the AG's office and they're saying, you know, we could, we'll look through some cases and some actions for you. But as of right now, we've got no policy on this.
Well, and remember that has probably got the most illegal immigrants in it next to maybe Texas, which is, of course, cracked out a lot harder than the state of California. It's a big issue state. I mean, this should be something that's really top tier. And remember what happened in New Jersey that we just talked about, where they discovered that they accused a glitch of happening within the software that allowed people to register when they just got their driver's license through motor voter laws. We see we're fighting in Maryland right now to get records related to this because Maryland, some cities, like we're talking about in California, allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections.
So we're asking in Maryland, how do you keep those two roles separate? Or if someone moves to another city. And says, I'm registered to vote. How do they not automatically get statewide? We're asking these questions.
In California, here's what's so shocking to me: one, we didn't even have to sue yet because in California, the Secretary of State just came back and said the quiet part out loud. At least they're giving us a lot of people. We don't track it.
So therefore, we have nothing to give you. But here's what I want to point out. Remember, they said they don't contain voter status reason for cancellation due to non-citizenship. That's what the Secretary of State told us. But then try to kind of assuage any concerns that we may have that this could lead to illegal voting by putting this.
This is graphic one. California law. Unambiguously provides that a person shall not be registered unless they are a United States citizen. California Elections Code 2100-2101. Voters register to vote through affidavits of registration when they must attest under penalty of perjury and by signature that they satisfy all eligibility requirements, including citizenship.
So they're saying, look, we don't track it, but don't worry, it's illegal.
So you don't have to be concerned about people illegally registering to vote because it's a crime. They'll get in trouble. Then you fast forward to what we just got from the Department of Justice. This is the entire reason our attorneys had to go to both places because they say, in response to part two, which part two was the question where we asked for all records containing or addressing policies for handling investigative referrals for illegal voting. What their response was, in response to part two of your records request, after a reasonable search, including contacting knowledgeable individuals, DOJ has not identified any records, meaning any documents, anything written down, any procedures.
Addressing policies that are specific to handling investigative referrals for illegal voting. This concludes DOJ's response to Part Two.
So, the Secretary of State saying they don't track it, but don't worry, it's illegal.
So, if there's a law being broken, the DOJ will handle it. The DOJ says, We don't have any policies related to investigating that.
So, Jordan, are they telling us this isn't a priority?
So, now what? What are they saying? It's not a priority. I mean, they go on and say sometime around October, I mean, August 27th, we're going to give you some information about how the DOJ said they could found some records that could be responsive, but they need more time to review them for redactions and exemptions. Even that could be.
They're not even sure if the records they found are actually responsive to our request about whether or not if anybody calls in and has a question, I imagine it's a worker. A lot of those are volunteers. It can be a small area in California, it could be a big precinct. And you go and vote, and someone's there, then maybe their info doesn't show up, and there's questions about citizenship because the ID, and you don't have to have an ID there. And so, usually, you do a temporary, you do a provisional ballot, right?
So, you'd call in then to, and they have rules, you'd call and say, okay, I let this person do a provisional ballot. Mm-hmm. And sometimes they can come back in and correct it. You can say, if you come back in, we correct it, and it doesn't have to be provisional anymore. Where is that going in California?
And I feel like it's going into a deep, dark hole that says, let's let everybody just vote. I think we'd be surprised how often this does happen. I was in line here in Tennessee. Voting at the primary election. This is someone who was motivated enough to go vote in a primary and then got there, was not registered, had just moved to Tennessee, younger person, didn't understand necessarily the rules.
Not everyone is engaged and informed as people who listen to this show. You may not understand. There are people who are willing to get in a long line, go try to vote, but then have no idea or understanding that they are not registered or have to register in the wrong place. And the same thing I saw say, okay, we got to get it on a phone call. They got to on a phone call with the head of whatever the election committee that makes this decision.
Like I saw it all play out in real time and it made me go, oh, this is crazy to me that this is what happens not on, again, not a general election. This is a primary for governor here in Tennessee. And someone still showed up to vote because they wanted to. I don't think they were trying to vote illegally. They just were completely uninformed.
