"Stop Nick Shirley Act"

the Stop Nick Shirley Act. So, this is what's happened is that they are now putting out an entire um an entire act to stop certain types of investigative journalism. This is ridiculous. I can't even believe this is happening. Well, I actually can, but it's still ridiculous. What do you think about the Stop Nick Shirley Act? I think you're a psycho scam artist. They don't want to end their fraud racket. A lot of the politicians, they benefit from the political organizations and so they want this racket to continue. They don't want the truth to get out. Stop fraud investigations, but you're the one who signed off and you're a co-author of it. Here in California, they are trying to pass the Stop Nick Shirley Act, the official title. Dude, imagine you have the biggest state in the entire country. You're a 23-year-old YouTuber and they have to make an entire act to try to stop you. I mean, why? cuz you're saying that certain people are scamming really of this bill's a he's got motion. Yeah, you've got to have motion if that's what you're doing. 26 24 and today we're going to be confronting the legislators that are trying to pass this bill. And if this bill were to get passed instead of going after the fraudsters, they're trying to make it criminal to go after the people that are committing this fraud. For instance, it would become criminal to film and reveal info on taxpayer funded immigration services like healthare which would include So now how are we going to deal with the fraud problem? Make it illegal for people to talk about it. Oh, okay. Daycare, hospices. It also covers counseling services. And the reason why is that it [ __ ] with their bottom line. Like they will push and they will fight for this illegal alien parasite immigration like until they're dying breath because unless they have this unless they do demographic and population replacement which is what they are doing and what they are trying to do um they won't be able to achieve their goals. They want to create, again, I've said this many times, I will say it again, they are trying to create a non-white, non-western, non-Christian racial like uh like coalition that they can vote against those interests as a block. That's what they are trying to do. That's the reason why they're fighting so hard for it. And that's why I keep saying it. I will continue saying it because it continues to be true. translation services and immigration legal services. So for instance, if the quality learing center was inside of California, it would be illegal to expose them. It would make it illegal to film government funded NOS's and this bill essentially wants to shield the info of immigrant support services from the public. So keep this in mind whenever people say, "Oh, well, we shouldn't do this because what if they do that?" These people now are trying to literally make a law, pass a law that you can't expose them for fraud. You don't have to wait for these people to do anything. Like you don't have to do something in order for them to respond. They will just do it on their own. Tax dollars, you'd have no idea where it's going because it would then become confidential and you would not be able to see how much money that NGO is getting if it's going towards immigrant services. And what makes this bill super interesting is the lady who created this bill, her name is Mia Bont. Her husband is the attorney general of California named Rob Bont. You cannot make this up. So you have the attorney general who's supposed to prosecute and go after the fraudsters and then you have his wife who's trying to pass bills to go after the people exposing the fraud. Like seriously, this is absolutely crazy. And the AG Rob just a few days ago said they were cracking down on the fraud way before certain people came into your face. It's what you'd expect. We've been doing it successfully before certain people in this country decided to think about it for the first time. However, it was only after I exposed over $und00 million in fraud that actually made any arrest here inside of California. They don't want their fraud. Let's say this bill gets passed. What could happen to you if you expose fraud or go and look into immigration services? Well, you could receive a $4,000 fine $1,000 a civil fine, a $10,000 fine if it's criminal, and a $50,000 fine if it becomes a felony. You may also face potential imprisonment, and your content be forced to be taken down. This is complete violation of the first amendment as they are trying to take down and suppress your own speech, make it so you can't film in public, which is taking away your freedom of press. There's a whole lot of issues with this bill. And today we're be confronting those that co-authored, signed, and passed. And keep in mind this whenever these are the people that are talking about, oh, but the Constitution says that we have birthright citizenship. You are literally making laws that shut down the first [ __ ] amendment. Never listen to these people try to quote the Constitution to you. They don't care about