They didn't know where to go or if they were registered the right line. Or yeah, and they were with somebody who maybe was like, let's go vote. And, you know, early voting even confused them more. Because when it's early voting, you can usually vote in any precinct in the state.
So you could be someone who votes, let's say, in Memphis, but you're in Knoxville during early voting. You're able to go into Knoxville, which you would not be able to do on election day. And you'd have to go to your precinct in Memphis, but you could go early voting and show up with one in Knoxville, and they've got a handle. You on the record system.
So, while again, I think early voting can be good and bad, and I think there's rules around it that could make it better. The closer it is to the actual election day, the better. Because we know you find out a lot about candidates right before elections. And now, what they do, if you notice with the attack ads, is the attack ads start running right before early voting begins now.
So you start getting all that, which doesn't always give time for the person who was attacked necessarily to get their response up before people are already voting. That's not good for our system either.
Well, and I think what comes next? Because this is ACLJ attorneys that are working very diligently on this, trying to get these records. One, we have to see what the DOJ says later in this month, just about 10 days from now. We should get more records. We can analyze those.
But there's a lot of different avenues. One, just the Secretary of State's office alone notating that they don't keep the reason for taking someone off their roles could be violation of federal law. That's something that we could send to the Federal Election Commission saying you need to look into this. Congressional oversight, we have a lot of allies in Congress that we could get this information to as they look at strengthening our elections. But I think it's also, it goes to show there's a ballot measure on the ballot in California for voter ID.
That the very same Attorney General's office who right here is saying we have no policies for investigating illegal voting or people that are registered to vote illegally. He's the one who changed the language on the ballot provision to make it harder to pass. By changing it from a, we are requiring ID to protect the elections, to we are barring people from voting unless they show ID, even the negative inference there.
So, what we're looking at is moving forward, the different steps that can come. We are going to. Analyze what comes in later this month and be able to look forward at the next steps of how to keep going. That's right.
And I want in the next segment for you to join us as well as we're going to continue talking about the work of the ACLJ in a completely different manner. But again, it kind of ties itself in. You're not going to want to miss this. You'll see how the ACLJ is getting involved in a lot of different legal pursuits and people who are essentially targeted for just being representation. of President Trump, of the Trump administration.
Of conservatives. We'll get back to that in the next segment, but we'll still take calls on this. And phone lines are open. I want to hear from you at 1-800-684-3110. 1-800-684-3110.
All the lines are open.
Okay, we've given you all the information, but I see how many of you are watching.
Some of you got to have calls. You gotta have a comment, I know you do. 1-800-684-30-110. Maybe you're one of those people who got in line. You're like, man, I got in line, and I didn't know.
Too busy at the Tame and Polla Show. Just what happened: 1800-684-3110. Be on the air today. Listen. It is the 18th of the month here.
After this couple weeks, you're not going to have to hear about me talking. about a match or a drive for quite some time.
So I want you to be a part of it today. Go to aclj.org. Welcome back to Sekulow. Full lights are open at 1-800-684-3110. Of course, we just were talking about what was going on in California and our investigation into how they treat voter fraud, voter ID, voter certification to make sure people actually are voting that they should be voting.
And we could learn very quickly that they don't have a whole lot of standards and practices. And we're going to get to that same time. The ACLJ is dealing with another matter here that I think we want to get into. Again, this ties in somewhat. to this issue of election integrity, but also The importance of being able to have proper representation.
Well, and this is a thing that the ACLJ has fought back against in many different avenues for a long time. And it's lawfare that's used by the left to try to go after their political enemies using the legal system as a form of attack. And I've seen people on Rumble and on YouTube as well comment that they've seen this case that we've taken on being talked about in other areas and that they were excited about it. We hadn't addressed it on air yet. But this is where the ACLJ Jordan is representing Professor John Eastman.
He was an attorney that represented President Trump, much like yourself and your dad. That the state of California decided to go after him because of his representation of President Trump. He was never sanctioned by a court. He was never found of doing misconduct as an attorney, but they went straight to disbarment. And now we are having to take this to the Supreme Court of the United States to fight for justice here.
You know what's interesting, in the United States of America, we are protected. even as attorneys, to make novel Legal arguments that may not have been made before in past history because they weren't necessary or our brains weren't having to deal with the problem that was at hand. And even if that is not going to be one that ultimately gets accepted generally by the courts, it doesn't mean that by putting it forward to the courts, you are somehow violating your oath as an attorney. The only way that would be like a violation, you'd really have to figure out intent here, is if you knew 100%. That this was somehow illegal to even put this forward, or you were totally wasting the court's time.
Very rare. And usually, that wouldn't happen until a court had already said we would never consider this because of X, Y, and Z. And you could usually appeal that court. And then appeal to the next court and to the next court. And then if you're in state court, you can ultimately appeal that decision to the US Supreme Court.
And then, if you kept doing it, They might. But think about how many people Sometimes on their own. Or just small legal offices. File bad claims in local and state courts. And while they may get sanctions sometimes, they may get a little fine, what they don't have taken away is their bar license.
Sometimes they lose, and the court's kind of tough on them. And then the state bar may look at it after maybe five or six times and say they need to go back through and do a special legal training. But they're very cautious about just revoking. Licenses 100% with like no due process, no way to move forward, no way to get that license back because you put forward a novel legal theory in a high in a very Quick, heated time in the United States involving a Presidential election, so things have to move fast that ultimately courts did not accept. And because of that, you are somehow your entire practice of law needs to be deleted and you need to be removed.
This is like you're canceled from being an attorney in the state of California because you took a position their courts didn't like.
Well, in Jordan, that one. The Bar Association didn't like it. Why we have to take this to the Supreme Court is that it's the way that the California bar works. It goes through the state Supreme Court. And then most bars, yeah.
It's the court of first look here is the Supreme Court of the United States for us to make this appeal.
So it's a direct jump to the Supreme Court and we'll be filing very early. But I wanted to bring up what you just said was so fascinating because the law fare here isn't just against Professor Eastman. And that's why it's a exciting incident. But why we have to protect The attorneys here is because what their goal isn't just to get Professor Eastman disbarred. It's that conservatives won't have anyone to represent them.
I saw Ted Cruz put out a graphic yesterday about how the political donations of like the top 100 law firms in the country, not even one of them has more than 50% to A Republican.
Now that's fine. That's freedom of speech, freedom of association. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But if you make it toxic or you make it something to be ashamed of if you represent a conservative, Then, whenever the left wants to use lawfare against you, then you have no one to represent you. And that's one of the other key elements here: trying to protect the right to an attorney for every American here, not just the President or future political politicians.
It's when the left wants to use the courts. as a weapon of political power. You have to have someone that can represent you, including ACLJ attorneys. Yes, I mean, this is, that is, you're right. The ultimate goal is to scare people away from cases that may be controversial or maybe new.
But you know what? If you look back in history, Logan and Will, if you look back in history. The the cases that were novel. the cases that were new. Starting with the powers of the federal government and the judiciary, the Marlbury versus Madison.
Right. Going to the civil rights movement and post-Civil War Reconstruction. Uh If again, it was tough for those NAACP attorneys to go to court because of the death threats. But imagine if those courts and their bar associations just started disbarring them because they say, you know what? We don't ex our laws say that you're not you don't get to vote, you don't get to have this representation.
And so you're putting forward arguments that are in direct conflict with our state law. You've been told you've lost four or five of these cases. We're going to disbar you. And instead, what they would do then is they'd imprison sometimes the attorneys, you know, in contempt. That's just even worse to some extent.
But I don't remember them having their licenses necessarily revoked. Um so Has it gotten even worse than what was happening during the civil rights movement for conservatives? I mean, I don't think we're there yet, but that's the idea. The idea is to scare you away, and it's why those big law firms will donate to the Democrats. Republicans don't believe this.
You could be far-left attorney. We don't believe that you should be barred from being an attorney because you come up with novel legal theories, especially if you're coming out of the world of legal academia, which is what they're working on constantly. I mean, your job is to defend new articles. Your job is to defend a client. It's not necessarily to even agree with your client.
And you're coming up with any possible way to defend them. And usually you put up three or four different ways. If the court doesn't like this, also the court needs to look at this. And if it doesn't like this, you should look at this. But he is in a situation where he was dealing with a hostile bar association, then a hostile state court system.