it and they never and so truly every single day here in America, you are learing more and more about the fraud that is taking place. And if you want to become a member of the anti-fraud club and help me as I go all about the country to expose this fraud, go join at anti-fraud club.com. It is completely free and hoodies are also available on the site. And really quick, let's go speak with an assemblyman who knows more about this bill before we go and confront them. Now, let's get into the video. What's the truth about the Stop Nick Shirley Act? So, you've heard a lot of people trying to call you a liar. Why don't we just read the bill? I think that's what everybody just needs to know. Yeah. So in this section of AB 2624 which we call the stop Nick Shirley Act, it says a person, business or association shall not publicly post or publicly display, disclose or distribute on the internet or social media the internet the personal information or image of a designated immigration support service provider, employee or volunteer if that individual or individual entity or organization author authorized on the act of their behalf. That's just some of the language. What does that mean? Immigration support services provider. You're exact. See, and that is because they don't want they don't want they know that if this gets out and more people see this, they'll realize how bad it is. That's why they have to do everything that they can to suppress any conversation about it. Where the devil is in the details, designated immigration support services facility means, does this law protect ICE, too? No. because every law is only as strong as its enforcement mechanism. We have dozens of laws against what's happening against ICE. It's just that they're not being enforced. So this idea that like, oh, but this could work against them. This is the this is the naive notion that you're operating under as if they care about the law in the first place. They don't care about the law. They're just simply using this and they will selectively enforce it on people that they disagree with politically. That's what's going to happen. a facility where immigration support services are provided, including but not limited to nonprofit organization offices, Department of Justice recognized entities, community legal clinics, law offices, accredited representative sites that provide immigration legal services, and healthc care facilities. They threw that into designated immigration support service facilities. One of those is definitely not like the others. Like health care is not unique to immigrants, whereas all the other things are unique and intrinsic to being an immigrant care facilities and healthcare is at the very bottom of this. But that's where a lot of the fraud's taking place inside of medical for instance. the hospices, the daycarees are with cow works, but they're with anything that have to do with immigrants essentially could not and is actually punishable. You're 100% right. And that's where again the devil is in the details. Their definition of harassment is repeated unreasonable and unwelcome conduct. Unwelcome is like I mean this is the most broad term that you can possibly use. What is unwelcome conduct? simply you asking questions today, can that be considered unwelcome? What do they mean by things that could you could generally fear? So if they say the words, I was harassed by they use ambiguity here so they can they disagree with politically, that's the reason why if you were out videotaping a hospice, you would fall under this because healthc care facilities is a designated immigration support service facility. That is part of the definition. It is written here that if you post this online and they give you a demand made under that paragraph, everybody who's bringing up, by the way, everybody who's bringing up the First Amendment is [ __ ] These people don't care about the Constitution. They will just like everybody knows this is going to get overruled. The people writing this bill know it's going to get overruled. They know that it's not going to happen. What they're doing is they're writing it to scare people. That's what the goal is. Like if if you think that like, oh, but wait, the Constitution says they can't do that, who cares? Unless it's being enforced, it's not real. People need to be a lot more realistic about things, I think. Shall be effective for four years where you could be punished. So, what people really need to know is that the state of California is deciding to punish the journalists out there. That's right. that are doing the work and exposing the fraud instead of punishing the fraudsters and a government that diminishes transparency has something to hide. And what are some more crazy things about this bill? There's a section in this bill that says any records or documents pertaining to a program participant shall be held confidential. Man, so there are workarounds in this bill that will hide information that if you wanted to find online the quality lingaring center, all of these areas can be now moved around and shifted. They are making it harder to find the people's money when we should be making it easier when we have already proven that in three cases alone in the state of California, a half a billion dollars in fraud. That's a lot of fraud. And so essentially an NGO or a daycare, anything that falls underneath immigration support providers, their information, what the [ __ ] does a daycare have to do with immigration? If somebody gets their leg cut off, I don't give a [ __ ] if they're from New Guinea or not. Oh, wait a minute. This guy's from Morocco. Get the Morocco leg over here. What are we doing? And become confidential. Exactly. Well, that's exactly right is that they can hide it because they have changed the definitions designated also includes healthc care facilities also includes nonprofit organizations and not only that areas that the department of justice actually recognizes those entities. It's such a broad thing so you can cover everything and then when you look at those definitions and I read you the bill I am reading the physical bill. So when they call you a liar, how how are you lying? How when you have all of the information in front of you and it's it's all a it's a front when you sit down and you actually talk about it, you know it's a coordinated effort to steal from the people of California. In that same game man Carl Deayo [ __ ] based. I am so glad to see young men in government that are finally recognizing and waking up to this [ __ ] and that are being represented and coming up in the ranks. This is great. I'm so happy about this. Brought forth a motion to push for more transparency on this bill. However, it was then shut down by the Democrats inside of the assembly to not give any more transparency. And as I was explaining this, one of the co-authors passed by and it was now my time to confront these legislators who are pushing forth this bill. Here's one of the authors of the bill. How are you guys doing? We just want to ask you about the bill and why you guys would pass this bill that really isn't an attack on free speech. I am not even sure what you're talking about. You said an author. I don't think I know. Did you pass? Did you sign to pass this bill? The AB26. No, I don't talking about. Do you know what I'm talking about? No, you do not. No, you guys just talking about We're talking about something random. Okay, Sasha, how are you doing? Right. Uh, we just want to ask you about the bill AB2624. Why would you sign off on that? It's a direct violation of the First Amendment and it makes it harder for people to expose fraud here. Uh, we have ledge counsel. They check the constitutionality of all our bills as we're writing them. I work on fraud issues. You know that if you uh look some of the work I did on the budget subcommittee. Yeah, that's the problem. The problem is that you work on fraud issues. Thank you for inviting this reality. Yes, we know that's the issue that Mia Bonta, her husband's attorney general of thei of of the attorney general of California. And it was only until I exposed fraud that they actually cracked down on the fraud and made some arrests here, especially with the hospices. And do you know that if this bill were to pass, it'd make it illegal for someone to go after fraud, especially if it's im based off of immigrants, for instance, Armenians in California. No, no. I I think that that's a misinterpretation of the bill. No, no, but I'm happy to talk with you more about it. And I investigations into fraud are something that's been happening for a very long time. The attorney general handles those cases. This is an weird that the wife of the attorney general, Mia Bonta, is now pushing this bill that literally goes against the First Amendment. Uh, no. I I actually don't uh I don't think that this bill violates the First Amendment. I mean, that's that that's the whole purpose. We have pledge council and pledge attorneys that talk with us about this. Constitutionality is really important to the work. So, your bill criminalizes publication of images recorded in public. Do you believe the government has the right to punish journalists for filming in public space? No, I I think that that is a complete misinterpretation of actually just he reads it. He reads it directly to her. He says, "Do you think they can do that?" No, that No, you don't understand it. You don't No, no, no, no. See, you don't understand it. Uh, no. Piece of legislation. It is not what happened. Speaker Rivas, how are you doing? What do you think about the Stop Nick Shirley AB2624. I don't know anything about it. And do you think there's any conflict of interest there with Miaonta and her husband being the AG? That just shows you everything you need to know. These people won't even answer the questions. So you signed off your co-author of the AB2624 bill. What made you want to sign off on this bill that would literally make it so NOS's don't have to don't have to disclose their money? Yeah, we'd have to go back and look at the uh materials from that committee hearing. Okay. And what what for