And it will be interesting to see here in the Supreme Court. We're going to be filed in less than two weeks. I was about to say, we're about to head to break, but what is that next step? What do we do? And how can everyone get involved?
Yeah.
So, we've got less than two weeks here.
So, we need people to go to aclj.org and get supportive because that will mean reply briefs coming. And again, we're a lot of work on this before you actually get to the decision about whether the court is going to take the case. The ACLJ is involved in all these issues today, as we've been really highlighting a lot of the work that we're doing directly. And I wanted to make sure you know that because we are, of course, well over halfway through our impact match. And I need you as we head to a break to donate today if you can at aclj.org.
Look, we got a second half hour coming up, but all donations are matched.
Some of you lose us here.
Some of your local radio stations, they only carry a half hour.
Well, we have a full-hour show each and every day. Be a part of it. Streaming live 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern Time. That is Monday through Friday on YouTube, Rumble, Facebook, of course, on aclj.org.
It's probably the easiest way to just find all the places it's active. And wherever you get your podcast later on archive. And again, second half hour coming up. Rick Rinnell's joining us, and I want to hear from you at 1-800-684-3110. But as we head to a very, very short break, less than a minute.
So, if you're going to join us online, hop over right now. Less than a minute. I want you to go to aclj.org, make your donation today, and have it doubled. We've got to tackle these new challenges, and we can't do it without you. We'll be right back.
Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Secular. And now, your host, Logan Sekulow. Welcome to the second half hour of Sekulow. It's Tuesday, August 18th.
This is Logan Sekulow, Jordan Sekulow in studio, Will Haynes in studio, Rick Rinnell joining us in the next segment. And I want to hear from you at 1-800-684-30110. We're talking about a couple different topics, all focused on really what's going on in the state of California, and a lot of it to do with voter situations there, voter verification there, as well as our representation currently of a lawyer who is just, as Jordan said. Coming up with novel theories, trying to come up with a way to defend his client, pretty high-profile client. And with that, he found himself disbarred.
And the ACLJ team is jumping in on that. And there's actually a way for you to get directly involved. I didn't say this in the last segment, but I need to make sure of it. Of course, you can donate to support the work of the ACLJ. We're in that impact match.
But right now, also at ACLJ.org, there is a petition up. I need to pull up the text of this petition, Will. You got it? That's right.
Yeah.
So if you go to aclj.org/slash petitions, there's several that you can look at. The pastor saw when we talked about yesterday. But this title is Stop the Left from Disbarring Conservative Lawyers. And we have 24,583 signatures as of right now. That ain't enough.
Come on. And our goal on this one is 50,000.
So if you can go to aclj.org/slash petitions, it has a picture of John Eastman as well as the Supreme Court, and you can click that and sign that to support. Yep, I want to take this call. Let's go to Dale in California. He's in California and he's got a lot to say. Go ahead, Dale.
Uh Good day. Hey, Dale, you're on the air. I don't understand. Do you hear me? Yep.
Go ahead.
So I don't know where you guys have been for the last 34 years, but California's going towards the communist. direction for a long time. When they voted for the drugs to be marijuana to be illegal. then it opened up more people to be homeless t 'cause they're taking drugs.
So this stuff about uh election laws and stuff like that. They don't that just proves they don't really care. As long as they stay in power, they're fun with that. Yeah, Dale, it's all political. It's all political.
We know this. We're actually going to have Rick Rinnell joining us in the next segment. There's probably nobody better who can comment on the current state of California elections, California laws, California politics than Rick.
Well, and one thing I'd say also, Dale, is that, yes, but that doesn't mean that you don't push back. It doesn't mean that you don't uncover this truth. And also, in this case here, there are things like violations of federal election law, things that Congress has put in place to govern the way that the states run the elections. And if their Department of Justice and their Secretary of State are in violation of that, the federal government can step in and correct that.
So just because they've been going that way a long time, we've been watching it. We've been talking about it as well on this broadcast. But just because. It's going that way doesn't mean you just give up and you walk away. You actually fight harder.
Now, you think about someone like Ispatiba. He was a Supreme Court clerk for Justice Thomas. He was a circuit court clerk. A law professor. He's been a candidate for Attorney General of California before.