instance, just answer the question. Why does your bill apply to organizations receiving taxpayer money? Shouldn't publicly fund entities have more transparency, not less? Say, restate the question. Yes. So, entities that receive money from the government, shouldn't there be more transparency and not less? I think we want to make sure that we are being accountable to public funds. Yes. And so you signed off on a bill that would make that harder to have transparency. Well, I don't think I saw it that way. I think that we're making sure that like, you know, all of our systems are able to get the money out to community and that there is transparency and accountability incorporated. But listen, just phone it in to chat GPT next time, okay? Like it'll do a better job. Just phone it in. Like it really I mean this is it's embarrassing. You're literally signing off on a bill that would make it for less transparency. Sir, that's debatable and I don't It's not debatable. Debatable. They're going for immigrant immigration based services. They're trying to make it harder for money to be disclosed. Thanks. Look, they just run off. Yeah. Oh, how are you doing? I just want to say hi. So, great work. Very proud of what you're doing. And how come you think that they're just signed off on a bill that would make it harder for organizations that receive taxpayer dollars to be I don't agree with it. I think you're on the right track. This is an attack. It's not right. There you go. You're doing well. Thank you very much. Thank you. You're a co-author of the Stop Nick Shirley Act. Oh, you know who I am. My name is Nick Shirley. Ma'am, you signed off on the AB2624 act. Can you tell us about what you did on that? I don't even know who you are. Well, my name's Nick Shirley, but uh either way, can you tell me about this this assembly bill you're trying to pass? Shirley. My name's Nick Shirley, ma'am. I have no idea. I'm sorry. But could you please just answer? You know, this [ __ ] was so [ __ ] obnoxious in high school. Can you imagine this? Oh my god. Jesus. Any question about the AB264 bill? A lot of people are worried about that it's going to stop fraud investigations, but you're the one who signed off and you're a co-author of it. These people. This is the reason why we've invented the word FOID. Th this that's the reason. Crazy. They can't even answer your questions about the bills that they're co-authoring. Hello, Mr. Lowenthal. How are you doing? I'm okay. How are you? Doing great. How do you feel about proposing a bill that would put $10,000 fines and potential jail time for publishing a video from a parking lot? Uh, wait, can you say that to me again? Let me understand. So, AB2624, if a journalist were to go and investigate fraud in an immigrant uh im immigrant service company essentially from the government that receives taxpayer dollars, they could potentially risk receiving a $10,000 fine with this bill you guys are trying to pass. Uh, well, I need to read the bill. But you're you signed off on the bill. You passed the bill. Yeah, I know. I know. I still have to read it. Yeah, I'd have to read it. What do you mean I passed the bill? I don't know. It's gone through two. What he's doing is that he knows that Nick Shirley isn't like super verbal and so he's asking him to restate his question so it can draw out more time. And then he's taking the one word that he's saying that was incorrect because it's not passing the bill and then he's reframing it around that word in order to not address the substance of what's being asked. That's what he's doing. It's pretty obvious times and it's been passed. What what two times? Where are you referring to? Are you referring to committees? Yes. Which committees? I can tell you right here if you give me a second. But uh uh speaking of let me guess now I'm out of time committee. I'm in the privacy committee right now but I don't think that bill is passed before my he's a co there we go. Right. Just literally running out the clock author of it. He's a co-author of that bill. What's your thoughts on this AB2624 Any response like what what would make you guys want to pass this? Thank you. Do you think it makes it harder for fraud to get discovered here in the United States? Why can't you guys just answer our questions? You guys are the ones who are signing off on these bills. So, what do you think about the Stop Nick Shirley Act, AB2624? I don't know that. I don't know. You don't know much about it. I don't know if I know that one. Oh, well, can I tell you a little bit about it? She's a co-author of the bill. Oh [ __ ] bro. What is this? So you should know. You should know about it. It's kind of your job. You little broccoli haircut. Stop Nick Shirley Act. What it does? It shields immigrant. Oh, he's running away. The Stop Nick Shirley Act shields immigration nonprofit workers from public record disclosure. It criminalizes publishing images and videos of covered workers, even taken in public. Grants covered. All right, look at this security guard, bro. The entire time he's just there. He's [ __ ] there and waiting. Power to man video takedowns. Imposes a $4,000 civil, $10,000 criminal, $50,000 felony fines per violation. Applies to taxpayer funded organizations. Would you support a bill that allows all that to take place? It is your job. Would you support a bill? Yes or no? Ma'am, can you take Thank you, baby. It looks so good to meet you. I hope you have a great day. Ma'am, you're literally working for us, but you won't even answer our own questions. Like, these people That's cra dude. Get paid by our tax dollars. They can't even answer anything. This is super important. People have a lot of questions about the AB2624 act. So this bill aka the Stop Nick Shirley Act. Tell us about it. Well, there is no stop Nick Shirley Act, but the author is not here today. But I I hope you can find her. But you're a co-author of this. Uh I'm a co-author of many, many bills that protect vulnerable communities in Good. So, you should know a lot about this bill. For instance, it shields immigration. Hold on one. Hey, I hate to disrupt the phone call. This is important. Wait, come on. Look at that. These guys really just don't want to answer. You got to admit though, like at least that guy like I mean it Jesus, bro. Like what a [ __ ] I know he But at least he had a better answer rather than the I'm just not going to talk to you. Any of the questions. These people won't even answer questions about the bills. They're co-authoring. At least he roached out like a professional. Like the other ones roached out like high school girls. It's embarrassing. Welcome to Sacramento. You know, I appreciate you exposing waste, fraud, and abuse. It is um rampant in California just like in Minnesota and if it wasn't for independent journalists like you, we would not that would not be happening in our state. And I based boomer you for doing it and welcome to Sacramento. Well, these people are literally signing off on these bills and they're acting like they don't have any idea what it is when it really is a direct violation of the first amendment. What's that? Most of them don't read the bills, but they know what it is. The people that you talk to that co-authored the bill, they know what it is. It's criminal. And then to think that they're getting paid from the taxpayers of California, yet they can't even answer any questions about these bills that they are co-authors of. A lot of times when the media will approach them, they deflect um often and that's just the job that they do and they'll continue to vote. And it's ironic like I'm the author of SB14. It's made it a strikeable offense to make sex trafficking of a minor a strike offense in the state of California. and Mia Bont would it we had to get the governor engaged to reverse her decision um on the committee to not criminalize sex traffickers but she wants to what what wait what what huh criminalize you that's an ironic situation huh that is very ironic to AG's wife, the attorney general's wife, Mia Bont, she wanted to protect sex traffickers. She voted. She voted she wouldn't vote and she did not pass a bill in committee a couple of years ago to make sex trafficking a minor child a serious strikeable offense. So, if you get a strike in three strikes your life in prison, she wouldn't vote for it. The governor engaged in that process the next week. If sex trafficking a minor isn't a strikeable offense, then why don't we just get rid of strikable offenses? Like, I mean, obviously nothing is at that point. I mean I that's I mean like that's a pretty bad one, right? Jesus. They passed it out of committee, but she wanted she wouldn't criminalize sex trafficking. No, no, no, no. See, you can sex traffic two minors. It's the third one they have a problem with. But she'll criminalize people like you. That is insane. Mia, she sounds like quite the lady. You should meet her one day. She didn't show up to her own job today. Mia, didn't it? Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Oh, is this Scott Weiner right here? Yep. Yes, he is. Scott Weiner, how are you doing? I'm good. How are you doing? Great. Can you what can you give us your opinion? Thank you very much. Can you give us your opinion really quick on AB2624? I think you're a psycho scam artist. So please disclose how you think that look how they just run away. These guys are fools. It would suck to be last name Weiner, man. Yeah. Anyways, so right there you have literal co-authors who will not give answers to the bill that they are a part of. Some even said they aren't even co-authors of the bill. And now, let's see what the public has to say. And later, we'll be speaking with the man, Carl Deayo, who is in support of getting rid of the Stop Nick Shirley Act. And he'll explain just how dangerous this bill actually is. Do you think they should pass the Stop Nick Absolutely not. We need to stop letting politicians get away with fraud and do better for the people of California here in the state. [ __ ] base. There it is. As a California, [ __ ] pisses me the [ __ ] off. I mean, the problem is that there's not enough people