I'm not afraid to get into the political process. But this is someone, again, who made his way attending University of Chicago Law School, which is one of the top law schools in the country. It's usually in the top five every year. And he went there and then started a career in government and clerking and then tried to put his name in to get involved in public service. And then he was a dean of a law school.
So, this is, again, he followed the route that many on the left would follow too: of academia and the Things you do, like clerking for U.S. Supreme Court justices, which by the way, you know, those people like Ted Cruz did as well, pretty smart guys that usually get those, and women who get those positions. It doesn't mean you're going to agree with all their legal decisions that they all agree with each other. But the idea was that that justice said, you know, this is a really smart person. When I'm going to need help on research and putting together my opinion, I want their assistance.
And if. But wh what do we know?
Well, we know that the left can't stand Clarence Thomas. And anybody associated with them. It's like, so let's go through. If we can get rid of another Clarence Thomas clerk, take them out of the legal system, let's do it. And that's what California's tried to do here.
It is wrong, and it is why the ACLJ is dedicated to righting this wrong. Because there are other states that we know are watching this that say, if California can do this, hey, we can get rid of some of these conservative attorneys too.
So don't just think you're safe as a conservative attorney because you're not living in California. Yeah, this is just the beginning. We're jumping into action in many states and different localities to preserve election integrity, to deal with situations like this with our lawyers. Be a part of it today. Go to ACLJ.org.
We'll be right back with Rick Renell. Welcome back to Secula. We are going to take calls in the next segment: 1-800-684-3110. Go get line. If you're in California, I think you're going to want to do that as well because California, again, becomes the center of our conversation.
It doesn't matter, it seems like it's something we cannot avoid. Of course, a big state. A lot of issues going on there, and no one is better to comment on that than Rick Rinnell. But Will, let's set up a little bit of what we're going to talk to Rick about because there's, if we're just going to say generically California politics, voter situation, all that, it's just we don't got the time. That's right.
Well, Rick, we had you on previously, and we talked about how our state FOIA request got back from the Secretary of State that, hey, don't worry, it's illegal if someone registers to vote here and they're not a citizen, but we don't really track that. Like when we take someone off the rolls, there's no category.
Well, I'm happy to announce and tell you, Rick, that we now have our response from the Attorney General's office at the Department of Justice, from AG Bonta. And we asked them specifically about what if they can turn over the records related to their policies and procedures when it comes to investigating referrals of illegal voting. Here's their response, Rick, and I want to see if you're surprised by this or not. It says, in response to part two of your records request, after a reasonable search, including contacting knowledgeable individuals. DOJ has not identified any records containing or addressing policies that are specific to handling investigative referrals for illegal voting.
This concludes DOJ's response to part two.
So, The Secretary of State's not tracking it. and the Attorney General has no policies to investigate it. Is this a part for the course in California? Surprised at all? Look, they pick and choose which laws to enforce, which laws to follow.
This whole idea of a sanctuary city really is at the heart of the AG's office because he decides: you know what, if it's not really something that I don't think is a crime, then I just am not going to enforce the law or worry about it. And so I'm not surprised that A.G. Bonta, who is someone who was handpicked by Gavin Newsom to be put in his job when that job became vacant, he is a total fraud and a phony. And I actually think that there is one race in California that is winnable because Bonta is so bad and he's such a crook. And there are so many Situations that he's gotten himself into, and people are furious about how he picks and chooses which laws to enforce.
I'm not surprised that he's not looking for illegal voting practices. And by the way, this doesn't just mean illegal immigrants, although that's one of the categories. It also means. That individuals who have lived in California and then moved away, maybe to Nevada or Texas or Florida, are suddenly getting ballots in the mail, which is illegal to forward a ballot, but they do. And they're voting in a state that they no longer live in.
It's called a residency violation. And this happens all the time. And Bhanta, Rob Bhanta, has. No interest in enforcing the law because he thinks that it's good to have a whole messy voter roll and then everybody on that messy voter roll getting a ballot and being able to vote.
Well, here's where it actually does give me some hope for California. I know that you have a lot of hope for your state. There's a reason that you are proudly still Californian and that you fight for California. When they get this lazy about it. When they sit here and say they're giving you the response, we didn't even have to file the lawsuit that we normally have to with states that don't want to hand over records.