in Cal. Like, I think that the real issue is that there are so many people out there that still think that this is okay. And I think really, I mean, just putting out more content about it, spreading the message is the best way to solve it. What's your message to Mia Bonta? She needs to stay in her lane, stop writing BS bills, and let journalists do their job and find out the truth and give the money back to Californians. And do you think there's a conflict of interest when the attorney general, his wife, is creating laws to make it harder for people to expose fraud? Yeah, that is a conflict of interest. I mean, come on, dude. And right now, come on, dude. Like, yeah, true. market. There's a 46% chance that the Stop Nick Shrew Act becomes law by June 30th. It might happen here because you got some weird fools over here. I mean, seriously. The truth of it, right? Absolutely. 36% chance that the Stop Nick Shirley act becomes law according to Poly Market right now. Insane. Yeah. Yeah. I see what they've been doing towards you and it's completely strange. you're just a local news person and you're an amazing journalist and then somehow they're just like throwing these bites out and like saying that you're this and that. So there it's a very weird situation. We're Jesus believers and we've been praying for the state and we've been praying for you. He actually when we were praying he has sensed that you know this state has been drained in terms of wealth and in terms of abundance because of these people what the the policies and the bills that they've been passing and we believe this is a very important year for California to be saved literally need to be saved and rescued from everything that had gone on for the last four to 5 years um ever since with all these agendas going in and everything and um but we need people to pray and we need people to speak out and we need reformers. We do have an actual conflict of interest when the attorney general is married to someone who's trying to author a bill to essentially attack our freedom of speech. You know, it's I would consider this to be some of these people are so paid. This is crazy. Textbook. Wow. Uh conflict of interest and I would consider it to be extremely unethical. Every journalist across the country should be pissed right now because an attack on Nick Shirley is essentially attack on everybody. We need our freedom of speech. If we don't have our freedom of speech, what do we have? Next step, second amendment. You're one of the few people, Jesus, bro. My god damn, bro. He had that locked in who have opposed the Stop Nick Shirley Act. What made you oppose this bill? Because I read the bill. I mean, it's as simple as that. You read the bill and you realize that it's against the First Amendment. It criminalizes citizen investigative journalists who take video and expose fraud. And that's what the bill is designed to do. It's designed to keep secrets to keep the public from knowing what's going on. They don't want to end their fraud racket. A lot of the politicians, they benefit from political organizations and various contractors and grantees that are getting money and and getting it fraudulently. Well, they they can leverage contracts as uh as collateral. And so they want this racket to get out. That's why they got the Stop Nick Shirley Act. I I mean when I looked at it I said clearly if Nick Shirley uh had been in California and visited one of our Somali learing centers with no daycarees and no no no no no kids and or a fake hospital. I love how now it's just like it's just acknowledged that this is a huge problem. Like isn't it crazy that this was just going on and nobody even gave a [ __ ] enough about it to solve it? And like whenever they do try to do something, they'll like solve half of 1% of the problem and be like, "See guys, we really care." If this bill were enacted, he would be literally called into court, injunctive relief, restraining orders, and a lot of money would be penalized uh to any investigative journalist. They're trying to bully up front. And if if anyone has the audacity to to videotape and post fraud to bankrupt them. This is all about bullying and bankrupting citizen journalists. Can you the process is the punishment? Imagine how outrageous it is to have an organization committing fraud. You know, Somali learing centers with no kids or fake hospices. You show up and you capture the evidence of their misdoings. Yeah. the the operator, the fraudster, hands you a business card that just simply says, "I hereby insist that you not post the video." That's all they have to do under the law. You then do the right thing. You post the video so the public knows what's going on with their money. And they haul you into court and fine you and penalize you for breaking the law. That's this that's the way they're going to weaponize this bill against citizen journalists. And we can't allow it to happen. It's against the First Amendment. It will ultimately, if passed, get overturned in the Supreme Court. But in the meantime, it's a chilling of free speech. That's exactly why they do it. I'm glad that he understands this. And like you, this guy's obviously competent. It it it's they know this is a losing proposition. They're only doing it to scare people. That's the reason why it it keeps secrets uh on on all the fraud that's going on. It's very concerning to know that right now you have politicians who are passing these bills knowing that is violating the First Amendment. Yeah. They don't care. And so I've been working the floor handing them actual text. I said, "Did you just read the text?" Because the author of the bill is lying. She says, "Oh, no. It has nothing to do with Look who the ratio. 24 likes, 513 comments." So this is that [ __ ] [ __ ] that uh you know, like she came up with this. This is it. The Nick Shirley's. It has nothing to do with citizen journalists, but when you read the text, it's plain English. it would make it a crime to post a video of evidence of fraud and it would, you know, result in uh very costly fines. So, we want this language to be removed from the bill. Actually, I want the bill to be killed entirely, but at the very least, they need to take this provision out. The Stop Nick Shirley Act needs to be removed from the bill. In this bill, it talks about immigrant services. It's very vague. That means healthcare, translation services, attorney services, daycarees. Oh, it's very vague on what they're trying to say this bill is. Mhm. And build by Churl, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights LA, which is a taxpayer funded organization that isn't really providing services. They're really organizing violent protests in LA. Well, why? See, this is what they do. This is the reason why they care about the funding is that all this stuff like a lot of these people and the organizers I don't think that everybody's being paid in the crowds but I think there are agitators that are being paid and I think that there is an entire ecosystem and like a massive like protest apparatus mechanism that exists because it's just it's about every left-wing edge issue whether it's Maduro uh abortion, ICE, um like Iran, uh what Cuba, it it it's so fast and so agile something has to be happening behind the scenes. There has to be funded organizational structure that's causing this to happen. Palestine, yep, there's another one, right? It's not natural. I don't think so. They're agitators and they don't want people capturing their bad behavior on video. This is designed to protect them. Exactly. And in the activities that they're doing and if this bill were to be passed, organizations like Chura, they would not even have to disclose the amount of money they're getting from taxpayers. Correct. These organizations are are are are if they have nothing to hide, why have this bill? And the way they define immigrant services is so broad that a hospice, a fake hospice could say, "Well, one of our fake patients, one of our non-existent patients could have been an immigrant, so therefore we we get protection under the bill as well." That's right. It is absolutely a bill designed to hide the fraud that's going on in the state of California. And the politicians clearly know that the investigative journalists are on the case and they got to stop the investigative journalists before it's too late, before the public learns the truth. And do you think I think that the real problem this is the issue that I have is that the federal government and a lot of these state governments are not draconian enough. Like I think that there's a lot of ways that you can solve these problems, but even the Republicans that are in charge, I on a scale of like 1 to 10, I think that right now they're in between a two and a three. And I think they should be at a 10. At least a nine at least. And like that's the problem is that like I I I have like this this might sound weird, right? And like I understand a lot of people might disagree with this take, but I actually have more animosity and anger towards Republicans for this than Democrats because the Democrats are simply acting in their best interest. They're awful people, but they are acting in their best interest. The Republicans are acting against their best interest and they're doing it on a misguided notion of principle and some sort of politics, but they're actually hurting everybody else. And that's what makes me really angry is that I get upset that a lot of these people that are Republicans are not willing to take drastic and extreme measures to solve this problem. every once in a while Trump talks about doing it and then it never really happens. And so it's the same thing as kind of the Epstein files where the public the issue is that there's no real like effective tool of protest that a lot of these people do. Rod DeSantis is taking it seriously. He is. And I think Florida is probably one of the only states that's doing it properly. And I I if it was up to me like I I'd probably do it even more, right? But like for example like doing things like this act and like this bill and like the amount of just kind of