The Secretary of State was very forthcoming. Said, yeah, we don't track it.
So you're good to go. Nothing to see here. The Attorney General's Office says, you've got some records coming. We identified some of the other questions that you asked, and we'll give those to you in a couple of weeks. But as for this part, no, we don't have any policies on that.
That's where I think you do have an opportunity to show people. Say, look. Your leaders who are lying to you saying elections are secure. We don't need voter ID. We don't need the SAVE Act.
That's just Republicans wanting to disenfranchise people or cheat. If you're this lazy and lax about federal law, and state law Then that is a real opportunity. And maybe it's baby steps. Maybe it's someone that's more moderate or more independent. But the fact, even that Spencer Pratt had such a moment in LA.
I do feel like it's moments like this, pointing out that your elected officials don't care about the sacred nature of your elections could really start to move people away from what has been the establishment of California. Look, in California, there's this phenomenon that, you know, we forget about all of the problems and individuals who create these problems. And then we find examples like this, and we get all outraged again. And we go through this outrage for a couple of weeks, and then it dissipates. And people say, ah, you know, why get outraged?
Why do anything? Why fight? Because it's not going to work anyway. I actually have the opposite view, which is this is a target-rich environment. I'm not giving up.
I'm going to continue hitting these targets. We've got this example. We've now got Gavin Newsom's cabinet deciding that we need government tires on our cars. That's the latest, is that our tires aren't good enough. It's not the roads that are a disaster, it's the tires.
And so she came out and gave us this long soliloquy about how changing every Every single tires to the government-required tires is going to save people like $38 over their lifetime. It's so outrageous that it can't even be true. But we're not giving up in California. We are fighting on every single one of these targets. And as we get closer to an election day, we continue to push and highlight this.
I do think that our focus has got to be the media. In California, who have failed to hold these Democrats to account and shame them, which I publicly do every single day. I try to highlight the hypocrisies. I'm not. Disenfranchised at all.
I'm focused on changing California because I know 50% of Californians aren't even registered to vote.
So if you really forced everyone to vote, these Yahoos in Sacramento would get thrown out immediately. See a lot of good comments about the roads in California right now, Rick.
So I think you struck a nerve there with a lot of our viewers who watch on YouTube who are chiming in. I actually want to take a quick call from Fran in California because this ties in, Rick, to everything. Go ahead, Fran, you're on the air. Hi, thanks for taking my call. I just love your program.
I love what you guys are doing. I'm going to be donating. I just wanted to let you know that I've been working with Carl DeMayo out of San Diego. I'm in Orange County, Dana Point, Orange County. And I was going taking petitions around to they were trying to change the voting for the Proposition thirteen on our property taxes.
And then I was also doing the other one for to get a voter ID for everybody that goes to vote. And so I'm just so disgusted with the the corruption and the nonsense that these people on the left, Democrats, come up with. They don't even make sense. And so I'm so glad you guys are working so hard. And I got the phone number because I'm a senior citizen and I don't do a lot of the Computer things like you guys do and social media and stuff.
So, um, I'm going to be calling in for my donations. Thank you for having me. Keep up the good work and just keep fighting. It's really hard, I know, but we've got to win this. It's a matter of life and death for California and for the United States.
Frank, I think you represent a lot of what's going on in California, Rick. I can see you shaking your head. These are the kind of people that we're talking to. I mean, look, Fran is retired and she's literally picking up the petitions to go and fight and to make sure that we educate the public. That's exactly what we have to do.
Thank you, Fran. Thank you, Carl DeMayo. He's doing a great job as well. We're not giving up. We know it's not our tires, it's the roads, Gavin.
Well, and even to that point, you talked about Carl DeMayo. That was the voter ID petition he was really spearheading that will be on the ballot. What did the Attorney General Bonta do? Change the language to make it a real negative thing, making people think they're going to not be able to vote if you are a voter in California, instead of saying it's stopping people from voting illegally.
So he doesn't want to investigate illegal voting. And he doesn't want to protect the elections from illegal voting. It sounds like. Uh he may have um a a a a bias here, Rick. This is why I am so encouraged because the clowns in Sacramento make mistakes every single day.