extremism that they engage in. I think that you know it's again like I said you know if people take the low road you meet them there right? Like I I meet him there with a shovel because you're going to go even lower. Like the fact that we're not going after this like way more is crazy to me. It's insane that we're not doing this. Remember the lock her up? Yeah. Like I like that was my idea. Like my goal was like okay arrest Hillary Clinton. You think Hillary Clinton did something bad, put her in [ __ ] jail. Put her in [ __ ] jail. Actually do something about it. And that's the thing that really frustrates me. And I think that like if you contrast that with like for example, this is the last point I want to make. I'll let the video play. If you contrast that with like whenever Trump got Maduro, Trump didn't ask permission for that. He didn't talk about it. He did, but like he didn't really like say he's going to do this. He just went and got him. He just did it. You're not going to undo that. Like it just happened. like it killed dozens if not hundreds of people in the process and it already happened. That was it. It's done. That's the kind of action that I want to see. I want to see divisive, severe, and precise action. And I don't see either any of these. It's extremely frustrating. Republicans are naive. They are. Our problems require painful solutions. People vote for it, but they always chickenen out whenever the check comes. Exactly. And and that's the problem is that the moment that people start crying literally and somebody gets killed or something like that, everybody's supposed to just say, "Oh, you know what? Let's let's let all the immigrants stay." Like whenever the protest happened in Michigan with ICE, like uh if somebody gets killed, that's what happens, right? I mean, like that's life. If if you didn't want this to happen, you shouldn't have brought all these people in there. But the problem is that people are so they're they're basically completely cocked out by their own empathy and they're having their empathy weaponized against them to subvert their own values. And I find it to be disgusting. And what's embarrassing and this is really what I think is going to happen. I don't think this is ever going to stop. I don't I I I don't think that you're ever going to change the public's perception on this because the public is stupid. They're goyam, right? They're stupid. like you're never going to get them to understand it. You're never going to get them to see nuance. Most people can't read above a sixth grade level. They're like bought cattle, right? Like that's it. But the problem is that we have politicians that aren't willing to do that. Because I I can counter it and say this, a politician that actually did what I think they should do, I bet their their poll numbers would skyrocket. I bet people would say, "Holy [ __ ] it's actually happening." And it would finally revitalize people that are just totally like that UK guy that are just so disenfranchised and demoralized out of the process. Just do it. A conflict of interest with Mia Bont husband being the AG the attorney general of the state. Meanwhile, he's trying to take credit for exposing the fraud. Meanwhile, she's trying to silence those that actually have exposed the fraud. Look, when you showed up and visited the fake hospices in LA and Southern California, you showed he wasn't doing his job. This isn't hard to find. He literally was ignoring it. And so, you embarrassed him. You embarrassed him by showing that he's not doing his job to protect taxpayer funds. He then calls a press conference. He is doing his job, but his job isn't to protect taxpayer funds last week and says, "Oh, look, I took out, you know, 21 fraudsters." I'm thinking that's just the tip of the iceberg. And now we've dismantled the fraud rings in California. No, they're not dismantled. You have 21. When you when you indict 2100 people, then maybe we're starting to turn the corner. You refer to me as certain people. Certain people. You did his job. You did his job. The job that he should have been doing all along. You did his job. You embarrassed him. And now Mia Bont, she doesn't want it to happen again. So she's trying to stop citizen journalists. That's right. That's right. Exactly. And they're trying to shut it down because if nobody can talk about it, then they can they can commit the fraud a lot more. And uh how can we make an abbreviation for everyone that's goam like trans do? Well, I I I go I mean like I think that's a that's a pretty good version, right? Well, I'm going to link you guys the video. Make sure to give it a like. I'm a huge supporter of Nick Shirley. I think Nick Shirley is great and uh I'm very glad to see this happen. I am. And hopefully over time uh more people will come to my side of the table. Right. I I think that for a lot of people I am still probably too extreme. But over time I think that people will realize that you know even if what they think that I'm saying is evil it is a necessary evil. It is it is a necessary evil and it must