It's so bad that as soon as we get the low-information voter to just pay attention a little bit, we're converting people all of the time. And their little day in the sun is going to be over. I don't know when, maybe this November, maybe the next November, but it is going to be over because as common sense people find out what's going on, they're outraged. And you can't spend enough money to convince people that it's the tires that are our problem, not the roads. Rick, thank you so much for joining us.
Look, we got another segment I want to hear from you. If you're in California or not in California, give me a call. I think this motivates a lot of you to get involved in what we're doing here at the ACLJ. Of course, Rick is a great voice for that.
So give us a call, 1-800-684-31110. Again, we're tackling all these issues and you want to be a part of it too. It's a great way to get engaged with what we're doing here, but also to join us in these fights.
So go to ACLJ.org right now. And we're taking a lot of action, not just in California, but around the country. We'll be back in just a moment. Your calls and comments on Secula. You know, I don't think we've ever struck quite a nerve than when Rick Rinnell brought up California roads and the issues currently that are being presented because I see the comments exploding.
I also heard him say, you know, the clowns.
So, what I'm going to say is something I haven't said in a long time. Send in those clowns. Let's see it. Come on, light up that chat. Let's do it today.
Give me a call, though, 1-800-684-3110. But speaking of the tires, look, I think we've opened up a door for people to vent. And you know what? Our Rumble ranters, they're ready to rant here. Let's go to, Willie, got something for us.
I was gonna say, we had that as a backup story. Today, didn't know if we would get to it, but it's in our packet for the LA Times. Your car may not be fuel efficient, but your tires have to be now. Because of all the regulations that got overturned by the federal government with California also pushing only EVs by a certain year and that really messing up the commerce of the United States, a lot of the issues they weren't fully able to do through regulations in their state. But so now, yes, they're trying to say your tires have to be a certain fuel efficiency rating, and that's the problem here.
But it is, it's absurd. All right, let's go to Kimberly in California. Kimberly on Rumble, you're on the air. I'm in California. I live in Riverside County.
Our roads are Horrible everywhere. I can't go anywhere without him in potholes, but it's not just the tires. We spend $2,700 on a new rebuilding my whole suspension. They should have lasted another 50,000 miles. Yeah, I mean, California obviously having its issues here.
I mean, I knew the traffic was bad, but the comments coming in are wild of how many people that are complaining about where their tax dollars are really being sent. I was about to say it's probably just because it's such a low-tax state, California, that you know, they don't have enough tax dollars to pay for the roads, but they can tell you to do this, get new tires. And Kimberly, obviously, I'm joking because of the absurdity of the tax rates. But, Jordan, listen to this about the tires. I like when you explain your jokes.
Well, some people may not get this.
Sometimes that can be a ham. I know. But so, these new tires, it's going to add about $26 per set up front. But don't worry. over the life of the car or the life of the tires rather, you're gonna save about one hundred and fifty.
So, this is really important government work right here. Yeah, I mean, when you start figuring out that, and also the fact that hoping those tires don't hit the potholes either, how can they do that? How much money they put into this study alone. Like, how many miles are you driving? People, some people drive more, some people drive less.
How can they actually? The estimate is that. First of all, with inflation and issues like that, that's effectively you're losing money. You are losing money because you were having to, at that moment, buy more expensive tires than you would have to. And then believing the government that that will somehow save you $150 a tire or total.
Total over the life of the tires. Total over the four tires.
So you're spending almost that much to buy the four tires, which would be, yeah, yeah, close to the bottom. That's going to be government issue. But don't worry, you're saving $150, which is really getting your money back that you paid. But even that, again, that money's not worth the same. three years down the road.
They will make your car more fuel efficient. Here's the big question.
So that's where your savings are because you're more fuel efficient. I'm just saying they're doing it for the environment. They're saying it's lowering emissions because you're more efficient. But my big question is. I'm just producing these tires, and would we all want them if it made our cars?
Uh if it made us uh our our gas last night. There's too many options.
Well, here's my prediction about these tires. And they always are gonna be like, Well, you can go for the cheaper side. A guy who's gotta go into a work site is gonna be able to buy the same Tire price is the one who is staying on highways most of the time. No way. The guy I bought the tire from, he's like, look, I can go with less tires, but your kids aren't going to be safe.
That's a good one. Thank you. But I would say, here's my prediction for these tires. They're going to be more susceptible to hitting a pothole and popping. Because whenever the government gets involved in mandates that you have to buy this certain thing, it always ends up being let's try to get William cleared quickly because I want to take his call.
Yeah, but like your tire goes bad and now you're gonna have to sue the state of California because you think they made a faulty tile. Good luck. I mean, it's a lot easier handling that within the private sector. Yeah, because they generally want to take care of their customers and provide you a product that doesn't cause them to have to get a lawsuit from you. William in California.
William, I'm not fully sure I understand your comment, but I'm very intrigued. Go ahead.
Well, I sat in on the Zoom call yesterday with the state of California in regard to the tire. proposals that are before us as citizens. And I was appalled by the outcome of the meeting. It was clearly obvious that the decision had already been made, and this was a pro forma. We're going to tell you what you're going to do and what you're going to pay.
There was no discussion of the regulations. that would be imposed upon the citizens, what it's going to cost. I can recall when they started the smog tests here in California. They were eight to twelve dollars. I paid one hundred sixty dollars for one smog test last year.
What is this going to call? They're talking about putting in regulations in place to inspect your tires. What is that going to cost?
Well, once again, it's going to end up costing the entire state more because of all the programs they're going to have to fund through your tax dollars. Just, I mean, imagine on like the border of Nevada, are you going to start seeing tire shops pop up to get like, you know, California non-compliant tires, even like a firewall store. Exactly. But then Williams saying that's why they're going to have to have these stations to check and make sure your California registered car has the right tires. It's so absurd.
There's so many different kinds of tires necessary for all the different vehicles that are available. There's no way they're all just going to be this one price. Yeah, I know. Yeah.
But again, big tire, man. This is, I guarantee you, as William was probably talking about, I bet they could have already bought tires for everybody. It's a big state for every driver in the state with the amount of money they've spent on figuring out if this. Should be a new policy. You know, we don't usually just have wasted that much taxpayer dollars.
Absolutely. They could have just given everybody these new facts. I love when the topic just gets completely takes over the show. Because it's the worst of the worst of the big government. Right.
Absolutely. Let's go to Robert in California to wrap us up. Rob would be the last call of the day. Hey guys, I appreciate back to the lady because she said she's going around with the petitions in Prop 13, which is your estate. And you look at that tire thing, and another thing, like you said, that they cut waste fraud and be used.
They can buy people tires. money from cap and trade. Maybe could even go buy people's hires. We got no water in the state because the Klamath stands were taken out preemptively. This is half the water infrastructure is gone.
No one ever brings it up. You have a guy who's in office who wants to take the stepped up and basis, national, getting rid of it. That's a 50% death tax. That's newsome. Going full-blown communist.
That would foreclose on everyone across as long as the elder dies. That's the final domino. The mindset in California is an ilk of people who think homeowners are privileged and they need to be confiscated at one point. And good luck saving, you know, your equity and your unrealized gains. That's all government money.
Well, Robert, to be honest with you, then he's going to be met with his new colleagues in the Democrat Party who believe that private property in and of itself is wrong. That you should not have private property. That's in the DSA platform. They don't want. Large corporations anymore.
That should become government property.
So, yeah, they're all going in that same direction. And you even brought up the fire and the water. Yeah, maybe focus on fixing your state. Then Going after the tires. I don't know if there's a tire emoji, but if there is, send in those tires.
Maybe a donut. I have to.
Some right now.
So there's some sort of do-it-right now for me. But as we wrap up, hey, 30 seconds left. Go to aclj.org. We're getting involved in all this. We got to take Big Tire to court.
Maybe we'll figure out a way to do it. I don't know. I'm just kidding, but you never know. ACLJ.org, have your donation doubled today. Of course, this is just the beginning.
What happens in California seems to bleed over everywhere. We'll make sure that we keep you covered. That's at aclj.org. Do it today, aclj.org slash impact or sign that petition today. A lot of great ways to engage for free.
Also at aclj.org. We will talk to you tomorrow.
